1903-10-01

Mr. WILSON asked :: 1.	What amount of bonuses or subsidies have been voted by parliament each year to railways during the years 1900, 1901 and 1902 ?
2.	How much of the said bonuses or subsidies has been paid during the said years, and up to 1st September, 1903 ?
The 'MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding). The first part of the question will hardly admit of a definite answer, inasmuch as the subsidies are not voted in any lump sum. If my hon. friend will take the mileage which is voted, and make an approximate estimate on the (basis of $3,200 per mile, he might arrive at some idea of the amount; but in some cases the subsidies are larger than $3,200 and are paid in proportion to the cost of -the road. The second question admits of an answer, and I will be very glad to give the hon. gentleman the information at a later stage ; I have not it ready to-day.


Mr. WILSON.: Would it not be convenient for the Minister of Finance to get one of the clerks to make up the calculation, and give it to me later ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is impossible to make it up accurately ; it is a matter of approximation.


Uriah Wilson: You can give the amount voted ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid my hon. friend has not caught the point of my remarks. The hon. gentleman wants to know the total amount of the subsidies that have been voted by parliament. Railway subsidies are not voted in an express amount, but are voted on the basis of so much per mile, and the statute provides that the subsidy may be $3,200 per mile in the case of an ordinary road, or, when the road proves more than ordinarily expensive, it may be an.increased sum not exceeding $6,400 per mile. I therefore cannot give the hon. gentleman a statement of the amount voted, 'but I can give a statement of the amount paid, and will be glad to do so.


Uriah Wilson: We had a statement brought down to the House giving the amount voted.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend will call my attention to that, I will be glad to look into it.


Uriah Wilson: I shall.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Sometimes the subsidies are voted in this way : To a line between certain points, not exceeding so many miles in length. Perhaps that is what my hon. friend wants.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We vote the subsidies for not exceeding so many miles, but the amount per mile is necessarily somewhat indefinite, although within limits. That is why I cannot give the hon. gentleman the statement he asks for. If he will be good enough to call my attention to the return to which he has referred, I will see what further information can be given.



GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES-FINANCIAL AID.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 256) to provide for advances to the government of the North-west Territories, read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This Bill is in the precise terms of the resolution which has already been fully discussed in Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this intended as an advance for any particular period of time, say for the fiscal year, or is it simply an indefinite advance to be paid to the government of the North-west Territories at any time in the future, as the government may see fit ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is an advance without limit. It stands to the credit of the government of the North-west Territories, to be used or not to be used, as in their discretion may seem to be necessary.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: 


Robert Laird Borden: Has the correspondence brought down in connection with this matter been printed?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not aware whether the correspondence has been printed or not.


Robert Laird Borden: My recollection of the correspondence brought down in connection with this matter is that the Prime Minister of the North-west Territories objected to the creation of a debt account between the North-west Territories and the government of Canada at the present time, and pointed out that what the North-west Territories really desire is that the annual subsidy to the North-west Territories should be increased to such an amount as would be adequate for the works which they have to undertakte in the administration of that country. He also expressed the opinion that it was not in the interest of the North-west Territories that any debt shovdd be incurred by them at the present time, before the territories have received that provincial status which has been demanded by its legislature for some considerable time past.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think that the government of the Northwest Territories objected to this advance being made to them. The special point of their objection was to a proposition which was made at one stage of the negotiations that the cost of two large bridges, for the construction of which we were arranging with them, should be made a charge against an advance. However, I am sure the government of the North-west Territories would prefer to have any sums which are available for them given in the way of an annual grant and perhaps my hon. friend may be right in saying they objected to this. There is however, nothing compulsory about this; it is an option which we give to the government of the North-west Territories and if they do not see fit to exercise it no harm will be done. The allowance made in the meantime was fully discussed in the Committee. I then pointed out the rapid increase made by this government in the allowance to the North-west Territories and I think the Committee were generally satisfied that the allowances we now make, irrespective of this grant, are quite liberal and take due account of the rapid growth and greater needs of that section of our country.


Robert Laird Borden: What increase is made in the allowance for the present year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I gave the figures in the previous debate. The appropriation for 1902 was $407,979. I am speaking now entirely of what I may call the general vote for the North-west Territories whioh would correspond to the provincial subsidy. There are other grants for other purposes, and my observations are

confined entirely to that general vote which appears in the estimates as a grant for school and other purposes. For 1903, including the supplementary estimates passed in the latter part of the year, the grant was $707,989 and for the current year we are proposing to pay them including a special grant for two large bridges which at one time it was suggested should be charged to capital account, but which we ultimately decided to provide for in the way of grant -$1,046,979, irrespective of this .advance of which the government of the North-west Territories may or may not avail themselves.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in. Committee of Supply.
Harbours and rivers, Quebec-Sorel deep water wharf, $37,600.
["As I have another matter which I would like to submit to the House after recess, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.\nSome resolutions reported.\nAt one o'clock, House took recess.\nHouse resumed at three o'clock."]
Robert Laird Borden: I would like my right hon. friend to make some explanation of this item. I would like to know how much money has been expended on the terminals, wharfs and harbour improvements at Sorel ; how much is proposed to be expended in the future and whether or not the object of that expenditure is to create at Sorel an ocean port for export traffic.
The .expenditure made there is not at all commensurate with the idea of improvements for merely local purposes, and we are entitled to a full explanation as to whether or not this port is designed to be one of the national ports of the St. Lawrence. We have the ports of Montreal and Quebec upon which considerable sums have been expended. It may be the policy of the government to create another national port at Sorel and to expend large sums on terminal facilities there for the export trade. But I do not suppose there will be any difficulty in handling all that trade in Montreal and Quebec, if these ports are properly equipped, and further we have the ports of Halifax and St. John, to which, in the winter months, the people of the maritime provinces at least think a very considerable portion of the western traffic will come. We ought to know what has already been expended at Sorel, what is the scope of the works there, what traffic is expected. Has the government any expectation that traffic, which could be handled at Montreal and Quebec, will be handled at Sorel ? Why should we attempt to create an ocean port there instead of concentrating our efforts upon Montreal and Quebec ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works will give the information required regarding the expenditure. The question of policy, I think, was stated pretty fully two years ago when
this appropriation was first asked for. In the opinion of the government there certainly must be at Sorel a large ocean traffic.
It is the outlet of the Richelieu valley, which is one of the most fertile and wealthy in Canada, and from which a great deal of agricultural produce is exported. At Montreal to-day there is scarcely adequate space for the traffic. The government are asked every day to provide more facilities at that port. The tendency there has ever been to concentrate the traffic within a very narrow limit. All the efforts of the traders have been to get as near as possible to the canal basin, so that practically the whole traffic is centred between the canal basin and Bonsecours market. But it is impossible that the trade should be confined within that narrow space. The government has put up large wharfs at St. Mary's Current, near Hochelaga, and the trade no doubt will extend more and more along the St. Lawrence. It is impossible that the western traffic will be confined at Montreal. By and by the harbour will not be confined merely to the city of Montreal, but will extend to Sorel and Three Rivers, and the Montreal Harbour Commissioners will claim jurisdiction over these places. In my opinion the harbour of Sorel is destined not only to take the trade of the Richelieu valley, but also to become an outlet for the trade of the North-west. At present the Canada Atlantic Railway has no terminus in any Canadian port. It is forced to unload at Coteau and send its freight down the St. Lawrence in barges. On the south shore it extends to the state of Vermont, and has a point of junction with the Southern Counties Railway, at Noyan, which comes from the state of Vermont and extends to Sorel. It is expected that the Canada Atlantic Railway will be able to make arrangements with that company in order to have its terminus at Sorel. Unfortunately however, the Southern Counties Railw ay is in difficulties. It is in the hands of a company which cannot carry on the work, but this is only a temporary obstacle, and I expect that the trade of the west will certainly find an outlet at the city of Sorel.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not recently examined the explanation which my right hon. friend gave of this expenditure some two years ago. My recollection is that the policy of the government then was based altogether on an expected railway development which has not materialized. I believe that Dr. Seward Webb had some negotiations with regard to the acquisition of some of these railways. There was to be a great system connecting with certain railways in the United States. As I understand it, that project has entirely fallen through, and there is no prospect of it being resuscitated. If it is not resuscitated, I do not know exactly upon what ground we can anticipate that a considerable trade

in exports will go by Sorel. Properly equip the harbour of Montreal and why should trade go past Montreal to Sorel ? Surely, we can hardly expect, at present, to have trade so great that it will occupy both sides of the river St. Lawrence for a space of forty miles or more. Surely the Prime Minister can hardly expect to equip the St. Lawrence to that extent when his Minister of Public Works, in making a comparison between the government's proposal with regard to the transcontinental line and mine, added $14,000,000 in connection with these harbours to the cost of my project, aud not a single dollar in connection with the project of the government. Now, the harbour of Sorel is within forty-five miles of th,e harbour of Montreal. No one is inclined to minimize the Richelieu valley or its products. But, as my right lion.'friend speaks of the necessity for an ocean port in that valley, has he any information to give the House as to how many tons of export for Europe the Richelieu Valley produces at this present time ? Has it sent one steamerload to Europe in the course of the year ?- or two, or half a dozen ? How many does it send ? There are fertile valleys in the province of Nova Scotia, valleys that may not be so large in extent as the Richelieu valley, but quite as fertile, I suppose, as any valleys in Quebec or Ontario ; but I shall hardly expect to have a great ocean port created for one of these valleys, though its people send a great many hundred thousand barrels of fruit to Europe every year. Sorel, being about forty-five miles down the St. Lawrence from Montreal, must be within about 120 miles of the port of Quebec. My right hon. friend and his transportation expert, my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), have proven, very much to their own satisfaction, that transportation by rail is cheaper than transportation by water. So, if wrn wish to be economical, we should send the freight of the Richelieu valley as far as we can by rail. This would mean, under present circumstances, that we would send it at least as far as Quebec. That is a logical result of the argument of my right hon. friend and the bon. member for North Norfolk. But now the right hon. gentleman is going on an absolutely different principle from that which guided him in relation to the National Transcontinental : Railway. He has embarked upon the project 1 of constructing a railway nearly 2,000 miles 1 In extent from Quebec to the maritime pro- 1 Vinces, on the theory that rail transporta- 1 tion is cheaper than water transportation- if that is not the reason there can be no 1 reason for his policy. Acting upon that 1 principle what should the right hon. gen- >
tleman do ? He should improve the railway grades from Sorel to Quebec to the ]. four-tenths per cent of which the expert has t told us, and thus minimize the cost of trans- c portation via existing ocean ports. I am t sure the right hon. gentleman did not think c Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
1 of that when he embarked upon this project. It is two years since he entered upon this policy of making an ocean port of Sorel,
; an,;i the great advantages of rail transportation had not then become crystallized in his mind. But, in the light of his new theory he will see that this project is unwise ; and I should think he would not be inclined to persevere in his proposal to spend these very large sums at Sorel. For, of course, on the hon. gentleman's theory, that expenditure can only result in disadvantage to Sorel and to the Richelieu valley, as it will result in sending their products by water, when, with other improvements, they might be more advantageously sent by rail. As I understand it. the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is going to give us the cost of these improvements up to the present time and the estimate of further expenditure. But I am sure, that he, like my right hon. friend, in view of the light that has come to them with regard to all-rail transportation, will see that there cannot be any justification for the expenditure of any further large sums of money on these works at Sorel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote of $40,000 is to complete the work. The total cost of the work when completed is estimated by the department at $273,500. Of course, the work is under contract, and I believe it is nearly completed. This vote is to pay the amount which will be earned under the contract.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Is the wharf a wooden one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, all wood. I suppose I need not go into details, for on a previous occasion this matter was discussed at length, and I gave the committee all the facts of which I was in possession.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the hon. gentleman could tell us the wharfage that has been collected ? What quantity of freight has been shipped, especially foreign exports ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: There is none, because there has been no wharf to take it.


John Graham Haggart: This money is being expended to serve the export trade of Europe. This is to be a wharf for ocean-going steamers. Surely, the Minister of Marine, in whose department this is, will be able to give us information as to the amount of dues collected.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The wharf has not been handed over to the department yet, because it has not behn finished.


John Graham Haggart: But the government mus.t have made a calculation of the work to be done before entering into this expenditure. Can he tell us the whole export trade of the valley of the Richelieu that is expected to be sent by Sorel ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not think we have any statistics. But to show the amount of export trade, I can tell my hon. friend-or rather remind him, for he knows it already-of the extent of the valley from which this wharf would draw its trade. The counties of Richelieu, Yamaska, Ver-ck&res, Rouville, St. Hyaeinth'e, St. John and Iberville, all centre upon the Richelieu river, and the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that these are amongst the most fruitful and wealthy parts of the province of Quebec or of the Dominion. There are large exports yearly of hay, butter, cheese, and all agricultural products. These are what we expect to carry from this wharf when it is completed. But my hon. friend is ' too previous ' in asking how much has been collected. There is no connection yet between the wharf and the railway, the work being still in progress.


Mr. BROCK.: Considering the very meagre information that the government has been able to give us in connection with the establishing of a great ocean port, I think I might draw the attention of the House as I am sure the attention of the country will be drawn, to the fact that the government has appointed a transportation commission for the very purpose of taking into consideration such matters as these. I believe that the government have contended that that commission will have no right to interfere with the transcontinental railway, but that harbours, wharfs and general transportation questions will be considered by them. I do not think it would be too much to ask that this matter of Sorel should be taken into consideration by the transportation commission along with the other matters which will claim their attention. I believe a report from that commission would have great effect upon this House and upon the country. It would greatly simplify our plans. The government are starting out on what I believe they have called a patchwork system of transportation-a part of a scheme here, part of a scheme there, and without definite information with regard to any of them.
We all know that the valley of the Richelieu is a very rich valley, and we all know that if they are going to bring freight from Iberville, the question of which will be the cheapest route, whether by rail or by water, would be an important one. That district is now served by the river navigation, and I suppose by the harbour of Montreal. But the point I would like to make just now is : What part is the transportation commission going to play in dealing with matters of this kind, when the government let contracts for supplies ? I do not see that these gentlemen are really going to be of any use, and I think that if they have any respect for themselves and for the position they will occupy, they will say :	Well, we have got
the appointment, for which we are going to be paid a salary, but if we are not going
to have any work to do we will throw up the appointment. Now the hon. gentleman must remember that we are building a railroad on which we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, and we are making appropriations for harbours here and there. The harbour of Three Rivers has a large appropriation, and I think these things should be taken into consideration by the Transportation Commission. If they decide that Montreal is the best harbour, let them concentrate their means upon it and make a grand harbour of it. These little patchwork harbours do not seem to be in accordance with the grand views expressed by the Prime minister and other hon. gentlemen when they spoke of the idea of a transcontinental railroad. Now, I contend that spending $37,000 in addition to what we have already spent, is doing the work in a patchwork fashion, because the government are not able to lay before this House a single item of information as to the amount of freight that is likely to be moved there. I say, therefore, that this whole question should be taken up by the Transportation Commission, and reported upon to the House, so that next session we will have sufficient information upon which to go ; and you will find that members on this side of the House will be only too anxious to assist in the improvement of our transportation facilities in every possible way. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) may be considered a doubting Thomas in respect to any desire we may have of assisting the government. I know he is able to carry this vote through the House, although I do not consider it is in the interests of the country at large, but I believe it is brought forward merely in view of an early election. There has been too much of that kind of thing' done already, and th)e country) is getting hold of it. I do not want to give the hon. gentlemen advice for their own interest, because I know they are able to take care of themselves, and they can turn a corner more sharply than they will be able to do under any advice I can give them. Again I say that this transportation commission must consider all these matters and make their recommendations before we spend these enormous sums of money. I, therefore, ask the government to submit this question to the Transportation Commission.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend's objections come rather late. He should have made these remarks two years ago when this vote was first brought to the attention of parliament. Let him remember that this work is already far advanced, there is only $40,000 more to expend upon it, and surely the hon. gentleman does not expect that we are going to give it up now and not pay the contractors who are at work. This work has been progressing, and it is now nearly completed. True, we stated at the opening of this session our plans with regard to the navigation and transportation

questions. I am afraid we have been proceeding rather loosely, but it was better to adopt an extensive transportation system, and that is the reason we have appointed this commission. I think the commission will do good work in this respect, and will give us a general plan as to where these national works had better be undertaken. But in the meantime we must complete the work that we have undertaken.


William Rees Brock: The right hon. gentleman says my remarks come too late. If he will look in ' Hansard ' of 1900 he will find that I urged the appointment of a transportation commission in reference to this very point, when these items were up before. I am merely reiterating what I said 1hen. I gave the government good advice, but they did not see fit to follow it. They have recently appointed a commission, and now they are taking the whole question of transportation out of the hands of the commission.


Mr. KEMP.: The counties to which the Prime Minister refers as being fertile counties are doubtless the most fertile in the province of Quebec. The surplus exports of these counties, however, are not very large, because there is a large consuming population lying near-by. The city of Montreal takes a very large part of the products of those counties. I suppose that one large modern steamship, such as navigates the St. Lawrence, would be able to take all the surplus products of those counties which will be produced in the course of a season. I do not suppose there will be more than could be put on one large steamship and taken to Eurpoe. Now, to make ocean harbour for the purpose of taking away the products of these few counties I do not think is a very practical way of viewing the question. I have been under the impression that the best way to deal with the Sorel harbour matter was to let it drop, and I justify that opinion by the fact that the railway for which this work was proposed to be promoted, has failed to make its connection, and has failed to make Sorel its terminus. The excuse for these tremendous works at Sorel was that the United Counties Railway was to be taken over by the Rutland Railway, which was practically a part of the New York Central. I believe the Prime Minister assumes full responsibility for the initiation of this work. The first vote was a small sum of $25,000 for improvements in Sorel harbour. That was an innocent looking estimate, and no one in this House. I presume, took strong ground against it. But as time went on the reports of an engineer were secured by the department and it became known to this House what is would cost in order to carry out the works which the petitioners asked for, representing the Bank of St. Hyacinthe~and the United Counties Railway, who wanted to make this an ocean port. The engineer estimated, according to papers laid on the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
Table of the House this session, that it would require a sum of not less than $935,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think my hon. friend is mistaken as to the report of the engineer.


Albert Edward Kemp: I will read it. The report of the engineer is dated. Department of Public Works, office of chief engineer, Ottawa, January 10th, 1900 :
Sir;-With reference .to file No. 208,734,-being an application from Mr. J. N. Greenshields, on behalf of the United Counties Railway, for the construction of deep water terminal facilities at Sorel. I have the honour to state that a certain portion of the ground to be occupied by the improvements in question has already been surveyed by Mr. Assistant Engineer F. W. Cowie. and that judging from the estimate of the cost of the works then proposed, which only-consisted of 1,000 feet of wharfing instead of the 2,000 feet applied for, the estimated cost of the works now required cannot be placed at a less figure than $935,000, as follows :-*
Dredging an area 800 feet wide by 25,000
feet in length, an average depth of 18
feet to 271 feet at extreme low water.. $255,000
Cribwork and sheds	 430,000
Elevator of 1,000,000 bushels capacity..	250,000
If the department decides to undertake this work it will of course be necessary to have a complete survey made, in order that the above estimate may be revised, especially as far as the dredging is concerned.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) EUGENE D. LAFLEUR,
Acting Chief Engineer. The Secretary,	,
Department of Public Works.


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In what way does the hon. gentleman make the connection between that report and the item under discussion ?


Albert Edward Kemp: That is an interesting question. I .will have to think that out and see how I can connect it with the item under discussion. The item under discussion is a small estimate for the purpose of doing further work on the Sorel harbour.
. The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. My hou. friend, as well as the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), has apparently not looked at the estimates to see what the item is for, because both seem to have made the same mistake.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is the item not for the purpose of carrying on work to give Sorel a deep-water harbour and make it an ocean port ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The item is to pay the balance due on a contract for work already undertaken.


William Rees Brock: It is all part of the same scheme.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, facts are facts. This is a balance

as I say, of the payment due on a contract for work that >has already been undertaken. My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) is reading the report of an engineer in regard to another proposition that was not undertaken. What we are discussing now is an item providing for the payment for work that was undertaken, that was let by contract and which is almost completed.


Robert Laird Borden: I think they are pretty closely connected by the fact that this report is included in the file of papers that was brought down to the House, papers that we demanded in respect to the very matter we are now discussing. If they are not. connected it is a remarkable thing that this report was brought down with the papers jn connection with this scheme.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that it is connected with it in the sense in which be speaks of it, and that is the reason why I asked my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) the question. He is apparently using the report as a report in connection with the work under contract.


Mr. COCHRANE.: No, I do not understand him in that way.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I simply asked my bon. friend the question, because, if he was using the report in connection with the work under contract, he is making a mistake. If he was using it in connection with a certain proposition that has not been undertaken, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is quite correct.


Albert Edward Kemp: I think the question which the hon. Minister of Public Works puts forth is a reasonable one. It seems to me that it resolves itself chiefly into a question of order. I am discussing the whole work of improvement at Sorel harbour. I realize that the amount now under consideration is to complete certain contracts already entered into. I realize that for the full amount of $935,000, which is estimated as being necessary to make Sorel an ocean port, you would only have a depth of water of 18 feet. That would not take very large vessels in, and if it is intended to make Sorel a port to compete with Quebec and Montreal, you would need to have a greater depth of water and the cost would be that much more. As the prospect of the New York Central Railway having a terminus at Sorel has not materialized, is it not a reasonable thing to criticise this item very strongly ? The right hon. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) last year stated in this House in regard to the New York Central having a terminal at Sorel :
But railways are taking the place of waterways. and two railways are now converging at Sorel, the South Shore which has been constructed from Montreal to Sorel and beyond Sorel to Nieolet, and will be completed this
year probably to Lotbiniere. There is the United Counties Railway also, which became the Rutland Railway and which I believe now belongs to the New York Central, and it comes from the New York Central Railway system at Lake Champlain to the town of Sorel.
I submit that we ought to have a full explanation from the government as to whether it is their intention to go on with this work and follow out the report laid down by Mr. Lafleur, in which it is stated that, in order to make Sorel a deep-water harbour, for the purpose of transferring merchandise, and to provide an elevator of one million bushels capacity, it will take $935,000, and that Sorel will then only have a depth of 18 feet of water.


John Graham Haggart: Before the item is adopted, I wish to make some remarks in answer to the hon. Minister of Public Works. He asks what the report estimating the cost at $935,000 has to do with the item at present under discussion. He forgets that the right hon. leader of the government stated that the intention of the government was to make Sorel an ocean port, and use it as a terminal, perhaps, for the Canada Atlantic Railway, which had not terminals in Montreal, and which might establish its terminal in the United States. According to this report, it is necessary to expend $935,000 for the purpose of getting only a depth, of 18 feet of water. What good would an ocean terminal for the Canada Atlantic Railway or anj' other railway, or for the export of trade of that particular section of the country be with only a depth of 18 feet of water ? No modern vessel could go into the port. Not $935,000, but $2,000,000 or $3,000,000 would be required to make an ocean port of that place. Then the hon. gentleman says that this is not for the purpose of carrying out that scheme, that it has no connection with the_$935,000. What is the hon. minister going to accomplish then with the $270,000 that he is getting from this House ? If it takes $935,000 to give an 18-foot navigation, $270,000 will accomplish not a tithe of it. If it is for that purpose, then the expenditure of this amount of money will be totally useless.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) in the sense that he explained the manner in which he was using the report. 1 think it was quite in order and, quite interesting. I only asked him the question for the purpose of showing that the report was not acted on in connection with the item under consideration. I quite agree with him as to the propriety of using the report in discussing the general question as to what further improvements may be made there with the view of making Sorel a national port. But the item was adopted on the report of the engineer, at the time estimating the cost of this work at $309,000. The work has been described fully, and this

item is a balance of $47,000 to pay the contractor for work done. This does not mean that we are undertaking anything new at all. It is carrying out a plan that some years ago was submitted to the House.


Edward Cochrane: It appears to me, as a farmer from a section of the country which I think is quite as fertile as this valley, that this expenditure is most enormous. It almost staggers me when I think of the people of the district from which I come, Northumberland, Durham, Hastings, and down through that section of the country, asking me why it is that these enormous sums of money are being spent down at Sorel for the accommodation of the people there. We have five or six wharfs on Lake Ontario. There has not one dollar been spent at Presqu'Ile, for instance, one of the finest natural harbours on Lake Ontario, for the improvement of that harbour. Now we are told that this enormous expenditure is necessary to facilitate the export of the products of the rich valley adjacent to Sorel to the markets of the world. If it is necessary to build a wharf there, not connected with this great scheme which is going to make it an ocean port and the terminal of several railways, as- we have been led to believe, why all this enormous expenditure? I venture the assertion that a wharf can be built for a fraction of this $270,000 that would provide for all the export trade that will take place at Sorel from that section of the country. If this is not going to be an ocean port this enormous expenditure is worse than money being frittered away. The whole scheme is wrong. I am willing to vote any amount of money to facilitate the transportation of the products of this great country to the markets of the world; but I want to know that every dollar I vote for shall be expended on some well thought out scheme for the.benefit of all the rich valleys in this Canada of ours, and not for the special purpose of the Richelieu Valley, or any other single valley, I care not in what province it may be. There is no provincialism about me. I want to have the money wisely expended, so that it will do the most good to all Canada. For years this government has misapplied money, because they have gone on with schemes which were not well thought out and considered. The Minister of Public Works is not treating the House with proper courtesy when he says that this money is to pay for a contract already let. This was originally voted for the purpose of making Sorel an ocean port -the minister shakes his head but if it was not voted for that purpose, there is more money expended-than ought to have been expended for local purposes. It is no argument for the Prime Minister to say that the time to protest against this was when the appropriation was first asked. We know how these things are done. I recollect that in one case down there, there was an inno-


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: cent looking vote of $5,000. which no person paid attention to, but it developed into an expenditure of $60,000 to build a wharf where there were only 350 people, and no post office even. These votes look very innocent at first, and we are left in ignorance about their meaning. I know, Mr. Chairman, (Mr. Macdonald), how you grieve at these things; I know lrow you criticised these expenditures when we were in power, and I know how the hearts of your party went out to the farmers of Canada who were robbed and bled white. But now Sir, I know you grieve at what is called a buoyant revenue, and a Liberal expenditure.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: I am well acquainted with the locality where this wharf is being built, and it is only right that I should say to the House, that at Sorel we probably have the best harbour in Canada; a harbour which it would not be in the interests of the country to allow to remain unimproved. This wharf at Sorel will give facilities for shipping then- produce to the counties of Yam-aska. Vercheres, Chambley, St. Hyacinthe, Bagot, and several other counties in the valley of the Richelieu, which have an extent almost as large as the provinces of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. For years and years the people of these counties have been anxiously waiting for this accommodation. Sorel is their natural harbour, and I appeal to every member of this House who knows anything about the locality, if this is not a desirable and useful work. The ex-Mttnister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) rightly thought that Sorel was destined to be one of the great harbours on the River St. Lawrence, and he was enthusiastically in favour of the scheme.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is it an ocean port or merely intended for local trade ?


Victor Geoffrion: We have first to equip it for the trade of the surrounding counties, and when that is done there is nothing to prevent us building wharfs and elevators, and shipping from Sorel for export. There are already four or five railroads centering there. It is true that so far they have not been a success, hut every day we expect to make arrangements with other companies, and to get these railways into such shape that they will be paying concerns. What is an expenditure of two or three hundred thousand dollars, compared with the advantages that will be gained by making Sorel a first-class port ? We have spent larger sums on other ports which serve only the interests of small localities, but this port will serve a district almost a province in extent. Sorel is our natural port. It is more costly to take our produce to Montreal, and it is not natural we should have to convey our freights up against the current. At Sorel we have a deepwater harbour which only awaits proper facilities to make it a splendid port, and as we hope, an ocean

port When our railway difficulties are settled, I have not the slightest doubt, that a very considerable trade will be developed at Sorel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If Sorel is going to be as important a port as the bon. minister intimates; then a great deal more money will be required than is provided here; but if it is to be an ocean port it must have over eighteen feet of water. The hon. gentleman states that the railways there are not paying at the present time, although he hopes that other companies will take them over. But is this not reversing the natural order of things ? Is it not usual to have trade at a certain port before we provide facilities for trade ? Are we to build these wharfs here, and then look for the trade afterwards ? Let me point out, that if elevators are to be built there, and if ocean going vessels are to trade at that port, you must have more than eighteen feet of water. If you have it planned out that it will be an ocean port with only eighteen feet of water, it simply shows that all ordinary business precautions are discarded in reference to this scheme.


Victor Geoffrion: The money is almost all spent, and only a small sum is required to complete the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the object of this expenditure is to make Sorel an ocean port, all the circumstances show how unwisely the work was undertaken.
Mr. BRUNEAU	(Richelieu).-(Translation) :	Mr. Speaker, as a member for the
county of Richelieu, in which the town of Sorel is situated, I consider it part of my duty to offer a few suggestions regarding the item of the estimates now under discussion. I really fail to undertand what reason there can be for objecting, after the work has been going on for two years, to the grant which the government ask for the completion of the wharfs at Sorel. This is the more incomprehensible to me, that when the late Conservative government were in power they had surveys and soundings made, plans and specifications drawn, for the dredging of the harbour of Sorel. Their friends at the time urged again and again on the government the importance of earry.-ing through the work in the harbour of Sorel with a view to rendering it a suitable shipping port.
* When the present government came into power, we took up the scheme and we are at the present time carrying it through to successful completion. Consequently, I am satisfied that when the people are called to decide upon the action of both governments. they will be astonished to learn that the hon. members on the _other side have stood up against the development and progress of the whole region of the Richelieu.
My hon. colleague for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Geoft'rion) has given a very full presentation of the case; but I think it proper to |
draw the attention of the House to the geographical situation of Sorel. That town is situated at the confluence of the River Richelieu, which is, in the east, the only waterway leading into the United States. Our whole export trade passes through the port of Sorel, ascending the Richelieu and Lake Champlain up to the Whitehall canal. There are at present over 700 vessels on the River Richelieu, calling at Sorel, and carrying our traffic to the United States.
The port is almost wholly taken up by the boats of the Richelieu Company, of the Sincennes-McNaughton Comiiany and of the government. As everyone knows, Sorel is the winter port for about 300 boats. The whole river fleet of the province of Quebec takes up its winter quarters there; and for tile time being, there is no accommodation in the_ port for United States vessels trading with us. The new wharf referred to, while providing accommodation for those vessels, will at the same time be of immense benefit for the trade which will develop rapidly there.
The ex-Minister of Public Works spoke of the export trade which is being carried on at the port of Sorel. I may say that this year and last, one company has exported, ore in considerable quantities. That company had in the first place begun operations in Three Rivers, but finding subsequently !bat Sorel offered greater opportunities, they transferred their business to our side. They are exporting their ore through Sorel just now.
I may add that, a few miles away from the town, are to be found the Tourville mills, which 1 urn out yearly over two million feet of lumber. We have reason to hope that the Rutland, Canada Atlantic and Quebec Southern railways, under certain agreements, will contribute to develop trade at this point and will, before long, draw to it considerable traffic from the west. Reference has been made to some difficulties in connection with these railways. I may say that the roads m question are to-day in full operation and will increase the amount of business done in the port of Sorel, provided the improvements destined to develop the export trade are effected, and Sorel is made a seaport.


Mr. WRIGHT.: It may not be clear to some hon. gentlemen in this House why a member living so far away from Sorel as I do, in the town of Renfrew, should have any special interest in the equiping of that port. As a matter of fact it is of great interest to us. Not over three months ago a trader in that section of my riding came to me and said :	' Look here Wright, if
there is anything you can do to assist us to obtain the full advantage of the Canada Atlantic Railway, we wish you would do it ; we do not have the same advantages shipping by that road to Montreal as we would have if that road were extended to Sorel.' I said : ' I have myself resided in

Berthier en hlaut, nlear Sorel ; I know something of Sorel, and anything I can do to assist in improving that port and in allowing the railway which goes through our town to be extended to it, I shall be glad to do, as it will afford very much better means of shipping from this district.' The small amount that wall be expended in the improvement of Sorel harbour will benefit the people not only of the Richelieu valley, *but of the valley of the Bonchere as well. The avenues of trade are far-reaching and those who take this narrow, small provincial view are not the men whom we want. I am glad to raise my voice and to do all I can in favour of this work.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to say once more that it seems to me a most remarkable thing that the government proposes to enter upon this expenditure, which if the right hon. gentleman's views are carried into effect will involve over $1,000,000 without the slightest estimate being made of the trade which will develop there in the future. No one wants to minimize the importance of the country adjacent to Sorel or of Sorel as a harbour. My hon. friend from Chambly and Verch&res (Mr. Geof-frion) took the position that because tills was a good, natural harbour it must be equipped. I can tell my hon. friend that there are at least twenty-five harbours in Nova Scotia which are as good as this harbour of Sorel, upon which not one dollar of public money has ever been expended, and on which it would be absolutely absurd to spend money because the public interest does not demand such an expenditure. There are dozens of these harbours all around the maritime coasts, but because you have a good harbour it does not necessarily follow that you should spend $1,000,000 in equipping it. I would like to know before I go any further, whether or not the view suggested by my hon. friend two years ago, as to the railway situation, has been in any way realized ? The hon. gentleman, as reported on page 4799 of ' Hansard,' first explained that Sorel was a growing and thriving town of 8.000 people that at one time it had considerable importance, and he continued as follows :
That was previous to the era of railway transportation. Since the railways have been established. the trade of Sorel has gone down, and has been transferred to Montreal, which is allied with that section of country by railways. After the railways were built, the counties which I have named had no means of export except by railway to Montreal.
Has there been any complaint that that has resulted in any disadvantage to these counties ? My right hon. friend has explained that railway transportation is much better than water transportation, and therefore one would suppose that those countries could not be put under any such disadvantage for that reason. Then my hon. friend goes on v


Aaron Abel Wright: Some of the lines of railway have been consolidated. The South-eastern Railway, the United Counties, and the Rutland system are all concentrated under one management.
Is that the case to-day '! Are they consolidated under one management, and has the statement been carried out ? I ask this for the sake of information, because I do not know whether that has been accomplished or not, but I have heard that it has not been accomplished and is not likely to be :
It is manifest that a great trade must be carried on by that system of railways to Sorel if, instead of finding entrance to Montreal over the Victoria bridge, it can find a harbour at Sorel.
The object of my right hon. friend seems to be to prevent the trade from going to Montreal, and to send that trade, for some reason, to Sorel. No one would object to that if he could show that it was to the public interest that trade should be diverted from Montreal and sent to Sorel, but unless you can show that it is largely in the pub-| lie interest, I do not see why we should undertake to spend a million dollars for that purpose. My right hon. friend continued :
This will be the case not only with the trade in agricultural products, which is large, but with the trade of several thriving towns on those lines of railway, such as St. Johns, St. Hyacinthe and Iberville. But above all things it is an agricultural country, productive of all cereals except wheat, as well as butter, cheese and hay. I do not believe there is a more thriving population anywhere in Canada than in the valley of the Richelieu river.
We must remember also that this splendid agricultural region has excellent communication by railway with the city of Montreal, that Montreal is being equipped as a port and his facilities for shipping, then consider whether you can find in all that any legitimate reason for spending a million or even a quarter of a million dollars at Sorel. Would it not be better in the interests of the people in that locality to spend it in some other way ? Can you not do more good to the people of that locality. Can you not spend a quarter of a million or even a million dollars to better advantage than by sending to Sorel the traffic which could just as well be handled at Montreal ? The hon. gentleman continued :
It is also connected with the Canada Atlantic, the Intercolonial and the South Shore Railways. Then, besides the counties I have mentioned, all the border counties of the St. Lawrence-Ya-maska, Nicolet, Lotbinihre-will be connected by railway with this harbour. When it has the facilities which it will have when this work is completed. It must have as a natural consequence a very large trade.
Then my right hon. friend refers to the fact that the province of Quebec up to this time has had only two harbours and that it is desirable that it should have more ; he refers to the fact that the maritime provinces have several. I do not think we can

deal with matters of that kind according to the number of harbours one province or another may have. The maritime provinces have natural harbours, not by the dozen, but by the hundred, yet no one in the maritime provinces pretends that it would be in the public interest to equip every one of these harbours so as to make them ports for export. I would like to know from my right hon. friend whether or not his expectation with respect to railway consolidation-and it was upon that that his scheme of two years ago was largely based-has been realized, or whether there is any reasonable prospect that that scheme will be carried into effect ? Some reference has been made to these matters by some other hon. gentlemen who have spoken, but we would like to know the exact situation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend it seems to me takes a very erroneous view of this question. First of all he said that this involved an expenditure of over one million dollars. I repudiate that statement altogether. There is no question here of spending one million dollars. The hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) a moment ago read a report of the chief engineer, to the effect that to complete the works at Sorel as he indicated it would require an expenditure of $1,900,000, but if I correctly understood the report, as I think I did, this was simply a preliminary report, and he said that before committing himself the figures would have to be revised and reduced, and further examinations would have to be made. I do not know whether that has been done by the Public Works Department, but he said that would be necessary before a final report could be made. But all this is very remote from the subject, and it is not germane to It.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is germane for this reason, that I distinctly heard my right hon. friend say only a few moments ago, what he had already said in 1901, that the object of this expenditure, In part at least, was to bring by means of the Canada Atlantic Railway, a considerable portion of the western trade in grain to the harbour of Sorel. Then looking at the estimate brought down to the House, I saw that an elevator was contemplated at an expenditure of $250,000, that crib-work and sheds necessary for the same purpose were to cost $430,000, and that in addition to that there was the expenditure which has already been entered upon. I do not see how you could accomplish what the right hon. gentleman has in view unless you would bring that expenditure up to about $1,000,000. If I am in error in making that deduction I shall, of course, be very glad to be corrected.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend from Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Geof-frion) gave an answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) ; he said a moment ago that
this harbour of Sorel would get local and ocean traffic, and so far I agree with him, but it is also reasonable that local traffic will have to be accommodated first, and perhaps it will be necessary to go on with th(is /further expenditure later on; But the purpose of this vote is to complete a work which will cost $300,000. I cannot understand the object of this criticism in anticipation. Hon. gentlemen criticise these figures as if we were rushing into this expenditure before the trade was contemplated. Even if we were to rush into this expenditure, as has been hinted on the other side, I am not sure whether such action would not be justified and proper, although we do not propose to do so. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) stated that it would be very unwise to take such action, because this would be creating facilities before the traffic was created. My hon. friend should not forget that in order to create traffic it is sometimes sufficient to create facilities. Let me call his attention to a fact which has been mentioned on the floor of this House more than once, and which was brought out in the discussion on another matter. That is that the Canada Atlantic Railway was created for the purpose of anticipating traffic, and creating it; it was taken to the shore of Georgian bay where there was not even a hut of an Indian, in the anticipation that traffic would develop. If we should go into this expenditure now with the view of developing the traffic of the Canada Atlantic at Sorel, I do not know that we would be far wrong. However, we do not propose to do so at the present time, although we may think it advisable to do this very thing in the future, and if we do so, we will be prepared. to meet criticism of our course. In the speech which I delivered upon this subject some two years ago, to which attention was called by the hon. leader of the opposition, I recalled the fact that in the early history of the colony, the valley of the Richelieu was the centre of communication for the province of Quebec between the east and the west, as the east and the west then existed, and enjoyed a trade greater than in recent times. But when railways were introduced, a good deal of the trade left that valley and went to Montreal. My hon. friend asked whether the communications with Montreal are not sufficient and whether there has been any complaint. There has been none, but while it is true that some forty years ago, when the era of railway construction was inaugurated in Canada, the Richelieu valley was left and, the trade went in a direct line from Montreal southwards, since then there has been considerable railway development in the valley itself, and roads have been constructed all along the river from its source almost to its outlet in the St. Lawrence. Shall we be told that these railways are not to be furnished with the necessary ter-

minal ? If my hon. friend takes this position, we differ with him and on that ground we will have to be judged by the masters of us all. It is true that the expectations we had of a consolidation of the different railways from Vermont through the Richelieu valley have not been realized, owing to the failure of .the project of the Webb Syndicate, but no doubt that consolidation will take place at an early day. At all events, whether it takes place or not does not alter the importance of the position we take. These railways will go on doing their work, though not so successfully as though consolidated under one management. My hon. friend says that there are twenty-five harbours in the maritime provinces just as important as Sorel which are not developed and which have not received any railway facilities. That is very true, but railways are being built everywhere in the maritime provinces, and no doubt at an early day we will have to do there what we are now doing in the town of Sorel.


Albert Edward Kemp: 
The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: My chief engineer informs me that the depth of water is thirty feet now. I do not know where my hon. friend gets his eighteen feet depth.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does the Minister of Public Works say that we have thirty feet of water at the wharf and that the approaches to the wharf from the channel of the St. Lawrence are also thirty feet deep ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is what I understand.


Albert Edward Kemp: There is no such informa-ton m the report.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The report to which my hon. friend refers is a provisional report, and not directly connected with the work as carried out, and I think it was to be subject to surveys to be made. This wharf has been built on a different plan and according to a different report. The engineer informs me that the contract provides for thirty feet of water, that the work is nearly completed, and that there is thirty feet of water now at the wharf.


Albert Edward Kemp: There were three reports. The one I read to the committee is the one I understand the engineer recommended as giving the most feasible way of doing the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are dealing with the one that has been carried out.


Albert Edward Kemp: Which one is that ? Does it include the cribwork and the sheds and the dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will read again what the chief engineer says about it :
This is a wharf which is being built parallel to the south shore of the St. Lawrence, opposite the town of Sorel, immediately below the mouth of the Richelieu. The structure consists of ballasting and crib-work 700 feet long, 20 feet wide at top, 40 feet at base, 46 feet deep, and stands in 30 feet deipth at low water.


Edward Cochrane: The crib might be 30 feet and the water not.


Albert Edward Kemp: Altogether independent of the contract.


Albert Edward Kemp: With regard to the observations made by my hon. .friend from Cliam-bly and Verchfires (Mr. Geoffrion), I do not see the force of his argument as to these counties being tributary to Sorel rather than to Montreal. There are two of these counties that lie adjacent to Sorel and border on the St. Lawrence, but the others are farther to the south, and their southern portions are nearer to Montreal.


Victor Geoffrion: But they are separated from Montreal by the Richelieu and the St. Lawrence. It is more natural for them to come to Sorel 'down the river with the current, or even by the railways that come to Sorel.


Albert Edward Kemp: I quite understand that that argument would apply very strongly in the early days, when there were no railways. But all the produce is transported in these days by the railways. There are no boats of any account on the Richelieu carrying grain and


Victor Geoffrion: My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) is mistaken, there is a great deal of grain trade on the Richelieu river. All the produce comes by steamers on the Richelieu river through the canal-they are obliged to-and there is an immense amount of trade in butter, cheese, hayf, grain and other things, coming to Sorel by the Richelieu river. If they' go to Montreal, they have to come to Sorel and around the point to Montreal.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understand that those villages that lie on the river find it more convenient to send iby boat. But that trade is limited. When you go back from the river a few miles, it is more convenient for the people to put their produce on the trains and let it go by the usual way of transport. That is the way the traffic goes in these counties. The natural thing is for it to go to Montreal, the port we have already made.
I am sure that the railways will find it more to their advantage to carry it to Montreal and ship to Sorel. I have no desire to criticise this matter from a narrow standpoint. I have thought that too much money was being spent for the results which could be expected. We are told now -for the first time that there is an idea of making the Canada Atlantic terminal at Sorel. But when this expenditure was at first proposed we were told that the New York Central would make its terminal there. Are we more certain that the Canada Atlantic will go to Sorel than we were that the New York Central would do so ? In any case, is it necessary that this money should be expended for this purpose ? The hon. leader 408
of the opposition has spoken of twenty-five harbours in Nova Scotia which could be compared with Sorel. The hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) has referred to a harbour in his constituency, a very important one, and one that could be used with advantage for the trade of a considerable area of country, if it were improved so that steamers plying on the lakes could reach it conveniently. There is another harbour lying alongside a city in Ontario, with a population of 250,000 people, on which the government of this country has never spent a single cent. We have asked for improvements, and have protested time and again. The centre of population to which I refer is known Iby the name of Toronto, and to it an enormous amount of produce finds its way. It would be a benefit to a great area of country if we could get our harbour properly equipped. But we have never been able to impress this government with the idea that it should be equipped. Since the St. Lawrence canals have been deepened to 14 feet, it can be easily seen what an advantage it would be if the harbour of Toronto were improved-


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But you will not give me time to attend to it. I am anxious to look into that matter and see what ought to be done.


Albert Edward Kemp: As the hon, minister wishes time, I will not extend my remarks if he will promise to provide proper facilities for Toronto. But, at the same time, I cannot withdraw anything I have said with regard to Sorel. I cannot see that the government's theory is correct in regard to this matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to refer to some remarks of the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in answer to what I said. I suggested that it was not the best way to build harbours first and then hunt for trade for them. The Prime Minister cited Parry harbour as an illustration of the truth of his colleague's contention-because it was the contention of an hon. gentleman behind him-that trade might be expected, and so it was wise to build this harbour. He said : There was no trade at Parry harbour, but the business foresight of Mr. Booth led him to build the railway, and afterwards the trade came. But there is no analogy between that case and this. Mr. Booth built for a trade already in existence. And, before building, he either had made, or knew he could make, commercial arrangement with men in the western states and the eastern states to supply his route with trade ; and it was to handle that trade that the railway was built. Then, in order to enable him to handle the trade, the harbour had to be built. Mr. Booth merely arranged to handle a trade that was already waiting. He established himself, as it were, upon a great artery of trade. But it is entirely different in this case. I speak from personal knowledge when I say



[Stage Direction]
that when we in our part of the country have asked the government for money to improve our harbours, the first question asked was as to the trade to be handled- what was the population of the town; what trade was waiting to ibe handled; what district was to be served ? And if we suggested -that we should have the harbour first and would look for trade afterwards, we were told that it was time enough to spend money on harbours when the trade was there waiting to be handled. This is true of all the ports on the Georgian bay, Collingrwood, Parry Sound, Goderich, Kincardine and the others.
But here it seems to be for an entirely different purpose. First, you expend the money and make a harbour, and then you hunt up trade. I regard that principle as radically wrong. There is another feature wrong as well. This harbour must either be, as the item in the estimate says, a deep water harbour, that is an ocean port, or it must be for local purposes. Now, if it be for local purposes only it would not require to be arranged on the large lines that would be necessary if it were for ocean purposes, and the expenditure would not require to be as large as if it were meant for ocean purposes. But we are told that this was first intended for local purposes, and afterwards it can be developed for ocean purposes. While I admit that it would be necessary to provide for the needs of local traffic, I do not agree to the opinion that it would be wise to map out a scheme upon that principle if it were ever expected in the future to be an ocean port. It might be proper to construct it on an extensive plan if it were intended to accommodate ocean freight. Most of our local boats require only eighteen feet of water as their greatest depth, but that would not accommodate ocean going vessels. They want not less than twenty-five or thirty feet. But if you make your harbour eighteen feet for local needs, then you will have to change it almost entirely if you propose to provide for a depth of twenty-five or thirty feet. We found that to be the case in the Georgian bay. At first we only required fourteen or fifteen feet, but afterwards we required a greater depth. But when you come to dredge down to a greater depth it was found that the crib work had not been put down deep enough, the piling had to be torn out, you had not your docks, crib work and your other structures put down deep enough in the first place, and the consequence was that when you dredge down to a greater depth you undermined your own work. From a business standpoint it is important to decide at first whether you want your wharf for ocean purposes or for local purposes.
There is another thing that we cannot overlook. It is said that this trade goes to Montreal when the railway is built. But why should it go to Montreal ? The trade belonging to that portion of the country
Thomas Simpson Sproule: ought to go eastward instead of going to Montreal. The trade of that country must ultimately find its outlet towards Europe, and we are shipping it back towards Montreal. Is it not a fact that a large percentage of the produce that is shipped, even from Nova Beotia	and	a part	of	'NewBrunswick, is	first	brought	to	Montreal, thence to be	shipped	to	Liverpool ? I am	told	by men	who	have
been in business for years that trade practically travels first to Montreal and then goes to Liverpool; that people who sell their produce in those provinces find it advantageous to take that route, because there are greater conveniences for shipping at Montreal and a greater number of commercial men who are competing for the trade. When these roads were built they were useful to transport freight to the great emporium of Montreal. It may be that trade did not take the direction which we desired it to go, but that is because people did not find it to their advantage to send that trade by way of Montreal. Trade is taken to the larger centres with a greater population, where there is a larger number of shipping people to compete for trade, and therefore they pay larger prices. I complain that in the first place that was not intended to be a terminal of the Canada Atlantic Railway for the purposes of an ocean port to handle the trade going to Europe; I complain that the design was not mapped out for that purpose in the first instance. I say it was not wise to begin an expenditure of that amount, an expenditure which was going to reach to one or two million dollars, without having that information from the first, in order to lay out your design for that purpose. But to commence an expenditure upon the assumption that it would only involve an outlay of two or three hundred thousand dollars, and that it was necessary for local purposes, and then to say that it was only a beginning of an undertaking which was to be developed into an ocean port-I say that does not show the highest type of business intelligence. I think the government should always be ready to submit their plans and specifications to the House, with a report of an engineer, before they commence an expenditure.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As I have another matter which I would like to submit to the House after recess, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.
Some resolutions reported.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER read the message as follows :
Minto.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons, further supplementary estimates of sums required for the services of the Dominion for the year ending 30th June, 1904, and in accordance with the provisions of * The British North America Act, 1867 ' the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, October 1, 1903.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the message of His Excellency together with the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Sorel-deep water wharf, $37,600.
['I will have to come back with some information for the hon. gentleman in any case, so I think it is better not to drop them.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would ask the lion. Minister of Public Works when the last report was made upon this harbour and by whom ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: The report I have is a quite recent one from the chief engineer of the department who informs me that the work is practically completed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I understand the situation, in the event of it being decided to provide an ocean port there, the plan would have to be mapped out upon some different scale for that purpose and the work commenced anew ?
The MINISTER OF' PUBLIC AVORIvS. No new work will be undertaken without submitting to the House all particulars in connection with it and asking for the authority of parliament for such vote as may be necessary.


William Rees Brock: The course of action which was marked out this morning by the right lion, leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was one suggesting most elaborate changes at Sorel. Sorel was to be made an ocean port. The Canada Atlantic Railway and other railways were to be taken down there and were to have their terminals at that place. I notice that the hon. Minister of Public Works is not as enthusiastic as his leader upon this matter and I was wondering if probably he could not bring his influence to bear upon his leader to have a little of the gush taken out of this particular scheme. We are waiting for the commission which has been appointed lately by the government to take into consideration the whole transportation scheme. AVe have the announcement that it is necessary to make Sorel an ocean port in order to develop the trade of the magnificent country 403i	i
tributary to that point. It is a magnificent country west and south of that place but you must remember that the total exports from this country are not more than ten per cent of the whole consumption and that the home consumption of places like Sherbrooke, Richmond, and the great city of Montreal actually takes the whole produce of the country with the exception of ten per cent, so that all but ten per cent of what the people of this district raise is consumed largely by the manufacturers of Sherbrooke, Richmond and Montreal. We cannot prevent the spending of money after it is already spent and money due for work done must be/ voted. The right hon. Prime Minister in justifying the expenditure said that a larger expenditure was likely to be gone into there because he spoke of this being an ocean port, mentioning that the Canada Atlantic Railway would likely be taken there. On that account he might say next year, as he has said this year :	You are
speaking too late. You should have spoken of this at its inception. Therefore, having received from the right hon. Prime Minister an idea of what it is proposed to do at Sorel we on this side of the House enter our protest against a great scheme of this kind being gone into as another great scheme has been gone into, off his own bat. We contend that if he will not take the members of his cabinet into his confidence he should at least take into his confidence the commission which has been appointed to look into this question.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: No work will be undertaken for the extension of the improvements at Sorel without the matter being first submitted to parliament. We all hope that the development of the country may make it necessary to further improve that harbour, that the trade will demand it and I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Brock) would support any improvement necessitated by such an expansion of trade as readily as I would. In view of the discussions that take place in this House in regard to the various harbours on the lakes, and rivers of this country and upon the coasts it is desirable that a commission composed of practical men should inquire into these questions. AAHiile a commission might pay attention more particularly to the larger ports of the Dominion where trade would concentrate from the producers throughout the various sections of the Dominion, we must all remember that a great amount of trade is gathered from the smaller places and that we cannot afford-to ignore any of these various places in any proper expenditure of money made with a view of encouraging trade. Because in the expenditure of money in former times at various places we have probably taken too optimistic a view as to the results which we believed would follow, we are not justified in coming to the conclusion that an

improper expenditure has been made. This is not a political question at all, and' it should not be regarded as such because mistakes may have been made in the past although the work was undertaken probably in good faith by all parties. I have thought In regard to a general scheme of transportation, that, if the matter were looked into and the best routes and ports picked out and if the report of the commission met with our approval, we would get greater value for the money and greater benefit for the people of the Dominion if we expended the money) along the lines which had been determined upon. If we can get a commission which will go into the question and which will direct us in the way in which the expenditure will bring us the greatest benefits a great deal of good will be accomplished. As far as this particular item is concerned I think it is thoroughly understood that the work is practically completed and that this is the balance of the contract. This will complete the work as far as I know from the information which has been brought to my attention. However, that may be, no new work will be undertaken without all the necessary explanations being given and without it first being submitted to parliament.	.


William Rees Brock: Would you make the same promise as to submitting it to the Transportation Commission ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: While nobody perhaps ever expected that the large question of railway development would be subject to or depend upon the report of the commission, I can easily see why, after having come to certain conolusions as to certain ports, either lake or river, which might be brought to the consideration of parliament and if the commission can show that the rate of transportation can be cheapened by the improvement of these ports, parliament would be perhaps justified in taking action. This certainly is one of the questions which the commission would be expected to look into.


William Rees Brock: We are beginning to get a little light as to the reason it was so difficult to get competent gentlemen to serve on this Transportation Commission. Indeed, in view of what the Minister of Public Works has said, that they are merely to look into suggestions made by the government, I. am surprised that the government got as good men as they -did to take positions on that commission. I had thought that this commission would be a very good thing, and that the better the men on it, the better for the country, but it is difficult to get good men to act in a subservient capacity. I had hoped that they would be enabled to get the best expert evidence, and that they would be allowed to judge whether railways should be built, or whether harbours should be built, in the best inte-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
rests of Canada ; but it now seems, according to the Minister of Public Works, that the commission is going to be of very little account. I had hoped that the government would be glad to get rid of such responsibility, which so often leads to a great deal of log-rolling. We had an example of that this morning, when we were told that if we voted against the item under discussion the public would understand why we voted against it. That is where this unfortunate petty politics comes in. I had hoped that the Transportation Commission would be able to submit recommendations to us as independent men, free from political bias and governmental influence ; but now it would appear that such is not to be the case. We have had this Transportation Commission launched, first by Order in Council, and tben by the announcement in the speech from the Throne, but, after all, it is to be of little account. I am surprised, under the circumstances, that the government were able to get men of such high standing to tolerate, for one moment, occupying such a position.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) has either misunderstood my statement or he has put an unwarranted interpretation -upon my words. I did not say that this commission would only deal with what the government suggested, nor did I say that it would be in any way subservient. On the contrary, if the hon. gentleman will read the commission, he will find that they have the whole Dominion as a field, and that they can report without any regard to the wishes of the government or any member thereof. What I said was that no scheme recommended by the commission could be carried out until parliament voted the money for it. Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) would not take from parliament the power to conduct the affairs of the country ? The Transportation Commissioners will have the greatest possible freedom and latitude in dealing with all matters within their jurisdiction throughout the Dominion. They are no more subservient to the government than they are to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock). If he has any recommendations to make to them, I am sure they wrnuld be just as much pleased to hear him as they would be to hear the views of the cabinet ministers. The only limitation on the commission to make inquiry and to take as long as they consider necessary in doing so, is the amount that parliament will place at their disposal for that purpose. The commissioners are independent politically andi in every other way, and it is unfair for the bon,, gentleman to make any statement to the contrary. I have always believed that nothing but good can result from this Transportation Commission, and I am sure that a great many members of the House concur in that view.

Intercolonial Railway-collection of revenue. $5,200,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the general vote for the working of the Intercolonial Railway. In former years we have asked for an appropriation, which time proved to he considerably less than the service required, and we have had to ask for more in the supplementary estimates. We think that this present vote will, in all probability, cover the working expenses for the whole year ; but of course that cannot be accurately determined until the accounts are made up. So far as we can judge, the present vote will cover all the expenses for the year. While there has been a very considerable increase from year to year in the working expenses of the Intercolonial, there has been also a very considerable increase in the business of the road. The gross earnings of the Intercolonial from 1895 until the present year were as follows :
1895	$2,940,000	001896	
2.957,640	101897	
2,866,000	001898	
3,117,000	001899	
3,738,000	001900	
4,552,000	001901	
4,972,000	001902	
5,671,000	001903	
6,324,000	00
The working expenses have correspondingly increased and last year the working expenses were $G,196,653.19 against gross earnings of $6,324,323.72. It will be seen, therefore, that in asking for an appropriation of six and one-half million dollars for the present year we are allowing for a very moderate increase in the business as compared with those of the year recently closed. If we may judge from the increase of business of recent years this sum will be required for the expenses and will be fully met by increased earnings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You did not give the net earnings.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Last year, 1902-3, the net earnings were $127,-[DOT]670.53.


Mr. BARKER.: I see no objection to this item being charged against revenue ; my objection lias been rather the other way, that the government have year after year, asked for too small an amount to be charged to revenue and have managed to g,et on by charging to capital what ought to have been included in this item. I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman will require the money for which he is asking provided he charges to revenue everything that ought to be charged to revenue. I observe that he is charging to capital in the estimates at page 42, $320,000 for rolling stock. Looking at the stock account in the last report, June, 1902. I think it is highly probable that every dollar of that $700,000 should be included in the item now under consideration. However, that may be, I think the hon. gentleman is doing right in increasing the amount of this vote for working expenses for the reason I have mentioned, that in the past the government have asked for too little, charging too little to this particular item in order that they may show a fictitious net earning.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I would ask the hon. minister if in this increased item for working expenses for next year he has included anything for the trackmen in case he decides to give them an increase. I understand that the trackmen on the Intercolonial have made an application for an increase, and in case he decides to grant their request is there sufficient in this vote to provide for that increase ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, these estimates were prepared rather on the basis of the present rates of pay, as respects the officials generally. But it is in a general estimate that if it is determined to increase the pay of any class of servants we would have ample authority under this vote to pay the men but it might necessitate our coming to parliament for a supplementary estimate at a later stage.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase of $1,000,000 over last year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not over the working expenses of last year. The actual working expenses last year were $6,196,653 ; we had to take a supplementary estimate.


Robert Laird Borden: The object then is to include in this estimate the total amount, including what was in the supplementary estimates last year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, if possible.


Robert Laird Borden: Has. business on the road developed to such an extent as to justify this ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the earnings have increased very considerably. For the year 1902 they were $5,671,000 and for 1903, $0,324,000. The increase for that year was very considerable.


Robert Laird Borden: May I he allowed to divert the discussion from this point to an item which was passed last night in my absence in reference to the vote of $83,000 for increased accommodation at Halifax ? I have already pointed out, both in previous sessions and during this session, the desirability of acquiring certain property at Halifax, immediately south of the present passenger station. I do not wish to repeat what I have already said two or three times in the House, but I believe that if the Intercolonial is going to have the increased business which we expect, it will be necessary to acquire the properties from North

street to Cornwallis street, fronting on Water street and extending westward to the rear of the lots on Lockman street. The property has deteriorated to some extent owing to the fact that a portion of Water street has already keen taken up by the Intercolonial Railway. Claims for compensation on that account have been made by the property owners. These claims they attempted to enforce in the Exchequer Court, but unsuccessfully. I have always thought that although there was a legal defence to their claim under the statute of limitations, nevertheless they were claims that might very properly be taken into consideration by the Crown, notwithstanding that they are barred by the statute of limitations. ' Although I myself, acting as solicitor, had to raise that point I have felt that it was a point whch the Crown might very well waive. I do not know that there would be any legal claim ; the solicitors of these parties think there would be, and it is certainly an arguable question, outside the statute of limitations. These claims, which are regarded as a grievance by the people interested, could no doubt be adjusted on very easy terms if these properties were acquired by the Crown at a fair valuation ; in fact that would result in a settlement of that kind being made with these parties. It seems to me that unless the advice of the experienced officials of the department is absolutely against the view I entertain, it will be in the interest of this country to acquire these properties. If that is likely to be the case 1 think that measure should be taken to acquire them as early as possible. It will not be very expensive to acquire them, and their acquisition may lead to decreased expenditure elsewhere. I am not familiar with the details of the work at Halifax, but now and then we have items for blasting and: filling in, and it seems to me that that work could be decreased if we acquired this property.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The estimates now before the House do not contemplate the acquisition of that property. The damage said to have been done to it by the extension of the railway down to deep water was done a long while ago, and the government of that day were not able to recognize any of the claims set up. I do not think that we can view the matter from the standpoint of any claim these people may have, but it might possibly bq wise to acquire the land for railway purposes. We need some land at present, but for immediate necessity that property would not be suitable; and, even in its present depreciated condition, it would cost a very considerable sum. For these reasons we have not undertaken to acquire it. Still there is much force in the contention that as the property is close to the railway, it might be well to acquire it if we can do so at a fair and reasonable cost. But the difficulty is the moment the government try to Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
buy a piece of ground, its value becomes very much enhanced. This property is not likely to be valuable for other purposes, and probably at no distant day it might be advisable for the railway authorities to purchase it, but it would only be purchased at a fair value, and not at the extravagant prices which property owners attach to their land as soon as they hear the government may require it. It is not wise therefore that we should bring down an appropriation, but if, as the result of negotiation, we find that tiie property can be obtained at anything like a fair and reasonable price, we might another session consider the advisability of buying it.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not ask anything more at this stage. I quite understand that high values are sometimes put on property under certain conditions, but of course the Crown always has a certain control by exercising the power of expropriation. I know what that leads to sometimes. We often find great differences in opinion among experts regarding values. In the case of one property, which was expropriated in Halifax some years ago, the value put upon it varied from $15,000 to $90,000, and there were about fifteen or twenty witnesses on each side. With regard to the claims for damages by the owners of this property, I have not very much to say. The Exchequer Court held that under the statute of limitations, the parties had no claim, and apart from that, there was a question whether the Crown had not a defence under certain legislation passed by the province of Nova Scotia. But while these people may not have a legal claim, their property was very much damaged in value by the fact of a railway running along the opposite side of the street. And in matters of that kind, where damages have resulted to the individuals, the Crown does not usually stand on its legal rights. Take, for instance, the sum paid Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann. They had certainly no legal right to compensation. They made a claim against the Crown on account of the failure of parliament to ratify a certain agreement. They had incurred certain expenses and took the risk of that agreement not being ratified, but nevertheless parliament thought it right that they should be recouped their expenses. Therefore, while these parties may or may not have a legal claim, still they have a moral claim, and I would be inclined to think that the Crown should take into consideration the question of giving them some reasonable compensation.


John Graham Haggart: Why is there such an increase in this item ? I understand that this vote is not for the purpose of giving to the department the expenditure of anything for expropriations, where land may be needed, or for rolling stock, but only to make available for book-keeping purposes

tlie amount of revenue likely to be received from the Intercolonial.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The two items of revenue and expenditure very nearly balance, and in that sense perhaps the bon. gentleman is correct, but as a matter of fact the one does not necessarily relate to the other. This is an expropriation for the expense of working the Intercolonial, and whether the revenue equals that or not, we still need it.


John Graham Haggart: It is limited entirely to that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Entirely to working expenses.


John Graham Haggart: Anything out of ordinary expenses, such as harbour improvements, cannot be paid out of this fund ? But the amount seems an abnormal one. Do you expect an increased business ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: I see that there are resolutions brought down for the stores account, I should judge that that is merely a book-keeping vote also.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Quite correct.


John Graham Haggart: Which is not intended to give to the stores management on the Intercolonial the right of purchasing locomotives or anything else but the intention is simply to balance the stores account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Inasmuch as the stores on hand and the amount of the vote in the Bill are substantially the same, it may be treated as a mere book-keeping account ; but it fixes a limit within which the department may hold stores. On the other question, the hon. gentleman is right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to many items there is a difference of opinion as to whether they should be charged to capital account or to income. Has the ministfjr directed his attention to the revision of the book-keeping in order to decide which items should be charged to one or to the other ? For, so long as there is no definite understanding. it is impossible to tell whether the road is growing better or worse. It seems to me it should be understood what items are to be charged to capital and what to running expenses. And, if that cannot be done under the present system, we should have a new system of book-keeping altogether.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have tried to look into the matter a little, not with a view to these estimates, which were prepared by my predecessor, but because of my own interest in the matter. I am inclined to think that in many of these charges there is room for differences of opinion as to the account in which it should appear. A good many years ago, I had occasion to
seek the advice of an eminent railway man as to what a certain railway would earn, and he asked me how much I wanted it to earn. I admit that, in the accounts of any large undertaking there is always room for differences of opinion as to what should be charged to capital. There have been such differences of opinion between the late Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) and hon. gentlemen opposite. But I think that, after all, the amounts involved are not so great as to materially affect the result. I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, I desire to see sound methods of book-keeping. But I may say frankly, that I am not so anxious as some parties to make a profit or showing a surplus. I do not see why we should insist on having a surplus out of the Intercolonial any more than out of any other public work. We should see that the money is wisely and fairly expended, and if we can make ends meet, and show a balance, that is satisfactory. But if there is not a balance on the right side, I do not admit that that necessarily shows that there is anything wrong. In the case of another class of great works we do not even raise the question whether there is to be a profit or a loss. I speak of the canals. We do not attempt to make the canals pay even working expenses-and never did. We are content to lose, if it can be called a loss, the interest on the investment. Of course, it is not a loss, because it helps on the business of the country. But, so far as immediate return is concerned, the canals not only do not pay a profit, but do not even pay working expenses ; and, this year, without a moment's hesitation, we have thrown off the canal tolls altogether, and so have cut off our revenue from canals. So, I would ask the hon. gentlemen on both sides not to be too anxious about making a profit out of the Intercolonial, or even showing a surplus over working expenses. If we can make it, we will do it; but, if we expend the money wisely and faithfully and give the public the accommodation they require, the public gets the benefit just as in the case of a canal. I would not say this was a reason why we should be indifferent as to the balance. We should have a balance if we can. But, if. as a result of the operation of the road there is a balance on the wrong side, it is not reasonable to assume that the country is the loser.


John Graham Haggart: There is only one way by which we can be enabled to judge fairly of the work of the Intercolonial, and that is by following the course recommended by the late Alexander Mackenzie when Minister of Public Works, and often discussed since. Here is a road finished a number of years ago. Unless there is an addition to the road in the shape of a building or purchase of some other railway, or something of that kind the capital ac-

count should be closed entirely. An expenditure at Halifax or St. John for terminal facilities or any similar expenditure should not be charged to capital, but to ordinary expenditure. The reason why it is desirable to have the same system of bookkeeping by one Minister of Railways as by another is that only in this way can we make comparisons. The making of a comparison does not necessarily mean that fault is to lie found with the expenditure. We are not finding fault with the expenditure. But there may be on that road a number of employees that are not necessary, there may lie lavish expenditure upon the road itself which is not justifiable. The only way by which we can judge of that is to compare one management with the other; and, if this is to be done the capital account should be closed entirely, so that all expenditures will be charged to current account. If one Minister of Railways, anxious to balance his accounts or make a favourable showing, charges to capital items which his predecessor charged to current expenses, comparison of the two administrations is quite impossible. This adds to the temptation to make unjustifiable expenditure, for the minister who makes it knows that his account can be so doctored that he cannot be compared with his predecessor. A minister may run the road in an economical way, while affording the public every accommodation, and his predecessor may be lavish in his expenditure, yet, by having recourse to charging his expenditure to capital, he can make as favourable a showing on revenue account as the other. This temptation to lavish expenditure would be removed if the capital account were closed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So far as concerns my hon. friend's (Hon. Mr. (Haggart) remark that the purpose of a uniform system is that comparisons may be made, I think that is quite reasonable. But I think he goes too far when he advocates the closing of the capital account. He himself qualifies that by saying that in case of the building or acquiring of new railway there could be a charge to capital account. There have been considerable additions made to the Intercolonial since the construction of what may be called the original road. For instance, there was the St. Charles branch-that, the hon. gentleman will admit might properly be charged to capital. Then there was the short line- the so-called short line, for it did not prove to be very short. There was the Cape Breton extension. That is an addition to capital account. There was the Drummond County road, built to extend the Intercolonial to Montreal ; aud there are various other small branches and lines, additional sidings


John Graham Haggart: No, additional sidings should not be charged to capital.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, the items I have given, together with others that do not occur to me at the moment, are fairly chargeable to capital account of the Intercolonial, and fairly increase that capital account, though the road is sometimes referred to in the course of discussion as being the same property as was brought into existence by the original construction. Let me show my hon. friend that we could not possibly justify the closing of the capital account even without constructing a new road. It is known to all men of experience in railway matters that during the last ten years there has been a revolution in regard to railway construction. Railways which were equipped in a very light manner are now putting on heavy equipments. A road with 56-pound rails fifteen years ago is today putting on 90-pound rails, some are putting on even heavier rails. A locomotive a few years ago cost only a small sum, but to-day you are paying practically double the price for it, and you are getting double value. Without the addition of a single mile to the length of that road, you might find it necessary in the case of a road like the Intercolonial Railway to expend several millions in the way of betterments, something which any railway manager would consider as betterments, in the shape of heavier rails, in the shape of improved grades, in the shape of better rolling stock. In all these things railroad construction and operation have been revolutionized in the last ten years, and you would find it necessary to have a capital account from which to purchase these things, because no railroad could purchase them out of its revenue. If the capital account were to be closed, it would mean that there could be no advance with the times at all. My hon. friend presses the matter too far when he says that the capital account should be closed.


John Graham Haggart: It is for the very purposes that the hon. gentleman has mentioned that I wish the capital account to be closed. This is not my own idea alone, but it is the idea of the friends of the government when they were in opposition. I have heard Mr. Mackenzie state again and again in this House that the only remedy for the unsatisfactory state of affairs on the Intercolonial Railway, and the charges to capital account, was to close that account altogether. I differ with the Minister of Finance in that respect. On an ordinary road, if you take up a 56-pound rail and put on a 90-pound rail, the difference is charged to capital account. My opinion is that if it is necessary for a road to put on a 90-pound rail, it should be charged1 to the ordinary revenue of the road-it will earn more afterwards ; but do not charge it to capital account. I know that railroads ordinarily proceed as the hon. Minister of Finance has stated, and I tried to adopt that

system, which I thought was the correct one. I think now that when you change a locomotive from a lighter type to a heavier type, the difference should not be charged to capital account, and the same with rails. The only true remedy, and the Finance Minister ought to insist upon it, is to give no latitude of that kind to the department. If they want to improve the road let the bald statement be made to the public that there is a certain expenditure in excess of revenue, and let the company judge whether that is justifiable or not; but keep them strictly to this principle, that everything that is expended on the road, either for terminals, or for improvements in the way of better locomotives, better track and so forth, shall be charged to the ordinary revenue of the road. Then you will have a management better than any devices that you can imagine in arranging the accouuts.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is asking us to go a great deal further than, I am sure, his friends generally would ask us to go. The most that anybody could claim is that we should keep the capital account confined strictly to betterments of the road. Now, I think that the principle the hon. gentleman has laid down is one that practical railway men do not agree with. There are differences of opinion as to whether a given expenditure is a mere renewal or a betterment. I think it can be safely laid down as a principle that if you add something which increases the value of your road, and if you make two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before, if I may use that illustration, you have a betterment for your road, and you have value for it. and that is a proper addition to your capital account. My hon. friend says: Charge these larger locomotives and everything of that kind to the revenue account. But there is no revenue account to bear it. and there will be no such revenue account. Any railroad that has to provide all these things out of revenue would not get them at all. It would simply mean coming here and asking, on revenue account, for large sums of money which would not be fairly chargeable to revenue.


Edward Cochrane: What is the difference, so far as the country is concerned, since the country has to pay it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I can answer that. That is a rough-and-ready way of looking at it, and if that is the correct way. then you might as well say, What difference does it make anyhow whether you charge an item to capital or revenue since the country has to pay for it ?


Edward Cochrane: The country would know how to compare the management of the road under one minister with its management under another. Notv we do not know what one minister charges to capital account and what another minister charges
to revenue. I would like to ask the Finance Minister how an ordinary railway corporation would furnish the money, if they kept the account as he proposes. I may be wrong, but I am asking for information. For instance, if the hon. gentleman was managing the Grand Trunk Railway and he required betterments in the cars, in the weight of rails, &c., how would the Grand Trunk raise the money if they did not pay it out of revenue ? Would you have to issue new stock all the time ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Most certainly, that is exactly what any railway company would do. If it requires anything in the way of betterment, it must issue new stock. If the road is very prosperous and has the revenue to pay all its dividends and leave a handsome balance, it might use some portion of that for improvements. There is many a corporation which is making a good deal of money, but is only paying moderate dividends, because it applies its profits to improvements all the time. But no ordinary railway company can do that. Railway companies generally provide for betterments by the issue of capital stock. I think I can show my hon. friend that what would be done in the case of a great railway company is what we are willing to do in the case of the Intercolonial Railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not complaining that we could not understand whether the road was paying or not, nor was I complaining because the road is not paying. But it seems to me we ought to have some barometer to tell us whether the road is running behind, or whether it is managed in such a way as to make it a paying road. We ought to know whether there is business enough in that part of the country to make the road pay expenses. The minister says : Suppose you wanted betterments on that road, out of what account are you going to pay them, if you do not charge them to capital account How do we pay them now ? We vote the money here, and could we not do that with regard to betterments in the same way as we do with deficits ? It makes no difference. I agree with the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. I have always thought, though not knowing much about the methods of keeping railway accounts, that that was the only solution of the situation, namely, to close your capital account. Then the country will know, whether it is wise to run such a railway. I never imagined that the railway ought to be run so as to bring in a big revenue, I always understood it was constructed for the benefit of the country. The earnings of the railway, however, ought to be somewhere near enough to pay the running exn penses. otherwise there is evidently no need for that railway. Now, if it does not pay running expenses, certain things are lacking, either the freight rates and the passenger rates are too low. or else the railway

must be running through a portion of country where there is not sufficient trade, or it must be managed in such a way that other railways are taking trade away from it. On the other hand, the government ought to be able to make a comparison as between its management by different administrations. When you have the road badly managed it does not pay, when you have it well managed it does pay. The country requires to be able to make some comparison, and the object of keeping the books should be that a fair comparison may be made, that there may be some barometer to show how the road is running. I suggest that, but if any other means can be devised that would be better, it is most desirable that they should be adopted.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It certainly would not be a fair means of comparison if we were to undertake to charge all these things to revenue account, because they have not been charged to revenue account in the past. The points of difference between the classes of items charged to capital now and in former days are not very wide. The same classes of items were charged to capital account in former days as are charged now. It may be that in late years, owing to the increased - business, the items have been larger, but that items of the same class have been charged to capital account in past years is beyond all question. Keeping accounts in the way suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) would not be fair for the purposes of comparison, not fair as a means of keeping railway accounts. He perhaps knows that last session the Grand Trunk Railway Company received authority from us to issue a- large amount of new stock, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway increased its stock by $20,000,000, although I do not think they added a mile of road ,to their system. They used that money in providing betterments and improvements upon the road. Certainly the greater part of it went into rolling stock. So that my hon. friend will see that he is asking us to adopt a system of keeping the accounts which would not be accepted by any great railway in the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That might be the case, and yet it might not be a proper course to adopt here. There has been a great deal of difference between the two sides of the House as to what should and what should not be charged to 'capital account. We have that contention up every year, and it is for the purpose of doing away with it that we should adopt a system that would enable us to make a fair comparison. The hon. Minister of Finance says that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway' have been obliged to issue new stock, the proceeds of which have been expended on betterments to the roads. That is true, but the roads are worth more money, and they have thus added to the value of their pro-Mr. SPROULE.
perties. If our property were made more valuable by a million dollars than it is it would be quite different, because you would have an asset to offset the expenditure. But, in regard to ordinary running expenses, taking betterments into account, we should be able to have these accounts kept in some more simple and understandable way than that in which they are now kept.


William Rees Brock: I notice that the hon. Minister of Finance, in defending the present plan, states that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway have been adding to their capital, account. These railways would have a very poor show to get money upon the money market if they could not show that they were being operated at a profit. They must show a profit, and that being so, they are run much more carefully than a road which is being operated without any expectation, not only of making a profit, but of paying running expenses. I contend that this is a very vicious system. It may be excused by going to some localities and telling the people that: We are carrying our freight at rates at which we would otherwise be unable to carry it for. This is a most unbusinesslike thing for the government to do. We have been floating our bonds in the old country, and we have been representing that we are going to pay interest upon them. Just fancy going to the old country with a railwiay deal involving a hundred million dollars and say, taking into consideration the way in which the Intercolonial Railway has been managed, that the concern is not going to be able to pay interest on the capital invested In it. Although we are rich, and although the country is progressing, we cannot hope to keep it up for all time. Wie cannot have too many Pacific cables thrown upon this country when we have to pay $150,000 as our share of the loss yearly on working expenses in connection with the concern. Now, we are considering a railway out of which the hon. Minister of Finance tells us we should not expect to get anything. We are not getting anything out of our canals. There are no competing canals, and therefore we cannot tell what they might do. But I contend that after building a railway which is competing in many cases with other railways, it should be maintained on business principles, and the first business principle for any man who goes into any kind of business is to make a profit upon his investments. Otherwise, why go into business at all ? Why not let private enterprise take hold of it ? Yet the government have gone into a railway upon which they have expended $80,000,000, and the hon. Minister of Finance tells us that the intention was not to make a return upon it. If they had to raise that money to-day in England, and if they went before the financiers of England with the statement which has been made by the hon. Minister of Finance, that they were going into an

expenditure of $80,000,000 out of which they did not expect to make the interest or the running expenses, what would the financiers of England say ? It is all very well, with an abounding revenue, to take that view of the question, but when a period of depression comes, as the hon. Minister of Finance told us three years ago that it would come, how are we going to stand in the money markets of England ? We have been paying off some o-f our four per cent debentures. Let us go to England to-morrow and try to raise $100,000,000, even if the loan had the endorsement of the government of Canada. The endorsement of the province of Ontario could not get money the other day at three and a-ha!f per cent. If we could apply business principles to all the dealings of the government the better it would be, not only for the government, but for the country as a whole. The government are an example to the country, and if large corporations are going to go into business upon the same principle, that is to say, that they not only do not expect to get any return upon the money they -have invested,' but that they are not going to pay running expenses, it will prove to be a vicious principle in connection with the business of the country. I can understand that in exceptional circumstances, such as the building of a railway for military purposes, that you might not expect a return in money from that. That is, to a large extent, the position of the Intercolonial Railway, tout we are going to parallel that railway by another railway, and we do not expect it to pay running expenses for years. Under these circumstances, I contend that the less we do of this kind of thing the better, and quite endorse the contention of the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that the time should come soon when we should stop all further expenditure on capital account, particularly when we are getting no return upon it. I contend that is the plainest and the best way. A man does not require to toe a bookkeeper to understand that if there is a capital account of $100,000,000 which is stationary it should not toe added to, but the balance over and above that should be paid out of revenue or by vote here.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I cannot 'quite see the bearing of my hon. friend's argument, or what real connection it 'has with the question under discussion. I pointed out that the Canadian Pacific Railway had issued a large amount of stock for betterments on its road. The hon. gentleman's reply to that is that the Canadian Pacific Railway could not have issued that stock unless it could have shown that it was going to earn the profit upon it, and he says that no capital should be expended in a transaction of this kind unless you can show that it is going to make a profit. I beg to differ with my hon. friend there. This country would never have been
built up on any such principle as he has enunciated. We have spent $83,000,000 upon our canals, and we never expect to get one dollar of return in the way of interest upon the money. Does my 'hon. friend say that it is wrong for us to carry on these canals unless we are going to have a book-keeping account and show every year that we are dragging money out of the canal traffic to pay for it ? I want to tell my hon. 'friend that this country was never built up that way.


William Rees Brock: That is the way it was built up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman insists that you must have profit in cash in the treasury, but the policy of the country has been to get the profit in the development of the business of the country. We do not expect that you should get the revenue into the treasury, because if the country prospers by the' development of public works, the country reaps a rich reward ; and even though you get no profit on a particular railway or canal, if these are instruments for the development of the trade of the country, it is absurd to say they are unprofitable investments. All the same, I have not said that it is not desirable to get a fair return where you can, without oppressing the business of the country ; I have not said that we should not have any advantage out of the Intercolonial Railway ; I have not said that we should not have a balance on the right side ; but I do say, that I would apply to any public work the larger view, namely, let us see that it is honestly and faithfully and justly administered, and let us get a balance on the right side if we can, but if we fail, let us comfort ourselves with the thought that by means of that railway system or canal system, we are getting our profit in the development of the trade of the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that there is no fair comparison between a railway and a' canal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Why ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because the canal is a water-way which every man who wishes to build a boat can take advantage of, whereas, a railway is given over to one individual or corporation and no others can take advantage of it. You do not give running rights to all other roads over the Intercolonial Railway and not charge them for the privilege, tout our water-ways and our canals are open to all the world. The canals of Canada and the United 'States are as equally available to the people of one country as of the other. A railway is entirely different.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Customs recently denied a statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Osier). I say that the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial

Railway is $68,645,852, or an increase of over four and a half millions on capital account last year. My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) made^ tlie statement that when the Intercolonial Railway was finished, according to Sir Saudford Fleming there was about $14,000,000 charged to capital account, and the Minister of Customs said he was wrong. Can the Minister of Railways, through his deputy minister, inform the House whether the amount expended on the old European and North American road, and the Halifax-Truro section is' included in the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The deputy minister says that it is included.


John Graham Haggart: Are you' certain of that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was not present when the discussion arose, but I am so advised by the deputy minister, who speaks from recollection.


John Graham Haggart: If that be the case, then I do not see how you can possibly balance your public accounts.
Rental to the Grand Trunk Railway, $112,000. Hon. Mr. HAGGART. I thought this was a statutory payment.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Now, that the hon. gentleman mentions it, I think it is covered by the statute, but the practice has been to vote it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were Informed on a previous occasion, that we would be given figures to enable us to ascertain whether the Drummond County Railway has enabled the Intercolonial Railway to pay better than it did before the extension to Montreal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no statement which will enable me to answer that question. Possibly that is a little like the man who advertises and who cannot just tell on what particular advertisement he has had
his order ; although he knows that his business has increased generally. We know the business of the Intercolonial Railway has largely increased, and lam inclined to think that a very considerable portion of that ini' ' "se is due to the extension to Montreal.


John Graham Haggart: There should be divisional accounts kept, and we ought to be enabled to make a comparison. >


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They do not separate the different divisions, but I suppose a general idea could be had as to which section of the road has the largest traffic. I do not think it is possible to give exact information.


John Graham Haggart: Any railway manager would be able to give that information. He is able to take the different stations along the road, make allowances for through-traffic, and tell to a dollar the earnings on each division.


John Graham Haggart: .


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) never had such a system in his day.


John Graham Haggart: You can tell it from the present system of bookkeeping on the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The accounts are kept precisely ihe same n6w as in the time of my hon. friend.


John Graham Haggart: I know that the accounts are kept in the same way, or nearly the same way, and I say that 'from those accounts', you can tell the earnings of each division on the road.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It could he only an approximate statement.


John Graham Haggart: No, you can give it almost exactly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were assured over and over again by the ex-Minister of Railways, when he proposed to extend the Intercolonial to Montreal, that the future earnings of the road would show that the investment had been profitable. We desire to have this information now, in order to ascertain whether that statement was justified or not. Judging from the Canadian Pacific Railway report, this information ought to be easily ascertained. From that report we can ascertain the earnings and expenses, the profit or the loss on any portion of the road. If it can be done in'the ease of the Canadian Pacific Railway there should be no difficulty in doing it in the case of the Intercolonial.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can see that it may be necessary to keep a separate account of the earnings and expenses of a leased line. All I can say with reference to the Intercolonial is that such statements have not been kept in the past and are not at present available.


Uriah Wilson: In view of the debate which took place at the time the Drummond County Railway was purchased by the government, and the predictions then made as to the great increase in traffic that would come to the Intercolonial, it was naturally expected on this side of the House that the government would keep a separate account for that railway and be able to verify the statements they made at that time by producing the accounts. That can be done and ought to be done and we are entitled to receive that information from the Minister of Railways and Canals at any time, but especially when he is getting his estimates through.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I cannot give it.


Uriah Wilson: If that account is kept distinct that the minister promises to bring it down another year as a matter of course, we will close up parliament and go home.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Slow to promise, sure to perform.


Uriah Wilson: I think we should have the promise.


William Rees Brock: I am sure the Minister of Finance would be willing to do this if he realized how easy it is. Every station has a statement of the freight and passengers handled at it. and that information is easily accessible. It is a simple thing when you come to look into it and the minister might fairly promise to do this. It would be of interest to know what part of the road is profitable and what part is unprofitable. You could tell what the working expenses of each station are and the amount of freight handled at it, then yon know the amount of through-freight that is shipped over the line and you can get the number of passengers who have bought tickets at each station and who arrived at each station. I think if the hon. Minister of Finance will think it over-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will promise to think it over.


John Graham Haggart: We got a promise of this kind from the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals when we w7ere voting the money for the purchase of the Drummond County Railway. The whole question was threshed out then and it was shown how easy it would be to keep an account of this and we had a promise that we would know whether the purchase of the Drummond County Railway proved profitable or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is important to our side of the House because we venture statements on certain questions which only time can prove to be correct or incorrect. Our reputation is at stake and for the purpose of ascertaining whether our statements or those of the government have proved to be correct we should have that information. It is only a matter of a little book-keeping, because whether it is through-freight or local freight you know how many miles it has been hauled over the road and we also know exactly the passenger traffic that has taken place on it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Supposing you had fifty passengers from Halifax to Montreal under the present system, how could you tell how many of these you would have had if you had not secured the connection through to Montreal ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You know how many miles it is from Halifax to Quebec and how many from Quebec to Montreal and you deduct the one from the other ; you know the number of passengers passing over the Drummoned County Railway; then you credit a part of the price of each ticket to the Drummond County Railway in proportion to the length of that line so it is an easy matter to keep the account. Supposing you are sending a quantity of freight ; it passes over the whole road or over a few miles of it, but you know the train mileage and you know the earning per train mile on that road.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend missed my point. Given the fifty passengers whom I have taken for illustration.then you can make a division of the probable portion of their fares which should be credited to the different sections of the road, but how can you tell how many of these would have left Halifax for Montreal by the Intercolonial if you did not have any road to Montreal and they were able to go only as far as Quebec.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely that would'be all to your benefit because the more traffic there is the more credit it is to you.


Samuel Barker: I have no doubt it would be of interest and value to the country if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) would order, that for the next few years at all events, separate accounts should be kept for that division of the road. I quite admit that as the minister has said, it does not follow that although you know a particular section of your road has been worked at a loss you would have got as much traffic on your main line if you had not had that section of road. A railway company may have a feeder and although the feeder may itself be worked at a loss it may bring in profit to the main line. Apart from that question, it may be of very considerable benefit to the country to know exactly what such a line as you now have running into Montreal costs you as a portion of your main system. It would be valuable especially if the government were disposed on some other occasion to enter into a similar contract. I did not understand the minister to dispute that it is possible to keep such an account with accuracy, there cannot be any doubt upon that * point, both as to earnings and expenses. We want no better evidence on that point than the clause inserted toy the government for the protection of tlie country in the Bill which we passed through the House last night in which it is provided that separate and distinct accounts shall be kept of the earnings and expenses of the eastern section and the western section of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. It is possible to keep a distinct; account of the earnings and expenses of the section of railway entering Montreal that has been the subject of discussion for the last half hour. There is no trouble about keeping the accounts ; -the extra expense would not involve more than the salary of one clerk during the year. The value of the accounts will be very great indeed, and I think it would be well if the minister would order that they be kept during the next year or two so that the country may know whether the acquisition of that line has been a benefit of not. After we get thh

accounts it will open to the government; to argue that although they may lose money on the particular section, that fact does not settle the whole question, because the road, may be of value for other purposes than, simply the revenue derived1 for traffic over that section.
Prince Edward Island Railway, $256,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
Mr. HACKETT.: Is it the intention of the government to have a second train a day between Summerside and Tignish during the coming winter, as was instituted by the Minister of Railways last year and which proved of such great advantage to the people.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not had before me any question of changing the general arrangements of the Prince Edward Island Railway. Whatever the present accommodation is will toe continued; and if necessity be ' shown for anything more, we shall be glad to consider it. We do not in the estimates contemplate any change.


Mr. CARGILL.: What is the length of the road ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 210 miles besides 50 miles of the new branch.


Henry Cargill: Does the hon. minister think it prudent to construct a new railway to Moncton in the face of the results shown by the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island Railway ? What is the reason that it is not possible to derive a revenue from the Intercolonial, which traverses such a magnificent country as the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and from the Prince Edward Island Railway which runs through what an hon. gentleman described last night as the garden of the Dominion ? We find private corporations investing hundreds of millions of dollars in railways and paying large dividends every year, and in every case the capital is very much watered. I have here the report of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The aggregate capital of that road is said to be $341,000,000. I do not know how much of that is water, but we know that the capital Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
stock of $25,000,000 was originally issued and subscribed for at twenty-five cents on the dollar, so that out of that amount of $25,000,000, $18,750,000 is water. I do not know how much more of the $340,000,000 is water, but according to its report of 1903 the net revenue of that company gave five and nine-tenths per cent on its capital. If that be the case, there must be some extraordinary leakages on the Intercolonial which prevent its yielding any profit, and that shows the necessity of adopting some method of book-keeping which will show where those leaks take place. We ought to know what portions of the road are earning dividends and what are losing money. When a business man opens up a new branch he keeps a separate account for it. If he finds that it yields a profit, he keeps on working it; tout if not he gives it up. There are certain works on which the public money is expended in the interest of the people, in order to develop the resources of the country, and without any expectation of realizing a profit in cash. In this category are our canals, which are great national outlets for our commerce, and which could not be constructed by private enterprise. But the railways are in a different position. They may be constructed out of private capital, ana the railway magnates become millionaires in a few years. I am satisfied that the promoters of the Canadian Pacific Railway have all become multi-millionaires. But what I fail to understand is why the government should not be in a position to secure the services of men just as competent as those Who built the Canadian Pacific Railway. We are in a position to borrow money at a lower rate of interest. My idea would be for the government to build a road from Quebec, north of lake Winnipeg, thence through the prairie and the Rocky Mountains to Port Simpson. Such a proposition would have received my support. But this lengthening of the tail was what I seriously objected to, because I believe the present Intercolonial road is good for all the requirements of the section of the country through which it runs. And, with an expenditure of twenty-five per cent of the money which the government will spend in making the road from Quebec to Moncton, they could maintain a splendid harbour at Quebec which would enable them to do the business and would save the haul from Quebec to Moncton in the transportation of grain-if they ever hope to carry grain by that road.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cargill) is wandering a little from the question-


Henry Cargill: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I had asked the permission of the committee, and I was just going on


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not object.


Peter Macdonald: Of course, if the committee does not object.


John Graham Haggart: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cargill) is in order. He is discussing the Prince Edward Island Railway, and by way of comparison, to show what might be done under good management, he is quoting the example of some other roads.


Peter Macdonald: I think it would be better to put it in this way-that the hon. .gentleman .(Mr. Cargill) is not in order, but the committee will hear him.
$124,192,339 at 3 per cent, for five
years	 [DOT]
Five per cent on $124,192,339-$6,209,-617. for five years with interest..

$110,900,282 at 3 per cent, for five
years!	$128,704,211
Six per cent on $110,900,282-$6,654,017, for five years with interest	 35,608,040

$93,096,171 at 3 per cent, for five years.$108,041,830 Seven per cent on $93,096,171-$6,516,-732. for five years with interest.. 34,873,379


Henry Cargill: I thank the committee and you, Mr. Chairman. In the calculations I have made I assume that the road will cost this country $100,000,000-that that amount will construct and equip the road. If the cost is more the figures will have to be revised accordingly. I have here a table ' which I have prepared, showing the cost to the country of this road at the end of 50 years. I assume that it will take five years to build the road, and that for ten years thereafter we shall receive no rent, as for seven years no rent is charged, and for three following years rent is charged at the rate of three per cent on the cost, but if not earned by the road) it is added to the capital account, and on that total capital the Grand Trunk Pacific pays rent thereafter at 3 per cent. I have proceeded on the basis of the experience of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Though that road has not yet been in operation for 20 years it is paying interest or dividends on the capitalization of $320,000,000 I have estimated that, for the first five years, after the ten years the proposed road should pay 3 per cent interest, the next five years 4 per cent interest, and so on, adding 1 per cent every five years up to the end of the fifty year period. This does not mean that a larger amount would not be earned, but that, as the capital expendture would be reduced by the difference between the interest we would have to pay-3*per cent-and the returns of the road, the amount of the capital account would be progressively reduced. With this explanation, I submit the figures to which I have referred :
$100,000,000 at 3 per cent capitalized
half yearly for fifteen years	$156,308,000
Three per cent on $156,308,000-$4,689,-
240, for five years with, interest.. 25,093,811

$73,168,451 at 3 per cent, for five
years	$ 84,914,914
Eight per cent on $73,168,451-$5,853,-476. for five years with interest.. 31,324,057

$53,590,857 at 3 per cent, for five years	$ 62,194,333
Nine per cent on $53,590,857-$4,823,-177-for five years with interest.. 25,810,556

$36,383,777 at 3 per cent, for five
years	$ 42,224,829
Ten per cent on $36,383,777-$3,638,378, for five years with interest	 19,470,270

So, at the end of 50 years the country would own the road at a cost of $22,754,559, with an earning capacity of $39,470,270 per annum, figuring it out on the basis of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I do not put any water into this $100,000,000 of capital expenditure-it is all cash properly and legitimately expended. It will he observed that I have shown an increased rate of dividend. So I cannot see anything wrong with the proposition. If I were in the position of the government and going into the building of this railroad I would look around and find some such man as Van Horne and get him to direct the affair. Supposing that, at the end of the period, the government were to give a man like Van Horne 51 per cent of the stock, retaining 49 per cent, they would have a 7 or 8 per cent dividend on the balance of the money, so that the road would be a good source of revenue. I am very much obliged to the Finance Minister and to you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me permission to present these figures.
Now, I believe the acting Minister of Railways and Canals will see the propriety of adopting some system of book-keeping by which he will be enabled to know how the operations of the road are being carried on. As a business man in a small way, I could not get along if I did not know at the end of each month how my business is <roins. I have to know how much I owe

12S96
andi how I am going to pay it, and then I can go to bed and sleep at night. But if I did not know that, I would worry all night. Which reminds me of a story. There was a man who had given "a note which was about due, and he had no visible means of paying it. He was very much worried over it, so much that he could not stay at home and face the trouble, but went away to a neighbouring town. He stopped at an hotel, but at night be could not sleep-turned and tossed in bed and at times got up and walked about his room and up and down the hall outside. The gentleman sleeping in the room alongside was prevented from sleeping by the other's restlessness, so he rose and asked the disturbed one what was the cause of the trouble. ' I don't know that its any of your business,' was the reply. ' Well,' said the good-natured neighbour, ' I thought perhaps I might be able to help you or afford you relief, so that you might get to bed and sleep.' Feeling that he had a sympathizing listener, the debtor said, ' I have a note coming due to-morrow, and I do not know where I am going to get the money to pay it.' 'Is that all,' said the other; 'well, you had better go to bed, and let the other fellow do the walking.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 am afraid, Mr. Chairman, you will not be so indulgent with me as you have been with our respected friend, therefore, I shall not be able to follow him in these figures. 1 am glad, however, to have his endorsement of the policy of building a transcontinental road, at all events through the northern part of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The only fault he seems to find with us is that we go a little too far south ; that is to say, that while this has been called a sub-Arctic scheme, he wants it to be an entirely Arctic scheme. But coming back to the Prince Edward Island Railway, my hon. friend asked for an explanation why we have a loss on that road. He gave us some information about the Canadian Pacific Railway, and he said there was a lot of water in that. Well, in the case of the Prince Edward Island Railway, there is a lot of water round it, and this is largely the explanation why the Prince Edward Island Railway can hardly be expected to be a profitable enterprise.
A very large part of the traffic of Prince Edward Island is served by water communication. Still, a railway was necessary for the development of that portion of the country, and I do not think we can look forward at any time to finding it a very profitable undertaking. Many of the people live on the sea-shore, and' their means of communication are by water.
Item, as amended, agreed to.
Cornwall canal, enlargement, $64,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item is to pay for the cost of necessary works now under contract, protection to


Mr CARGILL.: the north bank, installation of an electric system for operating the lock gates, new works, and repairs and enlargement, and regulating weir at lock 17.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the minister please give the name of the contractors to whom this money is to be paid, and the total cost of the electric light plant?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contractor for the mechanism of the lock gates is M. P. Davis. Mr. J. J. Fallon is the contractor for some work on the wharf. I do not find the cost of the installation of the electric system separately. That is not for an electric light plant but it is for operating the lock gates, valves and workshops of the canal by electricity. The contract price is $35,496. That work is finished. There is an additional work of the same character going on by the same contractor.
I will get the cost of the electric plant later, if the hon. gentleman wishes.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood the work on the Cornwall canal was completed some time ago. Will this finally complete the whole work on the canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the work that is contemplated this year. The shops are not yet done, but the canal work proper has been done.


Mr REID (Grenville).: A few years ago when these works were undertaken, and after they had been in progress for some time, the government decided that it was necessary to have a steamer to run from one end of the works to the other, that is from Cornwall to Prescott, through the Cornwall, Farran's Point, Rapide des Plats and Galops canals. That was for the superintending engineer, Mr. Rubidge, and when I asked for an explanation, some years ago, the answer was given that it was necessary for him to travel over these works. It cost $8,000 or $10,000 a year to keep that boat in operation, and now, although the works are practically completed, the boat is still employed. The boat is really idle as there is nothing for it to do. In fact, as I understand it, the only works that it would be necessary for the engineer to visit occasionally would be those in the north channel, which are being carried on by Mr. W. A. Cleveland, and I do not think that the engineer in charge, Mr. Rubidge, visits them very often. Now, there is an expenditure,
I suppose, of from $7,000 to $10,000 per annum for the maintenance of that boat.
I may say also at the same time that the position that Mr. Rubidge has held for so many years has been really abandoned, because of others being appointed to take charge of certain parts of the work. I want to ask the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals now, if, when the works are practically completed, this expenditure should not be done away with ? I do not think it is further necessary. The hon.

acting minister will quite understand that we have another steamer in lieu of the ' Scout ' that runs up and down the river, and that can readily do this work whenever necessary. I am not saying anything now in the way of fault finding with anything that has been done in the past, but it does seem a little unfair that this steamer should be allowed to lie at Cornwall practically all summer with a staff employed, and nothing to do. I would like to ask the hon. acting minister if it is intended to continue that condition of affairs ? I quite understand that he is not fully cognizant of the whole situation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think perhaps the explanation of the boat not being so busily occupied is due to the fact that Mr. Rubidge has not been in good health. The ' Scout ' has been transferred to the Marine and Fisheries Department and is being devoted to the lighting service. It will probably be necessary that there shall be a boat for the canal proper and it is very likely that the boat will be required for the superintendent after the work of construction is over and Mr. Rubidge no longer needs it,
Mr. REID (Grenville), Of course, as far as Mr. Rubidge is concerned, I can quite understand that he is not probably in good health. He is over eighty years of age, and I believe that he has arrived at an age when lie is hardly fit for the position. I would suggest that he be retired even at his salary for the balance of his days. I am not saying anything against Mr. Rubidge but the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals states that the boat may be required by the superintendent. I can hardly see how that will work because I understand that there is a superintendent who has charge of the Cornwall canal only. Then there is a superintendent who has charge of the Williamsburg canal, so that it would be impossible to manage this boat in that way and there could not be any possible use in simply having this steamer running up and down the canal. If it were necessary to have a superintending engineer for works of construction it might be quite different, but, these works are all completed now and there is no actual necessity for the steamer. I would like to have the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals explain how the superintendent could use the steamer in that way. There are two superintendents now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend has referred to the local officers. There is a general superintendent of the St. Lawrence canal system and if he is to continue his work and to examine the various canals he will probably need a boat for that purpose.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like (o know who the general superintendent is. I
never heard before that there was a general superintendent of canals.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I never had the pleasure of seeing him, but I am informed that his name is Stewart.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. acting minister states that Mr. Stewart is the general superintendent. Mr. Stewart is in charge of the Williamsburg canal and there is another gentleman in charge of the Cornwall canal. I think his name is Daily. So that, there are two superintendents. Has Mr. Stewart charge of the Cornwall canal as well as charge of the Williamsburg canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sorry, that, not having visited these canals myself, I am not as well informed as I would like to be in regard to them, but I am advised that Mr. Stewart's duties include the supervision of the Cornwall canal as well as of the Williamsburg canal.


John Dowsley Reid: That is news to me because there was a superintendent appointed for the Cornwall canal and he believes he is in the same position as Mr. Stewart. Is it the intention that Mr. Stewart is to have charge of this steamer for use on the Cornwall and other canals ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For the present the steamer remains in charge of Mr. Rubidge. But, if anything should occur that Mr. Rubidge retires from the service and does not longer require the steamer we shall have to consider what shall be done. I would not like to make a definite statement to my hon. friend.


John Dowsley Reid: I can understand that the hon. acting minister is not thoroughly acquainted with the situation there. The people along the river have been making complaints for some little time about this steamer and I am satisfied it is not a necessity. I am, however, satisfied that if the matter were brought to the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals, whoever may be in charge of the department, it will be looked into and perhaps remedied.
Farran's point canal-enlargement, $9,600.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for work which has been done by the Canadian Construction Company for lowering the old canal bottom, repairing sills and pier and providing one pair of larger gates for old lock No. 22. The appropriation is $12,000, from which we have taken one-fifth.


John Dowsley Reid: This is to complete the contract ?	*


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: That is wound up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
Rapide Plat, $20,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the contractor ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: One of the Gilberts.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that at the upper entrance ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Upper entrance ; extension of south pier.
Galops canal, enlargement, $102,400.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This expenditure is for the Iroquois section, $17,268 ; the Cardinal section, $39,000 ; the upper entrance, $46,350 ; and $25,000 to meet possible claims ; making $127,618.


John Dowsley Reid: What was done with regard to the slide that took place on the Cardinal section ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contractors, Wm. Davis and Sons, are making it good at their own cost.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the leakage on the bank between Iroquois and Cardinal been repaired ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That has been repaired by the government.


John Dowsley Reid: There has been quite an agitation at Cardinal to have the government install some kind of machinery to swing that bridge, which is now being done by hand. If you do not put in a plant you should have two men more there, so that the work can be done faster than at present. It would be a great convenience.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It certainly would be desirable if some better arrangement were made for the swinging. That matter is now' under consideration.
North channel and dam, $64,000.


John Dowsley Reid: 
John Dowsley Reid: Where is this work 7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Between Prescott and Coteau Landing. Except for some surveys made by our own officers, no part of the work has yet been done.


John Dowsley Reid: In former days the steamer ' Alert ' was used for this work, and there is no better steamer on the river for that purpose. I think that the government might very well use the [DOT] Alert ' for the sweeping of the channel. No doubt she would come in very useful but she would be hardly adapted for the purpose mentioned by the acting minister. I quite understand that next year she can be employed very usefully in doing something of this kind and save the expense that would unquestionably be caused by employing another steamer. The hon. minister might use her for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is one of the services in which the boat might usefully be employed.
(Welland canal, to provide electric light plant, $44,000.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Is this being done by contract and has the contract been let ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will be done but the work is not yet commenced. We propose to take in this item $55,000 but we have asked in the supplementary estimates a further sum of $45,000, making the estimated cost of the whole undertaking $100,000 which we believe will furnish a complete electric light plant for the whole canal. This estimate is made on the report of an electrical engineer. We expect the work will be done by contract.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Has the contract yet been let ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will it be completed in time for use this season ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid it is too much to expect it for this season.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is not a kind of work that will take a great deal of time to install.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would not take a very long time but it is hardly probable that it would be done this season. It will be done probably during the winter

and will be ready In time for tlie opening of navigation next spring.


John Dowsley Reid: I would ask the hon. minister if there is any possibility of placing an electric light plant on the Iroquois and Cardinal section of the St. Lawrence canals at the present time. The Lacliine canal, the Soulanges canal and the Cornwall canal all have electric light plants and 1 see by the supplementary estimates that the Farran's point canal is to have an acetylene gas plant installed on it, although I understand the electric light is best. When this is done the only canal which will have no lighting system at all will be this Iroquois and Cardinal section and I think that it is absolutelv necessary, especially that at the head of the canal where the boats are coming in and out, that there should be good light.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No doubt the hon. gentleman is correct in the suggestion that an electric light system would be the better and I have no doubt that we will gradually introduce electric light on all the canals. In some instances we will be able to make arrangements with neighbouring towns having electric light plants to supply the light and in others we will have to establish our own plants, but the aim of the department is to have the electric light system generally employed upon the canals.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not a fact that when this plant is placed on the Welland canal, every canal will have an electric light plant from the Lacliine to the Welland except the two I have mentioned ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The [DOT]Welland canal is lighted by gas at present.


John Dowsley Reid: When this is done will not every canal have electric light except this one stretch to which I have referred ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am told that the Rapide Plat and Galops canal have no electric light. Of course the Iroquois and Galops are interchangeable terms. The Farran's point canal is being lighted by gas. The Rapide Plat has no electric light. However, there is no doubt that the electric light system is very useful and that it will be applied generally.


John Dowsley Reid: These two stretches which are on the Morrisburg section are the only two not lighted by electricity. There are electric light plants in each place, the electric light system could be installed at verv little cost and there is no doubt that it would be of great benefit to the maritime men. It could be done quite easily and it would complete the whole system.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will have to consider it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it the intention of the government to purchase the electrical 404*
energy necessary for the lighting of the Welland canal from one of the several electric light producers in the neighbourhood ? Is it the intention of the government to produce its own electricity or to purchase or lease from one of the companies that are in the locality ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This estimate is for the plant, but it contemplates obtaining the power to supply that plant from one of the companies in the vicinity.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The contract has not been let to anyone ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Nor have tenders been called for V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. nothing has been done.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the lighting of all these canals done by contract, that is the installation of the plant ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it has been done by tender and contract generally.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the cost per annum of lighting the Coteau, Lacliine and Cornwall canals ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will get that statement for the hon. gentleman;
I have not it at hand. I will try at a later stage during the consideration of the supplementary estimates to furnish the information.
To remove obstruction and make other improvements, $173,600.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What obstruction is this V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to deepen the rock cut at Ramy's point, the only shallow rock cutting left in the canal, which is the cause of considerable trouble in times of low water.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it expected that that will cost $217,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is to cost only $5,000. In addition to that there are the votes.
To remove the centre pier ot three bridges on the long level and to rebuild the bridges at Welland, Quaker and Port Robinson, estimated cost, $130,000. .
To build new weir at Allanburg, estimated cost, $10,000.
Spillway old lock No. 2, $2,000.
This makes the total estimate of $217,000.
Improvements, Port Colborne entrance, $240,000.


John Dowsley Reid: What depth of water will there be when this is done ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Sixteen feet.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that include the building of an elevator at Port Col-borne ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, we are asking an estimate in the supplement-aries to build elevator foundations on the two piers with a view to making some arrangement at once with some of the transportation companies for the erection of elevators. We propose to put in the foundations immediately, that is to ask the appropriation at once.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will this complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This will not finish it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much is it going to cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total cost of the improvements at the entrance of Port Colborne is fixed at $1,067,856. It would take another year to finish them.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the government intend deepening and enlarging the Welland canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is work for the deepening of the canal at several places where it was found the water was becoming low.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is no intention to make it permanently deeper, generally speaking ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not generally.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the hon. minister any statement showing whether there has been any increase of the tonnage through the Welland canal on account of taking off the canal tolls ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not particular figures, but there has been a considerable increase in the canals generally.
To deepen portion of summit level between Port Colborne and Tborold, $40,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That deepening already done has proved of great benefit. It will have to be continued until the very shallow portions are deepened. This work is necessitated by the fluctuations in the level of Lake Erie, and is intended to provide 14 feet navigation at all stages of low water.
Lachine canal-enlargement and improvements, pontoon gates, $116,800; slope walls, $17,600.
Mr. REID- (Grenville). Who has the contract ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has not been let, but will be by public tender.


William Stevens Fielding: 


John Dowsley Reid: Does this dry-dock at Montreal come under the Railway Department ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: What reutal does the government get ?
The MINISTER OB'1 FINANCE. It is under lease, and I will bring down a statement.
Lake St. Louis-Hydrographic survey, sweeping channel, removing boulders, )c., $6,280.


John Dowsley Reid: Has this work been transferred to the Marine Department?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The lighting has been. The Railway Department still has the hydrographic survey.
Sault Ste. Marie canal-construction, $75,200.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for extending the lower entrance and deepening it, and also deepening and widening the upper entrance.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.
Rideau canal-to rebuild swing bridge across the upper lock at Hog's Back (steel span), $2,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was an old wooden bridge there, over twenty years old which requires to be rebuilt.


Mr. CLANCY.: What is the total cost for rebuilding it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Two thousand five hundred dollars will complete the whole work.
Welland canal-stone protection to banks of old canal, $4,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would ask the hon. minister if he would give consideration to the principle on which the government are to lease the water-powers of the old Welland canal? The old canal is not used for navigation. But there is a lot of valuable water-power on that canal, some of which is leased to manufacturers, and more may be leased in future. I think it would be in the interest of the country if the government had some stated scale of prices, so that those intending to go into the business of manufacturing and in a position to use this water-power, might be able to calculate on a certain scale of expenditure for power. If this canal were in the hands of a privatie corporation, of course it would be managed in that way. As matters are managed by the government in regard to this canal, those who think of locating on the canal are not able to know exactly what they will be called upon to pay. I do not wish to take up time discussing the point, but I. would urge upon the minister to look into this matter. Or if he has looked into it and can tell me now what the policy of the gov-

eminent is in regard to it, I would be glad to have him explain.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know whether it will be found expedient to have a fixed scale. Certainly, there is none now. Still, no doubt, the matter is worthy of consideration. We are receiving better rates for water-power notv than we did some years ago, but fixed rates might not be advantageous under the varying conditions. For example, we are generally disposed to give power to municipalities for their own purposes on more generous terms than those on which we give it to private parties. The mattter will receive consideration.
Welland canal-to change valves and hanging gear of new lock gates, $12,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What changes are these ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This expenditure is to change the Townsend valve, which never was satisfactory, as it is complicated and frequently out of repair and slow to operate. It is to be replaced with the Butterfly valve. The $15,000 asked for will complete the work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is it proposed to make the change all through the canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
Welland canal-to survey and delimit government lands along the canal, $1,600.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is a small item; still, I would like some explanation.


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The canal boundaries along the old and new canals are very indefinite in many cases and require re-marking. A complete plan of the canal is needed to show the government's property and leaseholds.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not understand in what way the boundaries are indefinite. I never heard that we had any difficulty in ascertaining which was private property or the boundaries between the lands of private owners. I thought the lines were pretty well ascertained. They are magnetic bearings, and that ought to be sufficient.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a considerable quantity of land under leasehold, and it is deemed desirable by the officials of the department that the boundaries may be marked with stone monuments, as in the case of the Lachine canal.
Welland canal-to improve drainage along feeder, $1,200.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the bon. minister know what part of the feeder this is ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This amount is required for cleaning and improving back ditches in order that land may be properly drained, and so avoid complaints of land owners with regard to drainage of their lands.
Lachine canal-to renew masonry wall basin No. 2, $5,600.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to renew and rebuild the old locks 1 and 2, Montreal. They are falling into decay.


John Dowsley Reid: I see a lot of work going on there. Will this expenditure complete it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. The work has been going on for some time.


John Dowsley Reid: Who are the contractors ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Coul-son, Quinlan & Robertson.


John Dowsley Reid: Was this let by tender ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
Chambly canal-electric station by-wash, Ste. TherSse. $4,800.	.


Robert Laird Borden: What is a bywash ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This sum is to be used to provide^ for rebuilding by-wash at Ste. TherSse and at electric power station for lighting the canal and furnishing power for the work shop. It is estimated for each by-wash, $3,000. The work will be done in concrete.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is a by-wash ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I heard the question asked before, but I was doing my best to dodge it by pretending that I did not hear. But my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) compels me to admit that I do not know what a by-wash is. The chief engineer tells me that it is something to let the water out.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How does it work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sorry that I must acknowledge ignorance.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well, I am in the same position.
Chambly canal-macadamizing tow path, $6,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the minister macadamize the tow-path on the Iroquois and Galops section of the canal ? This canal has been built, and it is all clay.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a highway, this is a regular traffic road.


James Clancy: In that case, it is being done for the municipality.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is claimed we' have spoiled the road and we must make it good.


James Clancy: Spoiled the road by using this tow-path. There are no wheels going over it by reason of its being a tow-path.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a general public highway.


James Clancy: The minister said the road -was spoiled by reason of our rising it as a tow-path. Is that by reason of hauling heavy loads over it in vehicles ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The
chief engineer informs me that we used their highway, and we are practically replacing it In this way.


James Clancy: I understood the hon. gentleman to say a moment ago that we had spoiled the road and this was done to repair it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We
spoiled it by taking possession of their road, and we are now giving them this one.


James Clancy: This is not the same road, then ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are allowing them to use our tow-path as their highway, inasmuch as we took possession of their road.


James Clancy: Does the municipality contribute anything towards this work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. The department thought tlhat inasmuch as we had taken possession of their highway we should give them a substitute therefor. We give them the right to use the tow-path, and we macadamize it for them.


James Clancy: Was it used in common before ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It was used as a highway until we damaged it or destroyed it.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand how it was that we took possession of and destroyed their own road.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The damage to the road took place years ago, when the department used a portion of it. That was macadamized before, and we are now adding to the macadamized portion. That is the explanation of the department. It is not so clear as I would like it myself.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How many miles of this road are macadamized 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Three miles, at $2,500 per mile.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course it may be all right, but I think we ought to have a little more information about it. We ought to know why so many years have elapsed without doing this. It is perfectly plain, I should think, that if you took a highway belonging to the municipality you should either put it back in the same condition, or give them another one. But I do not see that there is any obligation On the government to keep it macadamized. We have discharged our duty by giving the municipality another road in the same condition.


William Stevens Fielding: 


John Dowsley Reid: We had a case in Cardinal where the government took the whole road, by the route of the canal, and it was absolutely necessary to make a new road. In that case it was macadamized.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The information is not as complete as I would like to have it, and I will let the item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
At six o'clock, Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Chambly canal-land damages, $400.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item is not correctly expressed. It is not actually for land damages, but for a wall to prevent land damages. I therefore beg to move :
That the words ' land damages ' he struck out and that the words ' wall to prevent land damages ' be substituted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Dowsley Reid: Who owns the land ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot tell the hon. gentleman.


John Dowsley Reid: It is understood that the item just before that one shall be allowed to stand ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Mr. MONK.: Is this to begin a wall or to cover the whole work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: To cover the whole work.
St. Ours lock-stop	logs,	$800.The	MINISTER	OF	FINANCE.	This
is to renew the stop logs which are at present decayed.
Landing wharfs, $1,280.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the cost of the landing wharfs ?
The	MINISTER	OF	FINANCE.	The
item for landing wharfs amounts to $1,600. It is proposed to replace the present wooden wharfs with concrete piers and iron and wooden superstructures, which will make it a permanent work.


John Dowsley Reid: Are these wharfs owned by the government ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Mr. FOWLER.: Is that the total cost '!
The	MINISTER	OF	FINANCE.	When
these estimates were prepared, some time ago, only a small appropriation was asked for this work, but since then it has been represented that we will have to engage in a much larger amount of work. It is almost a pity that this item is taken at all, because we will have to ask for a further

amount. X see that there is an appropriation in the supplementary estimates for $4,400, which will have to be added to this. The figures I have in regard to the item are not satisfactory, and I will have to ask it to stand.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not aware that there is any wharf at St. Ours excepting the wharf of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company. There is no government wharf at that point. If it is contemplated to build a new wharf there, when the item comes up, will the hon. minister have a little more information as to where that wharf is to be ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. It is represented here to be a government wharf.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think there is a government wharf there.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will let the item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Carillon and Grenville canal, $18,400.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to construct a guide pier at the entrance of the canal and to renew the wharf at Grenville. The wharf or pier has been built twenty-one years, and the part above water is urgently in need of being renewed. It is proposed to substitute concrete for crib-work. The estimate is $23,200, and we are asking in this vote for $23,000.


William Rees Brock: In spending this $23,000 I hope the minister is keeping in mind, that before very long we will have the Ottawa ship canal built, and tha't this lock should be made of a capacity to suit that canal. This wooden pier having lasted for twenty years;
I suppose this new one will last for one hundred years, so the government ought to take into consideration that in five or six years perhaps, it may have to be utilized for the Georgian bay canal. Will the minister put that consideration before the transportation commission ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The commission will have a free hand.


William Rees Brock: If you build these walls and spend money, the commission will not have a free hand except to tear them down again.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this a new work V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is an old work which is being reconstructed.


John Dowsley Reid: Will it be let by public tender ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is under contract now to Messrs. Martineau and I.emoine. It was let by tender and the lowest was accepted.


John Dowsley Reid: When was the work commenced '!


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It began last year.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the first vote.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, there was an appropriation of $10,000 last year.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not shown in the estimates, and there do not seem to be any details regarding it in the Auditor General's Report.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is evidently a printer's error in the estimates. The actual expenditure last year was $9,-77(5.53.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this contract given for a lump sum V The MINISTER OF FINANCE. The contract is for the' whole work on schedule prices. The total estimate for the work was $00,000. I should have said that the work commenced in 1901, and that it has been going on since that time.


John Dowsley Reid: Then it should be referred to in the Auditor General's Report.
The MINISTER CfF FINANCE. It ought. There was an expenditure in the year ending June 1902, of $16,998.


John Dowsley Reid: Why should a comparatively small work like this take five or six years to complete ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As a matter of fact it is only two years under construction, but a good part of the work can only be done when the water is out of the canal in the spring.


John Dowsley Reid: Could it not be done in winter ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
John Dowsley Reid: It certainly is.
Miscellaneous-miscellaneous works not provided for, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These items are the usual votes.
Salaries of engineers, draftsmen, extra clerks and messengers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $23,200.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This difference is accounted for by several increases given to various persons.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood that all of these engineers, draftsmen and clerks were paid out of the appropriation for any special work. For instance that the engineers and draftsmen on a canal or a particular piece of railway weie paid out of the estimate for that particular work.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: These are officers on the headquarters staff, and that does not apply to them.


John Dowsley Reid: That is in Ottawa?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: And they do not come under any Qther vote, do they ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: No.
Cost of litigation in connection with railways and canals. $4,800.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: These are costs which are incurred by the department in disputes which may arise in any part of the country which are taxed by the Justice Department, and then charged against the Department of Railways and Canals.	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to make an appeal to the acting Minister of Railways and to the Minister of Justice on behalf of a gentleman, a clergyman, residing in the village of Cardinal, who had a claim against the government for damages to his property. The case was tried in the Exchequer Court, and judgment for, I think, $1,200 was given in his favour. I understand the government are disputing his case in the Supreme Court.* The appeal to the Supreme Court is, in the opinion of a great many people, very very hard, as the gentleman is not a man of means. I would like to appeal to the hon. minister to try to see his way clear to accept the decision of the Exchequer Court and to pay this man the amount awarded to him. Could not the minister let this matter pass and give this gentleman the amount to which he is honourably entitled ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 
John Dowsley Reid: I understood from this gentleman's solicitor that this case might be settled without prejudicing the other cases to which reference has been made.


John Dowsley Reid: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That statement -was made by the solicitor of the reverend gentleman, but after considering the matter thoroughly I concluded that the interests of the government would be to some extent jeopardized by settling this claim, however, as I said a moment ago in consequence of representations made by my hon. friend, the matter is being inquired into further, and an effort is being made to arrive at some settlement.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am frequently asked by the electorate to explain on what principle these law costs are paid, and I would like to know from either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice if they can tell me in what way this money is expended. Of course, I can tell at a glance that the amount being only $6,000, this cannot be more than the amount paid for the services of outside lawyers, and I therefore ask in what way business is given by the department to outside lawyers. I suppose that most of this money goes in counsel and solicitors' fees, and as it is a small amount in comparison to the amount of litigation every year, it is evident that some work must be done in the Railway Department and in the Department of Justice, where we know they have able lawyers engaged. As the electors frequently ask me and as I am unable to state on what principle the government act in having this business done by solicitors who are not permanent employees of the department, I would be glad if one of the minister's would give me as much information as possible on the subject.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Of course there is a law branch in the Railway Department, but in all matters of great importance we consult the Department of Justice. A good deal of the money is paid outside of Ottawa where it is necessary to obtain legal services. For instance very recently we had to send a representative over to the state of New York to interest himself in a very important matter with regard to the Galops dam, a part of which rests upon American territory. Occasions of that kind sometimes arise.


John Dowsley Reid: I see that you employed as a medical man, Dr. T. C. Ga-boury, to act as attorney in re Lafleur et al.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That was a case of land damages, and Dr. Gaboury, who lives in the locality, was employed specially to go about and settle claims so as to avoid lawsuits. He was not employed as attorney at law but as agent, with power of attorney to act for the government.


Mr. BENNETT.: In a certain case of Stewart against the King, over $2,000 were paid Blake, Lash & Cassells for fees. Were they acting for the government ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, this was an unfortunate ease which arose out of Stewarts quarry on the Soulanges canal. It went to the Exchequer and the Supreme Courts and we succeeded in getting the claim reduced by a very large amount.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was the Deputy Minister of Justice associated with Mr. Blake ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, not in that case. A conflict had arisen between himself and Mr. Stewart, and it was alleged at one time that Mr. Newcombe had shown personal hostility to Mr. Stewart, and we thought it was well to allow the matter to remain in the hands of a third party.


William Humphrey Bennett: Did the Solicitor General act ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, none of the officials of the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was there a junior counsel ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, a man named Lawior, who was connected with the case at the locality where the work was dome.


William Humphrey Bennett: He drew $1,500 in connection with this case. $3,500 were paid out in law fees by the department in this matter although we have the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and the Solicitor General, and one of the pledges made by the hon. gentlemen when in opposition was that the law costs would be very much reduced. Are they decreasing or increasing ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The business of the country in litigation, as in other respects, has increased very considerably, but with respect to law costs there has been a gratifying decrease. When I was Solicitor General, I appeared in almost every case for the Grown, which I could attend to personally, and my friend the deputy minister has appeared to such an extent that it is a grievance to the bar at large that he is employed too frequently. As far as I am personally concerned, it is looked upon as improper for me to go to court, although my desire is to appear as frequently as possible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this six thousand dollars more than the amount paid last year for law costs ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not the figures paid last year. But the preceding year the expenditure was close upon the $0,000. This has been the annual vote for several years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before 1896, one of the great grievances in the province of Quebec was that there was the amount of money spent on law costs despite the fact that we had a perfectly organized Department of Justice. I recognize the propriety of what the Minister of Justice has said with regard to his
not appearing in every case in which the Crown is concerned, but it seems to me that that reason existed before 1896 as well as to-day. Very far from decreasing, the amount we expend in law costs has increased considerably. Last year over $87,000 were paid to legal gentlemen, and I notice that friends of the government were employed exclusively. Whether it be that they are better versed in the law than Conservatives I cannot say, but out of that $87,000 only $5 were paid to a Conservative, a lawyer in Montreal. I shall not go as far as my hon. friends opposite did in 1896, when they utterly condemned the late government because it spent a much smaller amount under this head, but $87,000 paid out in law costs during the year appears to be a very large amount, and we are justified in asking if this $6,000 is over and above the $87,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is part of the $87,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think so. I think that $6,000 is over and above the $87,000 paid last year, and I have no doubt the amount will be considerably increased this year. In that connection I would ask the minister to give us the names of the parties [DOT]to whom this $6,000 was paid last year.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) must not be alarmed at the magnitude of the costs last year, for, after all, $87,000 is but a small sum compared with the $116,000 paid in 1896.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not as much as that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Just as much as that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I contradict my hon. friend.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And in 1897 the sum was still larger, because we had to clean up the old accounts. If my hon. friend will bring this up on the supplementary estimates, I will give him the facts and show the decrease in these costs, although the business has increased. When I speak of costs, I mean solicitors' fees. Seventy-five per cent of the solicitors' work that used to be done outside exclusively is now done in the department. The enormous fees, amounting to as much as $18,000 paid in one year to a firm in Ottawa- and running each year from $15,000 to $18,000-are not seen any more. My hon. friend says that we limit ourselves to our political friends in the distribution of this patronage. Of course, other things equal, he would not blame us for preferring our friends. But if he will look at the items of expenditure, he will see the names of a good many gentlemen who do not belong to the Liberal party.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Precious few.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: A good many, and some of the largest items. And

1291G
my hon. friends behind me are constantly reminding me that there are too many of these names. I have to stand the assaults of hon. gentlemen opposite and of those on this side, too. I think I will have to get my back to the wall


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Or take to the woods.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not sure that the grievance is not on this side.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This subject was such a constant theme of discussion in the province of Quebec before 1S96 that my memory of it is thoroughly good. We were told on the platform that we were actually keeping alive a number of these dangerous people called lawyers, and I recollect that tbe sum we were said to have spent was much smaller than $116,000 mentioned by my hon. friend. But, if it was wrong then-and that is the point I wish to make-to carry on these expenditures, if it was a scandal then to spend the money of the people in maintaining lawyers when it should be devoted to public improvement, why is it right now ? We have a long list in the Auditor General's Report, making up a total of $37,941.53 paid to lawyers. Here is one lonely Conservative lawyer in Montreal, who, probably, had a claim against the government which they could not dispute, and he received $5. This list appears at B-27-28 of the Auditor General's Report. Messrs. Blake, Lash & Cassels, of Toronto, received $4,030. I notice that Mr. F. C. Wade, of Dawson City, was paid the trifling sum of $7,768. Evidently there are many disputable matters arising in Charlottetown, because there are lawyers there who have drawn considerable sums of money. Charlottetown seems to be prolific of government litigation.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In connection with the new branch railway.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That may be correct. Mr. Congdon, of Dawson , received $2,476; Messrs. McCarthy, Osier, &c., Toronto, $3,000. Mr. McKenzie, of Macleod, defended the government, and was rewarded with $1,089. Then a patriotic gentleman in Edmonton, by the name of C. de W. MacDotn aid, received $2,280 ; Messrs. Langley & Martin, Victoria, $1,842 ; Messrs. Lafleur, Mc-Dougal & McKay, Montreal, $1,822 ; T. C. Johnston, Regina, bore up against the enemy and received $1,456. Mr. W. B. Ross, of Halifax-I suppose, not a relative of my hon. friend from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) -was paid $4,524. Hon. A. Peters, Victoria, received $1,750. My friend Mr. Gouin, the provincial minister, andother provincial politicians, received a share. Mr. Cloran, now a senator, got something also, but not so much as many others.


Edward Cochrane: Was that after he was appointed senator ?


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No. If the custom which the hon. gentlemen opposite so violently condemned is to be kept up, I would suggest to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) that there are in Montreal, and no doubt elsewhere, competent lawyers of a Conservative faith, and that he ought to divide this patronage between the parties.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: How:
many of us got a chance previous to 1896, except when we came with our guns after the enemy ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But my hon. friend knows the golden rule.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Justice says that the payment of amounts to legal gentlemen in Ottawa has been done away with.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Not done away with, but the amounts largely decreased.


John Dowsley Reid: Quite a large amount was paid to one firm-several thousand dollars.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Chrysler & Bethune, I suppose, the hon. gentleman refers to. But the amount was not $18,000 or anything like it.


John Dowsley Reid: I see that Hon. A. S. White was paid $2,375 for drafting the Railway Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman does not hold me responsible for that ?


John Dowsley Reid: Surely that work could have been done in the department. And in comparing amounts spent by this government and the previous government for legal fees in Ottawa this amount should not be overlooked.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do I understand the Minister of Justice to say that all the law costs paid by the different departments are summarized under the Justice Department ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The practice is that when an account is rendered for professional services for any department the account goes to the Department of Justice ; we tax it, and then it goes to the particular department that is charged with the case and that department pays it. But it is all under the head of legal expenses, and legal expenses are all summarized on page 327.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this account of Chrysler & Bethune on page W-54 of the Auditor General's Report, $615-is that included hi the summary ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That would appear to be an item in connection with the arbitration in the case of Mackenzie & Mann vs. The King, the judge of the Exchequer Court acting in that matter.



John Dowsley Reid: Is there any regular fees that we pay solicitors ? That some are paid at the rate of $25 per day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The amount varies. Some receive $100 a day ; but the regular agents of the department, those who do solicitor's work for us in different parts of the country, are supposed to receive $25 a day. But when you come to employ counsel they charge much higher. Christopher Robinson, for instance, who acts for the department occasionally, Mr. Sam Blake, and Mr. Ayleswortli. get $100 a day. There are others who get smaller fees, varying from $25 to $100 a day.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case of the Hon. A. S. White, we are entitled to some explanation why the department had to send so far to get a gentleman to draft this Railway Act. I should think that required some gentleman with exceptional ability. But when he is only paid $25 a day, it would seem to indicate that he was not considered a light in the legal profession.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The drafting of the Railway Bill required to be done by a specialist. In the Department of Justice our hands are very full, and none of us would assume the responsibility of drafting an important Bill of that sort. There might be gentlemen in Ottawa capable of doing it, but it is not unusual to take professional men elsewhere. For instance, the Manitoba School Bill was prepared by a gentleman who came to Ottawa from Winnipeg for that purpose.


John Dowsley Reid: In that case it was the province of Manitoba who was interested, and therefore it was proper to send for a gentleman from Winnipeg.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He was paid by the government, though.


John Dowsley Reid: That may be, but inasmuch as it was the Manitoba people who were interested, it was perfectly right to employ a gentleman from Manitoba where the Act was to be enforced.


Edward Cochrane: I do not think the Minister of Justice is doing justice to himself in his explanations with regard to the legal expenses. It is a very flimsy excuse for him to make, when he is challenged in connection with the expenditure of public money, and in failing to employ local talent, to say that the old government did the same thing. He might do something and be perfectly conscientious in doing it, but when the Minister of Justice sees fit to condemn something that we did, and when he does the same thing, I think he is a doubleqlyed hyprocrite to pretend to say that he was justified because we did it. Where is your Solicitor General now ? Where was he all this time ?	_


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: During part of the time that these expenditures were being incurred the Solicitor General was busily engaged in the Supreme Court and in the Exchequer Court. I happened to be Solicitor General myself at that time. The present Solicitor General is now abseut attending Exchequer Court cases that are being tried in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. He was away during the past summer attending the Privy Council in England ou government business. I may add to that, and I make the statement in all seriousness, that in my opinion it is in the interest of the government, and it. is desirable, to concentrate as much as possible the litigation of the government in the hands of the Department of Justice. It has been my desire to do that, and I venture to say that seventy-five per cent of all the litigation in matters that are now pending, is controlled in the Department of Justice here. The solicitor's work is done by the Deputy Minister of Justice and it is only when it is necessary to engage counsel outside that we engage them. I would like to go fuiv ther and say that it is impossible, when you have cases from Halifax to Vancouver, and when local knowledge is necessary, when vou want a local solicitor who knows local conditions, I say it is impossible for all that work to be done here, and it is m the interest of the government that local men should be employed. Still, it is made a grievance against the government that we keep too much of the work in our own hands.


Mr COCHRANE.: I sympathize with the Minister of Justice. I understand how his followers are very hungry to get their share of what is going. But that does not justify him in doing what he condemned when we were in power.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: You did not do any of the legal work.


Edward Cochrane: That is rather a sweeping assertion, as I think the Minister of Justice will And if he looks over the Auditor General's Report.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, I know what was done in the department.


Edward Cochrane: But I was not inquiring where the Solicitor General was now, I was not finding any fault that he was not doing his duty. I was only pointing out that when we are paying these enormous fees for legal counsel, it seems to me the Department of Justice might do some of that work themselves. If litigation is increasing so fast, that shows the government must be at fault ; they must be doing business very loosely, or they would not have so much litigation. They canribt be a business government as we have been led to believe they are or they would do the business in such a way that they would not have so much law.


John Dowsley Reid: I can see where the seriousness of this legal business comes in. It might be well to have two or three very able gentlemen connected with the Department of Justice to look after the government's interest at the courts which are held. It is a well known fact that when a case is tried in the court the hon. Minister of Justice employs a local solicitor to take charge of the case in the interest of the government. I think I can safely say that in many cases the solicitor employed is not generally the ablest solicitor in the locality and is not able to cope with the gentlemen who are employed in opposition to the-government. If this were all centered in the department at Ottawa and gentlemen of ability were employed to plead the case on behalf of the government I think it would pay the government better even to pay the local solicitors the amounts that they receive now, because, I believe in a great many cases, the judgments rendered against them would not be rendered if the government employed men of ability to plead their cases.
I know of cases in which men have been employed on behalf of the government that I would not have employed on my own behalf and I say that without saying anything disrespectful to these gentlemen. I knew the men who were employed on the other side and I knew that those employed on behalf of the government were not able to cope with the situation. I believe that two or three men should be employed to do nothing else but plead the cases of the government. Of course, it might be necessary to have the assistance of a local solicitor to get up the brief. At present the government do not send any person to do that. They allow the local solicitor to go ahead and carry on the case and in nine cases out of ten judgment is rendered against the government.	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not a fact that in nine cases out of ten judgment is rendered against the government, whereas it would be rendered in favour of the government if they employed men of the ability of those whose names 'have been mentioned, such as Mr. Christopher Robinson, Mr. Ayles-worth and men of that calibre ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know about the local cases. Perhaps my hon. friend may be correct because I suppose he would not speak without knowledge, but I can tell him in reference to the cases that I have personal knowledge of that you can go to the Supreme Court and find that 75 per cent of the cases have been successfully contested by the government.


John Dowsley Reid: In the Supreme Court.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The government have generally turned the other i side down pretty successfully.	I '


Edward Cochrane: e Mr. REID (Grenville). The gentlemen s who have looked after the interest of the e government in the Supreme Court are gene tiemen like Mr. Ayleswortli and Mr. Robin-e son.
! The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. Not al-![DOT] ways ; there are others.
3 Mr. CLANCY. I would like to ask the i hon. minister if Mr. Lawlor was employed t in any other cases beside that of Stewart t vs. the Crown.
r
, The MINISTER OF JUSTICE. I think . that was the only case he was in.
1 Mr. CLANCY. I see that the following ' sum was paid to Mr. Lawlor.
Advances on account of services and expen, ses. November 15, 1901, $500 ; March 26th, 1902,
; $1,000-$1,500.	[DOT]
Is that the whole sum paid to Mr. Lawlor ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not . remember that he was engaged in any other case but the Stewart case. In that case his fees were fairly large and then there were considerable travelling expenses because he had to prepare the whole case which was a very complicated and difficult one. The amount involved was exceedingly large and on the other hand we had against us Mr. B. B. Osier, Q.C. assisted I think by Mr. Hogg and another legal gentleman in this city. On our side we had Mr. Blake and Mr. Lawlor. In the result the government did not fare very badly because we had the amount of the claim reduced from over $70,000 to something in the vicinity of $28,000.


James Clancy: What was the result of this case of Battle vs. the Crown ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not remember the details of that case, but I think the case never'went to judgment. I think the case was compromised and as a result of the compromise a very large reduction was made in the claim. '


James Clancy: I see here that a lawyer was employed, Mr. C. B. Smith and that'an engineer was also employed at $25 a day and travelling expenses. I see also that a gentleman named Mr. P. A. Peterson was employed and that there was a large amount of cost in the case.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It was in connection with the arbitration that Mr. Peterson was employed, was it not ?
Canals - repairs and operating expenses. $585,540.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is an increase of $54,216. We would like to know what this is for ?	'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The increases on the Cornwall canal amount to $5,270, and the decrease to $2,264. leaving

a net increase of $3,000. I have the details of the increased cost of the services on each of the canals here. While the total increase of $54,000 is in one sense considerable, yet it is a very small percentage of the aggregate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I understand that the minister is not providing for an increase in the salaries of the lock tenders on the Welland canal. If that be the case, I want to put in a word for them, because I believe they are the most underpaid men in the services of the government; too much underpaid in fact, to enable them to render proper and efficient service. We have heard a lot of the prosperity of the country and the increased cost of living, and while I do not object to increasing the salary of a civil servant who gets $2,000 a year, if the increased cost of living requires it; yet, I think we begin at the wrong end, when we leave the men who are only getting $400 a year out in the cold. These men who receive small pay, feel the cost of living much more than the gentlemen who get high salaries. I would remind the minister that several petitions have been sent here from the Welland canal employees, urging on the government that they are justly entitled to an increased wage. As these employees cannot come to the House themselves, and as they are my constituents, and whether they voted for me or not, are entitled to justice, and, as I am the only person who can represent them on the floor of the House, I want to impress upon the government some reasons why these men should get an increase of joay. To commence with, they are getting exactly the same pay as they got twenty-five years ago and we all know that $400 does not buy as much today in the Niagara district, at all events, as it could buy a quarter of a century ago. Other employees than the lockmen on the Welland canal have had their wages increased. I do not believe that the carpenters are paid as much as they ought to be. They get less wages than are paid by contractors, and they get less than the union scale in St. Catharines, Merritton and other places along the canal. I believe that this government can afford to pay its servants just as much as any private contractor pays them. It is a poor government if it can not. While saying that, I must add that the carpenters and labourers have had their position improved during the past fifteen years, by shortening their hours as well as increasing their pay. The labourers on the Welland canal get $1.50 for nine hour's work, which is 10 2-3 cents an hour, but the lock tenders, who require to be more skilful men, get $45 a month for a day of twelve hours, which is only 14^ cents per hour. The lock tender at $45 per month can only get about eight month's employment in the year, and the minister can see what that figures down to. I do not think it is in the interests of the country that these men should be kept at such low wages, while
civil servants in Ottawa who get five times their pay, have had their salaries raised because of the increased cost of living. The lockmen must be sober and steady men; their eyesight and their hearing must be good, and they must be trustworthy. To pay men of that class $45 a month for eight months in the year is penurious, is mean and is stingy. My remarks will apply to the bridge tenders as well. Let me point out also that the government have now made the canals free, no doubt with the object of getting more vessels to pass through them, and that being the case, it must necessarily increase the work of the employees to whom I refer. These men, when they are at work, have to work extremely hard, and their calling is only made comparatively easy because of the fact that many vessels may not lock through in quick'succession. I can assure the minister that if he lived on the Welland canal and saw those men at work he would come to the conclusion that they have no easy job of it. The fact remains then, that the pay of these men has not been increased for twenty-five years, and as you have lately adopted a policy which increases their work, they, therefore have a double claim to the consideration of the government: first, because of the increased cost of living; and second, because the canals having been made free, their duties will be largely augmented. The matter I suppose will receive the attention of the government; but I am bound to say that I do not think that the ordinary justice is being done these men which they have a right to expect. If we are to err at all on the side of liberality it should be in regard to the $300 or $400 men and not the $1,500 or $2,000 men. You talk about the increased cost of living and increase the salaries of the judges who are receiving $5,000 or $0,000. I am not objecting to that, I am in favour of increasing the salaries of county court judges particularly, but while I am Th favour of increasing the salaries of county court judges, we must remember that they get from $2,400 to $3,000, and I am that much more in favour of increasing the salary of the man who gets $300 or $400 and has to support a wife and children. If we are to err on the side of liberality let us begin with the poor man to whom $25 is a great deal and not with those who receive much larger stipends. The lock tender on the Welland canal gets $45 a month. If you multiply that by eight you get his annual income, or less than $400 because a man who is working on the canal cannot expect to obtain employment in the winter months. If he is working for the government during the summer he is not the subject of much commiseration and people naturally give the preference to the men whom they want to work for them in summer so that practically the income of these men for the whole year is simply the $45 a month which they get for eight months

of the year. It is sometimes said that it does not take much of a man to be a civil servant. That ought not to be the case and I do not think it is. I think we should have the best men in the country as civil servants, and I say that you cannot retain good lock tenders unless you pay more than $45 a month. Many of these men have become accustomed to this work and I think in all fairness they should have an increase. I would not object to a higher standard of qualification, and if the government think that some of these men should not be employed because they are not fit for the work, I would say that the proper business method would be to get rid of them and to get others but while the government are employing these men to do the work and are increasing the salaries of gentlemen in the civil service running up into the thousands, I think they are making a mistake and doing an unfair thing to the workman in not increasing his salary. The government shonld begin with the $400 men and not with the $1,500 or $2,000 men. It is not alone these men who are interested in this ; the whole shipping interest of the country is concerned in the proper tending of these locks and swing bridges. If a man is careless in looking after one of these swing bridges where a railway crosses the canal an awful loss of life and property may result and carelessness in working the locks might also result in flooding of the adjoining lauds and in great destruction. It must be remembered too that these men are on duty in twelve hour shifts night and day and the salaries which they receive are not at all fair in proportion to their work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that the workmen on the Welland canal had the good fortune to get their increase in advance of the others. I think my hon. friend must be mistaken when he said that they had received no increase for twenty-five years. I understand that complaint was made that the lock tenders on the other canals were not receiving the same pay as those on the Welland canal and that the increase had to be made to bring them up to the standard of those on. the Welland.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Welland canal lock tenders did not receive an increase.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They were getting higher pay than those on the other canals and the increase had to be made to bring the others up to the Welland standard. However, I have not had this matter brought under my consideration since I have been at the head of the department and I quite sympathize with the view that those who are receiving very low salaries should be considered. We are making the labour of these men less arduous by the use of the electric system, but that makes no difference as their time has to be considered and they are entitled to fair remuneration for their work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister says that the increase In the repairs to the canals is very slight. I would like to call his attention to the fact that last year the total paid for repairs on the Morrisburg canal, with which I am more familiar, was $13,700 and the total amount paid to the Morrisburg staff was $14,403, altogether in the neighbourhood of $28,000. At the time the Liberal party icame into power the amount expended on repairs was about $8,000 and the amount paid the staff was about $7,000, or a total of $15,000, so that the expenditure has been actually doubled. Now, there is no excuse why the repairs should be doubled. During tlie last three or four years these canals have been In the hands of the contractors, and have all been put in good order. There was no necessity for placing a dozen more men on the repair gang. I know for a fact that pressure was brought on the government from the local committee in each village, and the result was that from each and every one so many men were taken and employed on the repairs, and in addition the government put more men on the locks than were actually required. Take the locks at the head of the Galops canal, they have got an overseer there and a iockmaster as well, or more than they actually require. That is one of the reasons why the repairs staff have increased, and I think that the acting minister will also find very material increases on the other canals because I hear the same remarks about them. He will find too that in distributing the patronage, the government are very good to their friends.
I see no objection to that save in this respect that they go outside my constituency, in which this canal is situated, for supplies, and I think it is hardly fair to do so when they are not inviting public tenders. And they pay big prices when they go and give the' orders to their friends. For instance white pine timber sixteen feet long at $25 per thousand feet, and pine plank $20 per thousand feet.


William Humphrey Bennett: Knots included.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, knots included. These prices were paid to the Alexandria Wood Exporting Company of Alexandria, and if report he true, the Alexandria Wood and Export Company is the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell).


Mr. SCHELL.: The report is not true.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 see that this company received a large amount in connection with the Cornwall canal, and in connection with the Williamsburg canal it 'received $813.18. Here is Mr. Cameron of Iroquois who received $602.47. He lives along the line of the canal, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that he could have supplied all that stuff. But Mr. Stewart, the superintendent, came from the county of Glengarry, and I have not the slightest

doubt that the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) recommended him for the position, and he has returned good for-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For evil.


John Dowsley Reid: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can give no other assurance than that whatever is necessary to maintain the canal in good condition, we will have to provide, lhe mere fact that somebody supplied lumber at certain prices does not show that the lumber was too high or not needed. But my hon: friend has helped me to meet the argument of the hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) who says that the men on the canals are worked too hard. My hon. friend says that, on the contrary, there are too many men for the work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I spoke of the Welland canal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Reid) spoke of all the canals.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He does not^ know how his neighbours work on the Welland -canal.


John Dowsley Reid: I referred entirely to the Cornwall and Williamsburg canals, the only ones I know anything about. There are practically double the men on the Williamsburg canal to-day compared with [DOT]six years ago, and there is no more to do. The" canal is in first-class repair, and there is no reason why the number of men on it should be doubled. I might also draw the attention of the acting minister to the fact that there are several men who were employed *on the construction staff-I do not refer to the engineers themselves because they have do be kept on to finish their final estimates- but there are several men kept on the staff drawing their salary when the works are practically completed and their services might be very well dispensed with. There are none really necessary except the engineers and their assistants. Are those men to be continued right along indefinitely ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If I find any men employed on the canal unnecessarily, of course they will not be kept on.


John Dowsley Reid: They will be kept on unless the department takes some action, because a great many of them are members of the Liberal committee in that locality. It is on the recommendation of that committee that they were appointed and will Tie dismissed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is where my hon. friend is wrong.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 know of one Liberal committee, composed of about six men, of whom five are employed by the government. They appoint themselves each and every time and they are still on duty drawing their salary and doing no work whatever. The work is practically completed.
In the village of Curran where that work is going on, is it necessary to have any men employed around there now ? The work is practically done, there is nothing but a dredge there, and yet the staff is kept on.
1 do not refer to the engineer himself. I think that there are two or three engineers who have to be kept on to Amish the final estimates.
Mr1. SCHELL. The hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. Reid) has been kind enough to mention my name in an entirely unwarranted manner. He said that lie supposed I had recommended the present superintendent for his position. I never did anything of the kind. That gentleman was appointed before I knew anything about it. Then he said that, according to his information, the Alexandria Wood Export Company was myself. Well, I hold $1,300 stock in that company out of $18,000 paid up capital. It cannot therefore be my company. If the hon. gentleman would confine his remarks to the business before the House, instead of trying to cast a slur upon me, he would better consult his own dignity and show greater regard for the responsibility of his position as a member of parliament. If he has any objection to the prices paid that company, he is at perfect liberty to state his objections and furnish the proof. But in endeavouring to cast a slur upon me on hearsay information, which is entirely unwarranted, and the utter-lack of foundation of which he could easily have ascertained, he is certainly not injuring me or gaining any credit for himself.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 am glad that the hon. member for Glengarry repudiates the appointment of the gentleman who is super-intendant of the Williamsburg canal.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I do not repudiate it.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood from the marine men that this gentleman lived in some small village back in the county of Glengarry, and the marine men told me that they hardly believed he had ever seen a canal before. He certainly was not qualified for the position, and I am glad that the hon. member repudiates his appointment, ana thus virtually acknowledges that he is not fit for the position.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to explain. I did not repudiate the appointment, and did not insinuate that the gentleman was not fit for the position, or anything of that kind. I simply said

that I had not recommended him for thie position.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Schell) says he had nothing to do with the appointment, he does not assume responsibility and virtually says that he acknowledges that he would not agree to such a recommendation


Jacob Thomas Schell: I do not acknowledge anything of the kind.


John Dowsley Reid: So far as this is concerned, my attention was drawn to the fact that they were supplying articles along the canal, and I was told that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Schell) was largely interested in the company. The information came to me from friends of the government, who think it hardly fair that those living along the canal and trying to make an honest living, find themselves prevented from getting this business because a member of the House has used his influence to sell goods from a constituency not adjoining the canal, and at prices higher than those that people on the canal would have sold for. And the facts have been borne out to a certain extent by the statements' of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell). He states that the capital of his company is $18,000, and be has $1,300


Jacob Thomas Schell: It is not my company.
Mr. REID (Grenville), But the hon. gentleman is interested in it. I think it would be much better if he would not use his 'influence to interfere with constituents of mine. I believe that in the constituency I have the honour to represent there are gentlemen supporting the government who will supply anything that is necessary and at prices no higher than those charged by the Alexandria Wood Export Company. My main object was to draw attention to the increase. It may be very slight this year, but if the hon. gentleman will compare the expenditure with what it was in 1895 or 1896, he will see that the increase is very large. Now that his attention is drawn to it he should be able to reduce the expenditure to what it should be.


William Humphrey Bennett: When is it expected that the lift-lock at Peterborough will be in working order ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In about six weeks, I am informed.


John Dowsley Reid: Why is it necessary to have a superintendent and an overseer on the Williamsburg canal ? In former days there was only one man, and there is not more than enough work for one man. The minister will remember that Dr. Hickey, ex-M.P., was superintendent of the Williamsburg canal, and he was dismissed and Mr. Stewart appointed in bis place. In addition, there is a superintendent drawing $1,200 a year.	i


Jacob Thomas Schell: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that Mr. Rubidge does not merely the engineering work, but in a certain measure, the work of superintendence also. But, owing to his advancing years and ill-health, it was necessary to appoint some one to assist Jiim. The overseer was appointed by my predecessor, and I assume that he bad good reasons for the appointment. I know nothing to the contrary.


John Dowsley Reid: Before the present government came into office. Dr. Hickey was the superintendent, and there was a superintendent on the Cornwall canal; also Mr. Ross. The government decided to reduce expenses and dismissed these officers, and placed the whole canal under Mr. Rubidge as superintending engineer. But, after a few months they decided 1o haviel the superintendents again, and Mr. Stewart was appointed superintendent of the Williamsburg canal and Mr. Lally of the Cornwall canal. Mr. Stewart has an overseer under him at a salary of about $1,200. This kind of tiling explains the increase in expenditure on the canal. Why is an over-Scier necessary ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already given the reason. He performs a portion of the duties which were assigned to Mr. Rubidge, who still is (engineer of the work. This gentleman has been appointed with general supervision of the canal.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Stewart performs the dutiies of superintendent of these canals. He has nothing to do with Mr. Rubidge's work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Stewart's work is that of general supervision over the work. He has two overseers, each of whom has a local district.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. minister know what position Mr. Stewart occupied before he was appointed superintendent ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.
Mr. SCHElL. He was in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Montreal.


John Dowsley Reid: What were his duties ?


Jacob Thomas Schell: I do not know.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood he had been a school teacher, and at the time of his appointment was a clerk in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Montreal. Marine men are anxious to have a man appointed who is qualified for the position. If the hon. minister could hear the opinions expressed by Liberals along the canal, as well as by all marine men, it would not take him very long to make up his mind to get some person qualified for the work.


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am suspicious of the Liberals who would complain to my hon. friend (Mr. Reid, Grenville).


John Dowsley Reid: They are members of the Liberal committees in towns between Cornwall and Kingston.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They should keep better company.
Additional to pay persons employed permanently in the public service and remuneration to any other persons for services rendered for and In connection with passing vessels through the canals of the government of Canada from midnight on Saturday to midnight on Sunday, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $14,400.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the usual vote.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this for lock labourers and lock-masters, to pay them extra ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. They are paid extra when employed on Sundays.


James Clancy: Is that the sum that is expended each year, or approximately so V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not the actual expenditure of last year. It is the regular sum taken year by year.


John Dowsley Reid: Now that the canal tolls are abandoned, is it necessary to keep a collector at the head of the Cardinal canal ? There is no duty for him to perform there.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The making of the canals free, as announced at the time, was more or less experimental, and it has been thought well to keep the collectors there to keep accounts as usual, so that we may ascertain what the revenue would have been. But I think the increase of trade has been so considerable that we may look forward to adopting that policy as a permanent one.


John Dowsley Reid: Do they sign the shipping reports and make reports exactly the same as they did previously to the tolls being abandoned ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The accounts are kept in precisely the same manner.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the object of keeping a collector if there is nothing to collect7 Could not a tally of the boats passing up and down be kept just as well by some other employee on the locks ? The function of a collector is to collect money, but if it is merely a question of counting boats, cannot that be done by the lockmaster ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well the functions of a collector are not entirely to collect, that is a part of his duty. A collector is also an accountant, and it may be 405
that a man who is otherwise well qualified to be employed on the canal might not be an accountant. However, no definite policy has been adopted.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand that the government are going to carry out the policy of freeing the canals from any tolls whatever. A collector has only one duty to perform, and that is to collect tolls and to account for them to a government official who goes around from time to time and examines his books. That is what the collector does on the Lachine canal, on the St. Anne's lock, and every other canal. If you abolish the' toll what is the object of keeping, a collector ? There is no object except that you do not wish to dismiss him.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case at Cardinal, all the steamers go straight through to Montreal, and there is a collector at Cornwall and one at Lachine, and the latter gentleman could do all the work that is necessary. The collector at Cardinal would simply issue a pass and the collector at Montreal would pick it up. It seems to me it is really a useless expenditure to keep a collector. The lockmaster could keep an account of .the one or two local boats that pass up and down. I would like to know if it is the intention of the government to keep that office going ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For the present we think it is desirable to have Collectors there for statistical purposes. The lockinasters may in some cases be able to keep these statistics, but not in all cases. 1 am not prepared to say what the policy may be in future. I shall give the matter consideration, or whoever may have charge of the department will do so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is not a large item, but it seems preposterous to keep collectors of tolls after you abolish the tolls. The reason is probably because the government does not like to abolish the office. If you give as a reason for keeping the collector that it is for the purpose of collecting statistics, that can be done perfectly well by the lockmaster. I can tell the minister that there is not a lockmaster who is not able to furnish these statistics to the government, not one of them, I believe, who does not do that duty at the present moment. If these collectors are kept on, it is because the men who were collectors in 1896 were dismissed without any reason, and partisans were put in their places, and the government do not want to dismiss them, although they have abolished the tolls. So the country is put to the expense of paying collectors who have nothing to do.


John Dowsley Reid: In this case at Cardinal, the collector lives a mile and a half from the locks ; the lockmaster is the one who collects the statistics for him now. You are simply paying the collector a salary for doing nothing, at this point in particu-



lar, where the vessels go right straight through.


Edward Cochrane: Is the toll abolished on the Murray canal ?


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: On all the canals.	.


Edward Cochrane: Then I presume the collector is kept on there also ?


James Clancy: I hardly think the explanation the hon. gentleman has given is quite satisfactory. Now, the hon. gentleman has some policy on the subject, we have a right to suppose. I do not know whether he is to continue to hold his present dual position of Minister of Finance and Minister of Railways and Canals. It is difficult to say just when the government will have sufficient courage to appoint a Minister of Railways. It is currently reported that the Minister of Finance is about to give up the position that he has adorned for some years, to become Minister of Railways. If he thinks of retaining the position of acting Minister of Railways which he now holds, has he formed any policy as to what he is going to do with regard to these collectors ? Now I do not advocate the taking away of a man's position from him unnecessarily, if he is required in the public service. Even though he may not be employed all the time, I would not think it the proper thing to take his living away from him. But this is a case in which it seems, as far as the discussion has gone, that there is no necessity for it. The hon._ gentleman, looking forward to possibilities,' probably, will tell the committee what his policy is.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I must confess that I have not given any special personal attention to the matter. I am simply adhering to the policy which my predecessor established, assuming that he had good reason for it. If it be found that there are persons who do not perform any work and are still drawing salaries, I think that is a matter that should be looked into and if a case of that kind is brought to my notice I will make inquiry into it.


John Dowsley Reid: I have given the hon. minister a case to inquire info now on the Williamsburg canal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will see.	*


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Will the hon. minister say that we are going to keep on paying collectors of tolls during the whole of this year on the canals when my hon. friend is surely aware that these men will have nothing to do ? It seems to me, that, although, as indicated by my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy), my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is on the eve of assuming a different department, he would not be so indifferent to the policy of the department Mr. REID (Grenville).
which he at present occupies and it seems to me that some kind of defence ought to be given to the committee for the fact that the salaries of the different collectors of tolls on the canals are being continued although the tolls themselves are abolished. My hon. friend says that these officials are retained for the purpose of keeping the statistics, when he knows perfectly well that these statistics are kept irrespective of the collectors. We know even without the collectors exactly what traffic passes through the canals because these statistics are kept by other officials.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already stated, without undertaking to define a policy for the future that for the present it has not been thought well t^o dispense with the services of these officials and that we are utilizing them for statistical purposes. If these statistical purposes can be as well served without those officials that is a matter that I am willing to inquire into, but for the present we do not feel warranted in dispensing with the services of these men without inquiry.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What statistics ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They keep precisely the same accounts of all transactions which lake place on the canals as if they collected tolls. They keep accounts of the vessels which pass through and of what the dues would be if they were charged, so that we will have at the end of the year an idea of what the dues would have been and of what the concession is that has been made.


Edward Cochrane: Do boats have to stop and report to these officials just the same as if they collected tolls ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is ho change whatever in the manner of operating and keeping the accounts. It is the very same as if the tolls were collected.
. Mr. TAYLOR. How about the case of the collector at Cardinal who lives two miles away from the locks, and never goes near them ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I confess I cannot answer that. That is a proper subject for inquiry.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. member for Cardinal says that he never goes there. His office is at the locks, he visits his office only once in a while and draws his pay.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That we will have to look into.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there are any reports made by collectors since the tolls have been abolished.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, they are making the usual reports.


John Dowsley Reid: Would it be asking too much of the hon. minister, as he is going to bring down some information before the supplementary estimates are passed, to bring down a memorandum, showing the amount of the tolls that the collector at Cardinal would have collected from the 1st of May to the 1st of October of this season ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will inquire as to what reports are made by the collector and I will be very glad to bring them down if they are there.


John Dowsley Reid: If he makes out the reports as heretofore there should be no trouble about it. These reports are sent every day to the department, and the department could tell up to last night what he should have collected. One of the clerks could get it in ten minutes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not anticipate any trouble. I will try to have the reports.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would the hon. the minister bring down the reports of the collector at St. Anne's and the collector! at Lachine, so that we can see what has been done by these officials ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
Salaries and contingencies, collectors offices. $28,546.40.


James Clancy: I notice that there is an increase for these collectors who are not performing any service.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is an increase of $464.


James Clancy: It is not very great, it is true, but it is not the sum that is involved.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This increase is divided as follows : Williamsburg canal, $23S; Soulanges, $550 ; Lachine, $100; Chambly, $5; St. Anne's, $1; an increase of $494, less a decrease of $30, making the net increase $464.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this $35,683 paid for the salaries of the collectors ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Salaries and contingencies.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Counected with the collectors' offices ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I heard the hon. minister mention that there was an increase in the salary of the collector at St. Anne's ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the item of salaries and contingencies shows an increase of $1. The amount of the estimate happens to be $1 above last year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are the salaries of collectors in no cases increased this year ?
405J


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In Montreal, I am told, some of the clerks may have been, increased.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Surely we are not increasing the salaries of collectors when there is nothing to be collected ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are several clerks in the office at Montreal and it is quite possible that some of the salaries have been increased. They are keeping statistical accounts.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is the salary of the collector at St. Anne's to be increased ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I should say not. The increase for salaries and contingencies is $1 and I am sure that the collector has not got the $1.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the salary of the collector at Lachine been increased ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is an increase for salaries and contingencies of $100, but I have not been advised as to whether the increase is in salaries or contingencies. I will have to ascertain.


John Dowsley Reid: There is an increase on the Williamsburg canal of $238. What is that for ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say what part is for salaries and what is for contingencies.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the item should stand until we get the information, because I think that the salaries should not be increased under the existing circumstances.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think there is any increase in salaries, but I will bring down the informaton.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year the collector got a salary of $700, Sundays, 345 hours at 20 cents an hour, making $69, rent. $[DOT]->3.87 ; postage and express, $9.84 ; and horse-hire, $169.75 ; I cannot understand how lie could have worked 345 hours on Sundays. That lock is closed on Sundays from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. It seems impossible that he could have put in that many hours.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the latter part of the season the canals are open on Sundays without limit as to hours.


John Dowsley Reid: This would pay him for every Sunday during the whole season. Was his horse-hire to take him up and down from the village to his office, which is about a mile and a half.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He is allowed a dollar a day for horse-hire.


John Dowsley Reid: And in addition to that he is apparently paid $5 a month rent for his own house down in the village.


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In some cases houses are furnished to flie canal employees and it may he that he Is allowed rent.


James Clancy: This seems an extraordinary case. Why should he be allowed rent for his own house ?


John Dowsley Reid: It was never allowed before this gentleman was appointed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If rent is to be allowed at all, I do not think that S5 a month cau be complained of.


George Taylor: Is he allowed to attend to his medical duties as a doctor, and is this horse-hire for driving him to his patients or to the canal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The deputy tells me that the understanding with these officials is that they are to give their whole time to the public service.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the rent not allowed on the theory that a man should be where his work is ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Probably that was the origin of the system.


John Dowsley Reid: For thirty years the former collector got a small salary, and of course the government could not give the new collector an increase and so they got over the difficulty by giving all these extras which makes the salary over $1,000. I do not refer to this case in particular. There are other cases of the same kind. There are employees on the work of construction that has been practically completed, and if the minister wishes to find out he can ascertain that the increase is accounted for by employing men who have been forced on the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will make inquiry into all these things.


James Clancy: This is rather a fishy case. It appears that this gentleman is employed as collector, and that he is at liberty to practice his profession as a physician. The canal tolls have been done away since that gentleman was appointed and he has no longer any duties to perform as collector. He lives in a house of his own and receives rent for it, a thing hitherto unheard of and he is paid $1 a day for horse-hire. Is that to go to see his patients or is it to go up and collect tolls where there are no tolls to collect ? The acting Minister of Railways had better allow that to stand until he gives us that information.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will give the hon. gentleman the information, but there is no reason to let it stand.


James Clancy: I am afraid that after the item is passed it will be a little too late, rt might be a proper thing to strike out this whole item and the acting Minister of Rail-


John Dowsley Reid: ways might come to that conclusion himself.
I can hardly think that he is prepared to justify a case of that kind ; I am sure he would not and I think he had better let that item stand.	[DOT]


George Taylor: According to the Auditor General's Report that gentleman has charged for 345 hours of Sunday work, at 20 cents per hour, $09. During the seven months which constitute the season of navigation, the canals are open on Sunday from 12 to 7 and 9 to 12 o'clock, making ten hours on Sunday. That for thirty Sundays would make the total number of hours of Sunday work 300, but this gentleman charges for 345 hours, and yet no boat could pass through that canal on a Sunday night or any other night in the dark. Therefore there was no necessity for night work at ail.
I think the minister should allow this item to stand until he finds out why this gentleman put in a charge for 345 hours when he did not put in an hour's work. Why should lie go up there and sit from 7 until 12 o'clock in the morning for the sake of drawing his pay when this canal is so situated that a boat must approach and leave it by daylight.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If I should find that any officer on the canal had been guilty of misconduct that would not be a reason why the others should not receive their money. These are proper matters for inquiry, and I shall see that they are inquired into.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there anything in tlie Order in Council appointing this gentleman providing that he should be paid for house rent ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know.


John Dowsley Reid: Would he be entitled to house rent if it was not provided for in the Order in Council appointing him ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not unless tlie minister of the day allowed it to him. I am not sure if he was appointed by Order in Council, but it would not be a very great stretch of authority for a minister to allow house rent; that is speaking on the principle, not on the merits of the case.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the minister going to allow this item to stand ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think so. This is the last item in the estimates, and I would like to have it cleaned up.


George Taylor: You will have a similar item in the supplementary estimates, and perhaps the hon. gentleman will then bring down the information asked for, and give to the House the number of hours of Sunday labour that this gentleman put in on the ca nal.

1293S


Tlie SINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will give tlie hon. gentleman whatever Information we have in our possession.


John Dowsley Reid: We have been very fair to my hon. friend and he might drop the two items which have been allowed to stand and clear the thing up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend is right, the criticisms have been fair, but if there are two or three cases where some one gets $10 or $100 more than he should that is no reason why the rest should not have their money.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister did not catch my point. I stated that as we have been fair in the criticism of his estimates, he might allow these two items to be dropped, and then he could clear up the whole thing now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have to come back with some information for the hon. gentleman in any case, so I think it is better not to drop them.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved tlie adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before we adjourn, I would ask the minister what business will be taken up to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have made such good progress in the last day or two that the Order paper is pretty well cleared. There are several Bills on the Order paper which are not yet printed, and therefore we are not in a position to proceed with them, but so far as possible, we will take up the Bills which are in order before the House.


George Taylor: Shall we take up the Audit Act amendment Bill ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not tomorrow, we will postpone that perhaps until the first of the week. If there is no objection we can proceed after disposing of these Bills to deal with the supplementary estimates, although they were only laid on the Table to-day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 2, 1903. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, I deem it
my very sad duty to refer to the lamentable event which took place last night, and which has deprived us of the companionship of one of the most esteemed members of this House. The Conservative party were certainly fortunate in having in their ranks such a man as Mr. Henry Cargill, for he was in every possible sense of the word a good man-a good citizen, a good father, a good husband, a good and warmhearted friend. During the long years that he was associated with us in this House he had endeared himself to the hearts not only of his own political associates, but of those who held different political views. Not only was Mr. Cargill a good citizen, but we know from long acquaintance with him that lie was a man of exceptional ability in the profession which he followed, and followed with much success. His sudden demise, coming under such sad circumstances, is another lesson to us, which is as old as the world, but always new, of the uncertainty of our lives. Those who apparently are frail and seem to live under tlie shadow of death may live long, while those who appear to be in robust health may be suddenly called away. We on this side of tlie House join sincerely with our hon. friends opposite in conveying to the mourning family of Mr. Cargill the frank and true expression of our deep condolence with them in their sad bereavement.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members on this side of the House, I thank the right hon. gentleman most sincerely for the very kindly words he has uttered. Coming as we do from paying the last tribute of respect to a very dear friend, we are reminded, I am sure, how frail and uncertain is our tenure of this earthly life. Yesterday Henry Cargill stood amongst us in all the vigour and strength of mature manhood ; he spoke in this House with unusual animation, and none of us would have supposed for a moment that within a few hours we would be following his remains to their last earthly resting place. He has been a member of this House since' 1887, with the exception, I believe, of one session ; and during all that time I am sure that not one word nor one act of his failed to inspire the deepest respect and confidence of every member of this House. His great generous heart was perhaps not known except by those who were most intimate with him ; but those who had that privilege knew of many acts of whole sonled kindliness on his part which were not known to the public at large. I am sure it can be said of him that against his warmest political opponent his soul harboured no bitterness. He was too_ great a man for that. He was listened to in this House with deep respect. His great abilities. as a business man, and the sound common sense and breadth of view which always characterized his remarks earned for

him the sincere respect of every member of this House. I join heartily in the kind and generous words of my right hon. friend the First Minister, and in the assurance which he has conveyed to the bereaved widow and family of Mr. Cargill that they have in this hour of their affliction the deepest and most sincere sympathy and condolence of every member of this House.



THE DISTURBANCES AT THE SOO.

The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Sir. F. W. Borden).: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to bring to the notice of the House a paragraph in the Montreal ' Star ' of yesterday, allegiug negligence on the part of the government with reference to sending military protection to Sault Ste. Marie.
The paragraph is as follows :
Much indignation is expressed among all classes of citizens over the manner in which the Dominion government ignored the repeated demand that the troops be sent to protect the town properly, as it became apparent that the presence of the militia was necessary. That the troops are now guarding the town and the company's property is something for which the militia authorities at Ottawa are not entitled to any credit. In fact the Ottawa authorities have not even yet countenanced the sending of the militia. The story of the government's negligence to comply with the town's request for troops is an interesting one, as related by Mayor Plummer. When the attitude of the men began to predict trouble the mayor promptly wired to Ottawa, asking that fifty troops be sent without delay. He received a reply directing his attention to a clause of the Act which empowered him to call out the troops on his own responsibility.
I think that the question is of sufficient importance to be brought up in this way, because it is not a party question and it is exceedingly desirable that the community at large should understand what the law is, and that the government has not been neglD gent. This paragraph admits that the mayor of the ' Soo ' did receive an answer to his telegram. As a matter of fact, telegrams were sent by the representatives of the company there and the mayor, to the Prime Minister and myself, and the only answer was sent which could be sent, and that was an answer calling to the attention of the authorities that paragraph of the Militia Act under which they could claim and secure the protection of the militia. That telegram was promptly sent and others were receivedi afterwards, but they were all to the same effect. I would like to read the provision of the Act to which the authorities at the ' Soo ' were referred :
1. The active militia or any corps thereof, shall be liable to be called out for active service with their arms and ammunition, in aid of the civil power in any case in which a riot, disturbance of the peace, or other emergency requiring such service occurs, or is, in the opinion of the civil authorities hereinafter mentioned, anticipated as likely to occur, and, in either case, to be beyond the powers of the civil authorities to suppress,


Robert Laird Borden: or to prevent or deal with,-whether such riot, disturbance or other emergency occurs, or is so anticipated within or without the municipality in which such corps is raised or organized:
2. The senior officer of the active militia present at any locality shall call out the same or such portion thereof as he considers necessary for the purpose of preventing or suppressing any such actual or anticipated riot or disturbance, or for the purpose of meeting and dealing with any such emergency as aforesaid, when thereunto required in writing by the chairman or custos of the quarter sessions of the peace, or any three justices of the peace of whom the warden, mayor, or other head of the municipality or county in which such riot, disturbance or other emergency occurs or is anticipated as aforesaid, may be one ; and he shall obey such instructions as are lawfully given to him by any justice of the peace in regard to the suppression of any such actual riot or disturbance, or in regard to the anticipation of such riot, disturbance or other emergency, or to the suppression of the same, or to the aid to be given to the civil power in case of any such riot, disturbance or other emergency.
The civic authorities acted under this provision of the law. They applied to the senior military officer on the spot, Col. Elliot, and Col. Elliot took such steps as he deemed necessary to deal with the situation. As a matter of fact, the government has no authority to do anything. The power is given, under the Act, to the civic authorities who are on the spot, and who must be presumed to know best what the requirements are and what the necessity is for taking a certain course. The government is powerless to act at all. One can see how absurd it would be otherwise. Suppose that riots were imminent or believed to be imminent and some alarm was felt, are (roops to be sent hither-and yon throughout the Dominion? The thing would be utterly absurd and never was contemplated by the law. As a matter of fact, the law has been literally complied with, the government has done its full duty, and I think it is in the public interest that this matter should be understood once for all.


Mr. CLARKE.: Will the municipality be expected to pay the cost of transportation and maintenance of these troops ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That is a matter of law.


John Graham Haggart: Surely the government, under the Act, are responsible entirely for the number called out to suppress a riot. The mayor makes a requisition, and then the military officer on the spot has the authority to call out, not the number of troops required by the mayor, but the number he thinks may be required. The responsibility is upon him.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Certainly.


John Graham Haggart: He calls out the number required for the suppression of the trouble so that the responsibility as to the

number and the time they will be engaged is entirely in the hands of the military authorities.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, the requisition does not necessarily call for any particular number of troops ?
The MINISTER OB' MILITIA AND DEFENCE. No.


Robert Laird Borden: That must be determined by the senior officer. Would the minister read the portion of the statute which places that within the discretion of the commanding senior officer and also the portion which limits the period during which the troops are required ?
The MINISTER OB' MILITIA AND DEFENCE. There is no limit.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have the government taken any steps to do anything towards providing that these unfortunate men shall be paid their wages ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I need not tell my hon. friend, for he is aware, that the government can do nothing of that kind. But I may say that I have information from a private source this morning that arrangements have been made, and the men will be paid to-morrow.



PRIVILEGE-NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-PETITIONS FROM BAGOT.

Mr. JOSEPH EDMOND MARCIL (Bagot).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I rise to a question of privilege. And before going into the matter to which ' 1 desire to draw your attention, I beg to ask the indulgence of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, as I intend to speak in the English language, with which I am not so familiar as with French, my mother tongue. Last week several petitions were presented from different constituencies of the Dominion asking this parliament not to proceed further with Bill (No. 235) relating to a National Transcontinental Railway, as the petitions pretend that this parliament has not enough information

petitions from the county of Bagot there is one from the parish of St. Theodore d'Acton, with whose electors I am well acquainted, and in which I have the honour to be well known. One reading these petitions and assuming them to be correct would, no doubt, form the opinion that a certain number in the county of Bagot are opposed to this transcontinental railway. Let me say that I Was particularly surprised to read a petition from St. Theodore d'Acton presented to this House by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin).


Mr. MORIN.: I have not done that Mr. Speaker.


Charles Marcil: The name of my hon. friend (Mr. Morin) is endorsed on the petitions.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I did not put the names on the petition.


Charles Marcil: 
Mr. SPEAKER.: I may call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Marcil, Bagot) to the fact that, in a few moments, there will be a motion for Committee of Supply, and, if he does not intend to conclude with a motion, he might wait for the motion for Supply, when he will be free to speak.


Charles Marcil: At the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I shall move the adjournment of the House. I was saying that the petitions presented pretend that this parliament should not proceed with this Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. Many such petitions have been presented, particularly from the county of Bagot which I have the honour to represent in this House. Amongst the
That we have never placed signatures, nor authorized any person whomsoever to inscribe our names on a petition addressed to the honourable Senate and House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, protesting against a measure now submitted to parliament concerning the subject of transportation facilities. We declare that we approve of the attitude taken by the government of the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier in regard to this project. We have entire confidence in his administration, and we confidently hope that the line of railway proposed by the government will be the object of a law before the prorogation of the present parliament. And each and all of us make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true, and knowing that it has the same force and effect as if it were made under oath, and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, 1893.

Declared before me at Acton, this 30th of September, 1903.
(Sgd.) A. CHABOT, J.P.
(Sgd.) DAMASK GREGOIRE, his
ALEXANDRE X VANASSE, mark



OVIDE TREMBLAY,

[Stage Direction]
ISIDORE JODOIN, Jr.
LAURENT BRODEUR, his
VICTOR X LALIBERTE, mark his
PIERRE X PETIT, mark

[Stage Direction]
Witness :
(Sgd.) J. M. BORDUA.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) drew your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I thank him for having done so. In ' Hansard ' of the 30th of September, I find the following attributed to yourself, Sir, in reply to the hon. member for Bellechasse :
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It certainly would be irregular that the signatures on petitions presented to this House should be signed by the same person. Petitions should be signed by those whose names are supposed to be attached to them. Rule 84 says :
Petitions to the House shall be presented by a member in his place, who shall be answerable that they do not contain impertinent or improper matter.'
If an hon. member when presenting a petition is answerable that it does not contain anything impertinent or improper, I should think he should be responsible if there is anything impertinent or irregular In the petition presented by him. I have no [DOT]doubt that these petitions have been sent in order to mislead the House and the hon. the Senate; and I may be permitted to say that if enough time were allowed to see all those whose names appear on these petitions,
I am sure it would be possible to obtain from a great majority of them the same testimony as I have read here from some. I should think that, for the honour of the hon. member for Dorchester it would be well for him to ask permission to withdraw these petitions. If the law of our province permits of the vindication of the honour and the rights of the electors of the county of Bagot, I may say at once that as soon as the session _ is over, I have the intention of taking the opportunity to do so. This is all I have to say, and, I hope that,1 in saying it, I have not been offensive to anybody. I move the adjournment of the House.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I would like to say a few words in regard to these petitions. I may say to the House that in regard to this Transcontinental Railway Bill I took no part directly or indirectly in any of the counties of this country. Petitions have been sent here from the county of Dorchester,


Charles Marcil: but I know nothing about them, I do not know Who sent them here, I do not know who wrote to the county of Dorchester to have these petitions signed. Some days ago a gentleman was here who had a handful of those petitions, and he said to me : Will you present them 1 I never read them, I do not know where they came from. I took no part whatever in procuring those petitions, and I have nothing to be sorry for. I can throw the first stone therefore in regard to that matter.


Mr. TALBOT.: Before the hon. gentleman takes his seat, I desire to ask him if he knows anything about these petitions from St. Prospdre and from St. Malachie, in the county of Dorchester, which petitions I now hold in my hand ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Very well, am I guilty because the hon. gentleman holds them in his hands. I have already stated that I took no part directly or indirectly in procuring these petitions. I have said that petitions have been sent here from the county of Dorchester but that I know nothing about them. The hon. gentleman may hold whatever he pleases in his hands or in his lint, he is responsible for them himself.
Amendment (Mr. Marcil, Bagot) negatived.



SUPPLIES FOR GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 258) to amend the Act respecting the Department of Railways and Canals, was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.	.
John Graham Haggart: We have no copy of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This Bill is in the exact words of the resolution (page 11189 of the ' Hansard,' which has already passed the House.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Is the Bill printed in French ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.
On section 1,
1. Advances may be made from time to time, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, to the Minister of Railways and Canals, to enable him to obtain, produce, manufacture, use_ and dispose of all necessary materials, equipment and stores required or used in connection with the construction, renewal, maintenance and operation of the Canadian government railways, and for the establishment and conduct of railway stores.


John Graham Haggart: It seems to me this is giving new powers to the minister. I understood that everything used iii the construction and maintenance of that railway, that was ordinarily charged to capital account, would have to be voted by the House. This is simply for the purpose of balancing the stores account. You did not intend to make any purchases uuiess the money was

voted by tlie House, purchases either chargeable to capital account or for improvements.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
John Graham Haggart: When stores account is depleted, then there is a credit to the Intercolonial to the extent of the depletion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Charged to the Intercolonial. If goods are taken out of stores then they are charged against the revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, as the case may be, against the appropriation of the year.


John Graham Haggart: No, you get a straight credit of the stores account. Suppose there is $1,200,000 at the present time, and you deplete that stores account bv $300,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: How ?


John Graham Haggart: In any manner you like, by payment, or sales, or in any other way, out of stores account. Does not that leave you a credit between the difference of the sales and the actual amount of the credit ? Then you have the absolute disposition of that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You would credit the stores account.


John Graham Haggart: You have the absolute disposition, for the use of the Intercolonial, of the difference.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We cannot spend any money for any purpose that has not been appropriated by parliament. What we do by this Bill is simply, if I may use a homely illustration, to open a shop. We have goods in stock for which we get
credit, and as they are used out of stock, they are charged up against the particular service in which they are used, and when they are so taken out of the stores account and charged against working expenses or construction, as the case may be, there is a credit to the stores account.


Robert Laird Borden: In connection with what my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has just said in connection with the statute, it may be as the hon. Minister of Finance has sugested. but I would hardly think so. The words of section 1 of the Bill are very plain, it seems to me. They are :
Advances may be made from time to time, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, to the (Minister of Railways and Canals, to enable him to obtain, produce, manufacture, use and dispose of all necessary materials, equipment and stores required or used In connection with the construction, renewal, maintenance and operation of the Canadian government railways, and for the establishment an! conduct of railway stores.
Is that not equivalent to a parliamentary appropriation ? Does it not permit the government, in the absence of an appropriation, to make advances to the Minister of Railways and Canals out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That Is correct, but the advances have already been made and the goods are in store now.


Robert Laird Borden: While there may be some goods in store as to which some advances may have been made, the section seems to be a general one which would operate at any time in the future, and which would therefore - permit future . advances to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as advances without a parliamentary appropriation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The only authority that would be given the government would be this : Suppose the stores account is $1,500,000 to-day and we took out of it $100,000 and put it into the track, it is credited to the stores account and charged to working expenses or capital account, as the case may be, according as parliament has appropriated the money. Then we have reduced the stores account to $1,400,000 and if we desired to do so we would have the right to put in another $100,000, but as long as the stores account remained as it is at present, we would not have purchased anything on this account. It is intended to give the government a standing credit for the Intercolonial Railway, but we cannot take out of the stores one penny's worth of goods except it be applied for the purpose for which parliament has appropriated the money, unless we sell the goods to outsiders, in which case they become a credit to the stores account. We might sell our goods and credit them to the stores account, or, if

we take rails out of the stores and put them into the track, we charge them against the appropriation for the year for that purpose.


John Graham Haggart: Where is the limitation in the Bill to which the bon. minister refers, to the effect that if there is a balance to the stores account of the Intercolonial Railway the balance shall only be applied to the ordinary working expenses of the road, or to capital account, as parliament has authorized ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You cannot use the stores account for any other purpose than for the purpose of the Intercolonial Railway, and you must charge it against the particular service for which the money has been appropriated. This account is not a new one. There is absolutely nothing new in this proposal.


John Graham Haggart: I know there is not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are simply doing what my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) did for many years without law, but we are now proposing to do it with law. He had his stores account for a long number of years. He bought what he liked, and charged it to stores account. He did not require an appropriation from parliament to buy goods and put them into the stores account. That method has prevailed for a quarter of a century, and under our system of government anything which has become a custom begins to be almost regarded as a matter of law, but when my attention was called to this matter,
. I thought that it should be put in a proper legal shape. We have exactly the same principle now, though on a smaller scale, in connection with the King's Printer. The King's Printer has to buy and keep on hand a stock of materials for which he has no especial parliamentary appropriation. The appropriation for the printing is given to each department or to parliament, as the case may be, but the King's Printer must have his material on hand to do the work, and therefore he has a standing credit. He has had it for years, and last year we gave him by statute a credit of $100,000 for this purpose. He is authorized to buy goods, and these goods are charged to the stores account. If in my own department, for instance, I want some printing done, I have a vote of parliament to provide for the printing, and I buy that printing from the King's Printer, jlist as if I bought it from an outsider. In that way we simply provide the King's Printer with a means of carrying his stock. The same principle applies to the Railway Department. We provide the Railway Department with the means of keeping a stock on hand.


John Graham Haggart: There is no doubt as to what the intention of the hon. Minister Hon- Mr. FIELDING.
of Finance is. The only doubt in my mind was as to whether when there was a credit to the stores account you limited the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway to the amount which had been appropriated to operating expenses or capital account. I suppose it is so, as the hon. minister says that any credit that is given to the stores account should be used for the purpose only for which it is voted, that is to say, for the ordinary expenses of the Intercolonial Railway, or to be applied to something for which it has been voted on capital account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly, it cannot be applied to anything except that for which parliament has made an appropriation-either to working expenses or to capital account. There is no qualification as to that.


Robert Laird Borden: I really cannot so understand it. It seems to me to be in the same position which was mentioned the other day by the hon. Minister of Finance when he inquired whether the statute for enabling the government to make certain increases in salaries would enable payments to be made without a special appropriation. The hon. Minister of Finance took the ground that the Bill itself was a parliamentary appropriation. and that no further parliamentary appropriation would be required. I am not dealing with the book-keeping methods of the Intercolonial Railway, but I think I can understand the words of the statute fairly well, and while section 2 deals with some book-keeping matter in connection with the Intercolonial Railway which I do not profess to understand as well as the hon. Minister of Finance or my hon. friend from South Lanark, nevertheless, section 1, which stands by itself distinctly states, that advances may be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada to the, Minister of Railways and Canals for a certain purpose, and there is no limit upon it. It is true that you have at the end of the section the words :
And for the establishment and conduct of railway stores.
But the use of these words does not place any limitation whatever upon the words which precede. These are supplementary to the language which precedes, and not in limitation of it. You have the distinct provision, as far as the word ' railways ' in the last line of the clause is concerned1, that advances may be made, and if you have a statute to that effect, what need is there of any parliamentary appropriation ? It stands in the place of a parliamentary appropriation. I do not know anything about .the usage or practice itself. If it be true that moneys have been used in this way in the past without parliamentary appropriation, that is a matter to be considered. What we are dealing with now is the question as to

whether or not we shall authorize that by statute. I must confess that, after having given the best possible consideration to it,
1	am still unable to construe the statute in the way in which my hon. friend has done.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we had section 1 authorizing the advance without section 2, I think the criticism of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) would be just. There must he a parliamentary appropriation to allow of the purchase of goods to the extent of $1,500,000. Section
2	goes on to say that the existing stores
account is to be taken as part of this. It says :	~-
Stores accounts shall be established, as of the date 30th June, 1903, in connection with the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway.
And that these accounts shall be charged with all the different items in the different accounts as respects that. Section 2 is intended practically to say that it is not intended to enlarge your powers of purchase, but it gives you in addition the power to take your existing stores into account, and when you have taken your existing stores into account you have exhausted your powers of purchase. That is what it means, and if there is any doubt about the matter, I shall be only too glad to accept any suggestion that will make it clear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am most anxious to appreciate the arguments of the hon. minister, tout I cannot see anything in section 2 which limits the "broad language of section 1 in the way he thinks it is limited, and I would suggest to my hon. friend, in order to make plain what he desires, if I thoroughly understand his intention, that we should add a clause to the Bill providing :
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the advance of moneys in the absence of parliamentary appropriation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no, that would not do ; this is a parliamentary appropriation, 'but we have already expended it.
Mr. BORDEiN (Halifax). I am dealing with the future. We can arrange about the past as you like. I think that in the future we should provide that no money shall be paid out for capital account or operation of the Intercolonial Railway, or anything else, unless you have a parliamentary ap-propiation for the purpose. It seems to me to be a perfectly workable proposition to add a provision to the clause of this Act that in future advances shall not be made in the abj sence of the parliamentary appropriations.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would not do ; that would defeat the purpose of the Bill. It would not do to say that no purchase shall be made without a
special parliamentary appropriation. Undoubtedly if we did not have the stores on hand, this would be a credit in advance for the Intercolonial Railway of one and a-half million dollars. The only reason why it is not now an advance Is that the ex-'penditure has been made without any legal authority. Under the old system the goods are now in store. But it is intended to be, and should be, a credit to the Intercolonial Railway to the extent of a million and a-half dollars. That is to say, the officials of the Intercolonial Railway should not have the right to pay out money to the extent of one dollar without a parliamentary appropriation, but it will not do to say that they cannot have a stores account until you have provided for every particular item. The Intercolonial Railway officials must be able to carry on their business just as a merchant does. A merchant must have stock on hand to meet the demands that may arise. Just as the King's Printer, for instance, must have stock on hand to do business, so must the Intercolonial Railway, and it is now intended to give, in a legal way, the credit which they have had for twenty-five years past. But the Intercolonial Railway has no right to apply these goods to any purpose until parliament has authorized their use. The fiscal year closes on the 30th of June, and let us suppose that you have then a large stock of coal on hand. That stands in the stores account, and you have no authority to pay that out of the appropriation of that year. You can only take out of the appropriation for that year as much as will pay for the coal used up to the 30tli of June. You must have the balance of the coal on hand, and' where is your parliamentary authority ? This is your parliamentary authority ; by it the Intercolonial Railway officials are allowed to keep on hand a stock of- various* articles aggregating $1,500,000.


John Graham Haggart: How would it do to put at the beginning of the clause :
For the purposes of a stores account advances may be made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection to that, but It will not make it any better.


George Taylor: Will the acting Minister of Railways tell me that this is not placing in the hands of the Minister of Railways power to spend $10,000,000, or $15,000,000, or $20,000,000 every year, if he sees fit to do so, for the purposes of the railway, without coming to parliament and asking an appropriation ? You have $1,500,000 capital in stores on the first of July.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are not necessarily on capital account.


George Taylor: But they are paid for and are there in store. During July the minister!

can use half a million dollars' worth of these stores, spreading them out over the different works. On the first of August he can go to one of his political friends and buy that half a million dollars' worth of stores and put them in store. On the first of September again the stores may have run down SI,000,000, so that there will be, only half a million dollars' worth on hand, and then the minister can go to another friend and buy one million dollars' worth of stores, put them in store, and he can repeat that month after month.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What is he to do with the $15,000,000 of stores after he takes them out of the store ?


George Taylor: He takes them out for the purposes of the road.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But he cannot do that unless this parliament has appropriated $15,000,000 or $20,000,000 for that purpose; he cannot take a dollar's worth of goods out of store except for the purpose for which parliament has authorized the expenditure.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Minister of Finance mean that the proposition is to convert a portion of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada into a supply of stores for the Intercolonial Railway, and then to use the stores only so far as you are permitted by a parliamentary appropriation ? Is that practically the object ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is it. That has been the practice for twenty-five years, but there has 'been no authority for it.


Robert Laird Borden: What I want to know is why there should be power to convert a portion of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada into stores' supplies for the Intercolonial Railway without a parliamentary appropriation for that purpose ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the parliamentary appropriation ; this Bill is a parliamentary appropriation.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I was right in the view I first took, that you are doing away with the necessity of a parliamentary appropriation for the purpose of converting a portion of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada into a supply of stores for the Intercolonial Railway. I am not criticising the proposal, I am only endeavouring to understand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A merchant will not sell all his stock within one year ; lie must have a surplus to carry him over the year and to meet new conditions that arise, and just in the same way the Intercolonial Railway could not possibly order exactly the quantity of goods required to serve it for the twelve months after the end of the fiscal year, closing on the Mr. TAYLOR.
30th of June.' The fiscal year closes on June 30, and in May or April you may find yourself in want of coal. You could not figure out the exact amount you would require for the balance of the fiscal year, so you buy a lump amount, and if you are wise you look a little ahead. How are you to pay for this coal ? We want to give a legal authority for carrying it in stock, but before one ton of it can be taken out of store and used on the Intercolonial Railway there must be a parliamentary appropriation.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty, suggested by hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is the difficulty of knowing the quantity of stores that will be required ; but is that not a difficulty" which we meet every day in making parliamentary votes 7 We are told by the government : We do not know how much will toe spent, but every dollar will be accounted for. Could you not do the same thing with stores, making a liberal appropriation, and then using such stores as may toe necessary? You would, of course, have to make a generous appropriation, and then if an emergency occurred, could you not resort to Governor General's warrants ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What we are now proposing lias already been done in another branch of the service, and it seems reasonable that it should be done with regard to the Intercolonial Railway. The condition in regard to the railway service is not exactly the same as in those services to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has just referred. We have had to do, in the case of the King's Printer, what we are now proposing to do in the case of the Intercolonial Railway. The two cases are exactly alike only that the appropriation for the King's Printer is a modest sum, and for the Intercolonial Railway you must have a larger amount. With regard to tlie particular words of section 2, to which my hon. friend has referred, I am afraid I am open to the criticism-although I may not get the credit for it-of allowing the Auditor General to have his own way.
It is his suggestion that a clause should be worded in that way. In this whole matter I am trying to meet his wishes.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Samuel Barker: With the explanations that lmve been given of section 1, so far as I have heard them, I do not see any great objection to it, except that I think that the words in the last line, ' and for the establishment and conduct of railway stores,' are somewhat indefinite. The words, ' produce and manufacture,' in the third line seem to me to cover everything that is necessary. I do not know what is meant or intended by establishing and conducting railway stores.


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not attach any importance to those particular words. I think they are superfluous. I may say, however, that the clause was largely the work of the Auditor General himself.


Samuel Barker: Then I would suggest, so as to bring all the advances and payments that may be made clearly within the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, the addition of these words:
' The making of such payments shall be subject to all the provisions and regulations in that behalf of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.' I think that is important, because there are provisions made for the safety of the government and the people with respect to advances of all kinds, and it would be well to use such words here so as to make the meaning perfectly clear. If it is essential that there should be the utmost care and scrutiny about anything it is with regard to stores.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is certainly the intention of the Act, and if my hon. friend thinks the addition of those words will make it clear, I have no objection. As I have said, the wording of this Act is largely that of the Auditor General, and I thought that if he was satisfied with it, the rest of us might be. But I have no objection to the addition of those words.


Samuel Barker: I spoke to the Auditor General about them, and he thinks they would be an improvement.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section '1,
Samuel Barker: I think that this section requires more consideration than would at first sight appear necessary. ' These accounts shall respectively be debited with the balance of stores then held on account of each railway.' I presume that means that the amount of stores to the debit of the accounts shall be accepted under this new arrangement as final.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not necessarily. They will be subject to audit like everything else.


Samuel Barker: They were audited presumably in the past. On the 30tli of June, 1903, say there is $1,000,000 of stores to the debit of stores account. That will have to be transferred at once to the debit of the new account. It is quite true that every year an audit takes place when the Auditor General counts the stores on hand, what may be called an ordinary stock-taking, but that goes on generally speaking in all railway companies. Yet I think there are very few companies that will not find, in the course of years, a large amount of material on hand which may be worth only one-third or one-fourth of what they are valued at In the accounts. I very little doubt that
if a thorough stock-taking of all the materials in the stores on the 30th of June, 1902 were made by an expert railway man, he would cast aside all obsolete materials as so much waste iron, and there would be found an enormous difference between what appears in the stores account and the actual value. I would therefore object to this clause being supposed in any way to settle the stores account. I would object to its being held, assuming that $1,500,000 be transferred to stores account in pursuance of this resolution, that that should end the account. I think it is of the utmost importance that there should be a thorough stock-taking of all the materials in the stores of these two railways. I would prefer that the hon. minister had provided in this section that before a new account is established, there should be that thorough stock-taking, and placed to the credit of the stores account only the actual value for railway purposes of every article. I recollect very well that on the change of administration in the Western Railway a thorough stock-taking was made of every item in the stores, and it certainly did a very great deal of good.
I think that there ought to be such stocktaking on the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island Railway at present. No merchant or manufacturer would be content with a perfunctory stock-taking, just carrying the items on from year to year at cost price, though many of them, may have become obsolete and have to be sold as old scrap. It does strike me that this second clause may be used as a very convenient way of getting over that under the plea that the Act of Parliament authorizes the amounts to be passed and charged up as they stand on a particular day. I would therefore suggest that this clause should be revised, and that before the new Act is started, there will be a thorough stock-taking, under the supervision of the Auditor General, and that the accounts shall then be started with the actual values of the materials.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I fail to see that there is any need for a revision of the clause in order to serve the purpose which my hon. friend has in view. That there should be frequent stock-taking at proper intervals and that these should have due regard for depreciation, I admit. This is not the creation of a new account. This account will have in the books precisely the same value, force and effect as it has to-day. It has been examined and audited by the Auditor General, with all the unlimited powers he possesses, and we have no reason to doubt that it is fair and correct. We propose to take that account because it represents the cost of these stores to the department and has been examined in the usual way. We are opening a new account but giving legal authority to the account as it exists. My hon. friend says we should

take stock and see whether there is depreciation, and he adds that that would be a very proper thing to provide in connection with this Bill. I do not see that by opening up a stores account under the name of ' new stores account ' you do wrong by taking the figures exactly as they are in the old stores account, unless you suppose that those figures are not correct. But we have no reason to doubt their correctness. We are simply taking an existing account and giving it legal authority. It does not diminish anybody's rights to examine, criticise and condemn. We have to take the account as it stands until somebody shows there is something wrong in it. All that my hon. friend says with regard to stock-taking I admit, but I cannot see that it has any particular relation to this Bill.


Samuel Barker: The reason I suggest that there should be stock-taking, now that the hon. gentleman is making a new departure-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. lie is mistaken.


Samuel Barker: I regard it as a new departure. The hon. gentleman tells us that an audit has already taken place under the supervision of the Auditor General. Well, the Auditor General told us in the Public Accounts Committee and he has told me outside that he has nobody who knows anything about the value of these things capable of going into the stores and picking out wliat is obsolete and what is not. Such an audit for the purpose of stock-taking is absolutely valueless, and as you are passing an Act of parliament to start a new stores account and are making a new departure, starting fresh in the year 1903, upon a balance appearing on the 30th of June, it is important that you should start that account upon a proper footing and that the debit to it should be the actual value of the stores taken over. That is especially necessary having regard to what the Minister of Finance says, that in the past everything has been accurately audited by an auditor who tells us he knows nothing about it. If it has not been audited by the Auditor General that is the Auditor General's own fault. This happens to be in that branch of the Auditor General's business in which we admit his right to deal with matters as he pleases. There are some things in which,
I think, the Auditor General takes authority which does not belong to him, but, in this case he has complete authority to deal with the matter, and, if he has not carried out the audit, the fault is liis own. Of course,
I do not say this as reproaching the Auditor General. All I say is that he is responsible.
If lie says lie does not know anybody who can do that work, that is not the fault of parliament or of the government. The statute-and we are dealing with amendments to the statute-gives him unlimited


William Stevens Fielding: power in this matter-there is no limitation as to time or the person he shall engage for the work. If the audit is not satisfactory, we shall be glad to have him make it satisfactory. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is quite mistaken when he says we are opening a new account or creating anything new. There is nothing new proposed. This account has been in existence tor years. But attention has been called to the fact that it rests on no statutory authority, and we seek to amend the law in that regard. But, by creating statutory authority for the account, you do not create the account. That account is there, and we take it as it stands. If there is anything wrong in it, hon. gentlemen are as free to point it out in the future as they are to-day-. The passing of this Bill dees not change the situation one iota.


John Graham Haggart: The object is plain. Those stores stand charged to the Intercolonial according to their valuation in the stores account. I can see that there would be a 'difficulty as the stores account has been kept in the past. Suppose that there is a sale of stores to the Canadian Pacific or the Grand Trunk. The amount of money received for the stores is paid into the consolidated fund of the Dominion, and not into the fund for stores. Flow are you going to get it back to the stores account unless you have a credit ? You must have a credit account somewhere.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have it now.


John Graham Haggart: You are constituting it under this Bill.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, we have it. We are giving it legal authority by this Bill.


John Graham Haggart: I do not see how you can possibly have it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) may not see how we can have it, but all the years he was a Minister of Railways he had exactly tins system to such an extent as he saw fit to use it.


John Graham Haggart: Then, the government seek to legalize what was in vogue before. I can see the need for the system in order to get money back into the stores account in case of a sale. .


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are not worrying about the legal authority to sell, it is the legal authority to buy that is causing the difficulty. If we had $1,000,000 worth of stores and sold $100,000 worth to a railway or anybody else, that money would go into the consolidated revenue fund, as the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) says. It is then credited to the stores account of the Intercolonial, and we have the right to buy $100,000 worth of stores in place of what we have sold.


John Graham Haggart: That is what you want to do-to give credit to the stores account. You may have done that before, but you have no legal authority.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have no legal authority to buy-to spend the money. We do not worry about legal authority to receive money ; we are ready to receive it without legal authority, if the owners will give it to us. But the legal authority to buy is what worries us.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Finance Minister has stated the course pursued in these matters in the past, and, no doubt, has stated it accurately. I can understand, as I say, that this credit has been necessary in order to get back money into the stores account in ease of a sale. To give legal authority for that, I understand to be the object of the Bill.


Samuel Barker: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: There is no doubt about what the intention of the Bill is. The minister has been speaking of what has been done hitherto.


Samuel Barker: I would again call attention to the question of the audit of railway stores and other matters of that kind requiring technical knowledge. The Minister of Finance tells us again and again that the Auditor General has had every officer, every clerk that be requires for the purpose of such an audit. I can only say that the Auditor General tells me the direct opposite of that. He says that he considers it of very great importance that he should have an auditor of technical knowledge for such work, and that he has no such officer. It is absurd to say that you can take a clerk out of a merchant's office or a bank and set him to audit a railway stores account. He does not know that he is dealing with. You might as well ask me to go down and audit a druggist's stock in trade. I might find some stuff in a small bottle worth .$10, and in the next bottle, twice as much in bulk worth 10 cents, and, having no technical knowledge of the value, I should have no means of knowing that there was a differ-, ence. You may send an ordinary bookkeeper to audit the stores of the intercolonial if you like, but you might as well keep him at Ottawa and save his expenses. The store-keeper might show him thousands of tons of metal represented in the books by a certain amount, and the auditor might take that material as good value for the
money, and yet, it might be mere scrap iron and unfit for use upon a railway or in railway construction. For a thorough audit there must be technical knowledge on the part of the auditor. The Auditor General has no such officer. And I wish to say further, on this question, that we do want the audit of an officer of the government. The Auditor General is not a servant of the government, but a servant of parliament, and so represents the whole people. The auditor at Moncton is simply an officer of the government of the day, and can be dismissed by the government of the day. He has no independent authority.
What we want is am officer, a clerk, an auditor, solely under the authority of the Auditor General, that he shall have such a man on his staff as will have sufficient knowledge to enable him to make an audit such as is required here. Now, the Auditor General has not such a man, he has told us in the public accounts that he has not any expert of that kind ; he has told me personally that be has no such person. Yet the Finance Minister speaks as if the Auditor has everything he requires. The Auditor General perhaps has not asked for another clerk. We know the difficulty that heads of departments have in asking for extra expenditures for their staff. Even if the Auditor General has neglected to ask for it, in parliament we have the right to ask for it, and I say that the Auditor General should be supplied with an officer of that character, and that the accounts of the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island Railway should be audited in the future in a way they have not been audited in the past.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not made any allusion to the audit of any government official at Moncton or elsewhere. My observations this afternoon have reference to the auditing of the Auditor General. Now, there is a question of fact between the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and myself. I stated the other day that we had supplied the Auditor General with all the officials he had asked for. My hon. friend says the Auditor General tells him now that is not true. Now I am bound to say that if the Auditor General staled that to my hon. friend, I cannot understand it, for it is at variance with the Auditor General's own statement to me within the last fifteen minutes, and I am bound to believe that there is a misunderstanding between the Auditor General and the hon. member for Hamilton. I again say that we have supplied the Auditor General with every official that he has asked for. Now he is the judge of how many officials he wants. We have a right to refuse, we have not exercised that right. But I say that the auditing of the public accounts is the business of the Auditor General ; I say that while there are certain things that I think

the Auditor General is undertaking which do not properly belong to him, in this particular business he has a right to determine how he will audit the accounts of the Intercolonial, and they have been audited in the way that suited him. I say he has asked for no official who has not been given to him. If he says, I have not got an official- I cannot help that. AVe cannot go and thrust officials upon the Auditor General, we have no desire to do so. I say that he has audited all these accounts in such manner as he thought proper, and if he wanted any more officials it is not my business to go and thrust officials upon him, it is his business to say, I require further help. He has not been unduly modest in the past in asking for help-I do not say he has asked it improperly ; but whenever he has found it desirable to have an additional staff he has asked for it, and got it. I want to repeat again without equivocation, that we have given the Auditor General every official he has asked for. He has audited these accounts in the past in the way that was pleasing to himself, and it will be quite time enough when he asks for further officials to supply them.


Samuel Barker: I did not say that the Auditor General had complained that he had been refused any official by the government, any clerk, or any auditor-I said nothing of the kind. I simply said that the Auditor General had told me, and he had told the Public Accounts Committee, that he had not an auditor of the expert knowledge that was necessary to inspect these particular accounts.
I say it is a farce to attempt to audit railway accounts by a man who is a mere bookkeeper, without any railway knowledge. A man cannot audit these accounts without information that would enable him to do so. I endeavoured to point out a few minutes ago cases where his audit would be absolutely useless unless from want of knowledge. As I said, he may come across tons of materials in store that are absolutely obsolete ; he has no knowledge whether those should be classed as scrap-iron or not, or whether they should be charged up in the accounts for use upon the railway. He should be a man able to say to the general manager : Are not these obsolete articles ? are they of any use ? what is the use of lumbering the stores with them ? should they not be sold as scrap-iron ? Naturally a general manager may say : I do not want to sell these articles as scrip, they stand in my stores at five cents a pound, and if I sell them I will only get three-quarters of a cent a pound. But that is just what we want an auditor for. He should say :	I
cannot value these as railway articles, as railway appliances, they are of no value except for scrap-iron. That is the kind of audit we want. I am not complaining that the Minister of Finance has refused the application of the Auditor General for such a man, I say' we ought to have such a man, and I say again that the Auditor General has told me several times that such an auditor would be of great value to him, because he himself is entirely unacquainted with that subject, and he has nobody in his department that is acquainted with that subject.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Does not the hon. member for Hamilton mean to say that the Auditor General told him that he had not an officer who was a judge of the value of material, instead of saying that he had not an officer capable of auditing the accounts [DOT]?


Samuel Barker: Precisely, that is what I am talking about. I have endeavoured over and over again to explain what the Auditor General says with regard to the auditing and inspection of the railway accounts, that he has not an official on his staff with the technical knowledge necessary to enable him properly to audit those accounts. I have never said nor pretended to say that the Auditor General has asked anything that had been refused. He has stated in the Public Accounts Committee that he had no person with a technical knowledge that would enable him to do this, and I claim it was the business of the government, having heard that, to provide him with such an officer. Has the government done it ? I have taken the opportunity on more than one occasion, both in the committee and in the House, to say that he ought to be supplied with such an officer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: Aly hon. friend appears to me to have extraordinary views of the duty and jurisdiction of an auditor of accounts. Take his own illustration. He says : How could any one audit the books of a druggist without expert knowledge. Now does my hon. friend say that a professional auditor must have expert knowledge of the values of every item that a druggist would purchase ? A man who has experience in the prices of all kinds of goods may not be able to make up a financial statement, may not be able to go through those books. I think my hon. friend will admit that the officials of the department are responsible for the purchase of these things needed on the railway, they are responsible for the prices they pay for them. It is not the duty of an Auditor General to go over the accounts and say whether he thinks the prices paid were fair market prices ; that is surely not what an auditor is for. The banks have a professional expert auditor, but he does not go over all the securities of the bank and say whether they are good or bad ; the auditor of a loan company does not inquire into the value of the assets or the nature of the securities.


William Stevens Fielding: 


John Graham Haggart: Does he not inquire into the value of the securities ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The auditor does not A'alue the securities. How could any professional auditor go over every item of the stock and say whether it was purchased at the proper value ? That is not his duty.


Samuel Barker: If an auditor is going over the_books of an investment company and he finds stocks valued in the security list at par, and he knew that they were only worth fifty cents on the dollar, do you mean to say that it is not his duty so' to report them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think my hon. friend would, if he was an auditor. My hon. friend being an honest man, if lie was drawing money from a company to audit its books, and he noticed anything of that kind, no doubt he would report it to the president and directors of the company. That is the only duty he would have to perform. It always appeared to me that the Auditor General does not need a staff of experts for each department.


Samuel Barker: I did not say that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Practically that is what it comes to. My hon. friend knows very well that an auditor of an investment company does not go over the value of each piece of property on which they have a loan, and say whether the value is a fair one or not.


Samuel Barker: Is the hon. gentleman not aware that the expenditure on both capital and income account for one year on the Intercolonial Railway is about $10,000,000, and should we not have an expert auditor for that one item alone ?
.The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, lou might keep an expert auditor for one item and not for another. The officials of railway departments are charged with the administration of the department. They are responsible for the conduct of the department. The auditor audits the accounts to see whether the stores have been purchased and the accounts properly kept. We are to be the judges of the conduct of the officers of the department. I think it would be a very proper thing for the Auditor Gen-eial, if any of his staff in going over these accounts noticed any amount as having been paid which was excessive or extravagant or irregular, to report the fact to this House. But to say that the Auditor General should be the judge of the prices is an altogether different thing and it would be impossible that such a state of affairs could exist. In each department there are officers specially attached to each branch who have to certify before the auditor will pass an account that the price paid is fair and just. It is upon that expert that we place the responsibility and the minister assumes responsibility for 406
his official. The minister comes before parliament and the country and is required to justify the conduct of his department. The Auditor General could not very well be called upon to judge in regard to every item as to whether the price paid is too much or not.


Edward Cochrane: How should I know as a member of the Public Accounts Committee anything about the values of the commodities in store if the auditor did not act as an expert and did not know the values ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The official of the department has to sign the account. He is an expert. He is our employee. He is the man we hold responsible.


Edward Cochrane: If he is the man who is held responsible what is the use of sending an auditor there at all ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The auditor has a different duty to perform. It is liis duty to audit the accounts but that is a different thing from fixing the values. Each department could not wait to consult the auditor as to the price or value of goods before making a purchase. If the auditor notices anything excessive or unfair it would be his duty to report, it would be the duty of the officer who is responsible to give an explanation to his minister and the duty of the minister to explain to the House as to whether there was anything in the charge or not. The conditions and circumstances are so different in different sections of the Dominion and in different seasons of the year that nobody not familiar with the conditions at a particular time could judge as to whether the prices were fair and just or not. The chief engineer of the department is responsible for that. He has under him on the spot, in the locality where the work is going on or where the purchases are proposed to be made, a man in whom he places confidence and who reports to him as to values and whose accounts he endorses. It seems impossible to hold the Auditor General responsible for the conduct of every department. There would not be much use in having any departments at all if he were to be the sole judge as to how, when and at what prices articles are to be purchased. We have a large staff in each department and it is to the judgment of these men that we must look to determine whether the accounts are fair or not. The Auditor General simply deals with the money part of it. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker), on second thought, must see that the proposition which he makes Is thoroughly impracticable. There is a responsibility upon the head of the department to see that his department is properly and economically managed and he has to answer to the House for the expenditure of the money which is appropriated to his department. The Auditor General should not be expected to become



responsible for tbe prices paid for goods. If, as the hon. member for Hamilton suggested, they were taking stock and if for that special purpose the Auditor General wanted a technical officer to place a value upon the stores at the time of stock-taking I could understand that there might be some force in what he has said, but to make a general proposition that the Auditor General is to be responsible for the prices paid for stores is to suggest something which is impracticable and impossible.


James Clancy: It does not seem to me at all impossible because the auditor might be an officer who had all the qualifications of an auditor and still have in addition to those technical knowledge that would enable him to perform the duties that have been referred to by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). My hon. friend pointed out a very striking case, namely, that in the stores account there might be the accumulations of years that were charged at the price at which they were originally purchased. Every person knows that many of the stores might not be worth one-tentli of what they cost. During the time that the accumulation is going on there must be a false account in regard to them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They might be worth more.


James Clancy: Possibly, they might be in some instances. My kon. friend from Hamilton pointed out that there should be a technical officer who was an auditor as well. It is a case of stock-taking once a year. It is just the same as if an auditor were auditing the accounts of an insurance or a loan company. One of the things he would look into particularly would be the securities and the values of these securities and lie would have to value them for what they were worth at the time. Why should we not have the same system in connection with the Intercolonial Railway ? It is a very large concern. There are immense sums of money expended from year to year. I can quite understand that neither the government nor the general manager is at all anxious that these accounts shall be cut down. It is no reflection upon them at all when I say that. The general disposition is to make the best showing possible. The lion. Minister of Public Works says that the government are responsible, but I think he is going too far with his responsibility. The responsibility of the government only goes to the extent that we can turn them out of office when they do wrong. They do not redeem the losses that are made; their responsibility is not in dollars and cents and therefore there should be an officer to stand between the people and the government, I do not card* how well meaning they may be. To have a he-''thy state of things you must have business carried on in a business way. There is absolutely no difference between


Robert Franklin Sutherland: auditing the Intercolonial Railway accounts by a technical officer who understands values and who would go into the stores and take stock, valuing the goods that were there, separating those goods that might be sold for purposes other than scrap iron from those that will be nothing more nor less than scrap iron


Mr. HEYD.: That would not be an auditor.


James Clancy: My hon. friend (Mr. Heyd) does not seem to understand yet. He would be an auditor with technical knowledge.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Where can you find an auditor with that technical knowledge ? You cannot do it.


James Clancy: My hon. friend has a very much smaller opinion of the possibilities of men of ordinary intelligence than either I or this committee have.


Mr. CHARLTON.: Will the hon. gentleman tell us the difference between the functions of an auditor and of a valuator It strikes me that he is confusing the work of two different classes of officials.


James Clancy: The difference is, in general terms, very distinct. The valuator is one who has a knowledge of the goods he is valuating. He must be an expert and a man of knowledge in that particular line, but it does not follow that he may not be a first-class accountant, an auditor in every sense of the word. Auditing is not a mere matter of seeing whether there are receipts for all the expenditures ; an auditor must see whether the accounts were authorized how the money was provided, and whether the payments were legal or not. It does not follow that because a valuator has technical knowledge he may not be an auditor as well. It is possible to have a trained officer, as the member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has pointed out. It may be quite true that we have no officer of that kind now, but I reiterate what I said before, that it is very' easy to get a man who is a first-class auditor in the true sense of the word who would at the same time go into the stores and say :	Here, we will take
stock ; we will go through your accounts afterwards, but let us see what your stores are like. This seems to me so plain that it is not worth arguing.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would again place myself on record so that there may be no misunderstanding that on this question there has been no difference whatever between the Auditor General and the government. The Auditor General has unlimited power to audit these accounts. He has exercised that power. He has had all the officials he has asked for, and has had the most full and complete control of the accounts. I do not admit that it is the duty of this government to thrust officials on the Auditor General if he does not want them.


Robert Laird Borden: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not in this instance, because he is the party who must make the application.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 do not think the fact that the Auditor General has not made an application to the present parliament would prevent parliament from doing what it thinks to be most in the public interest. I do not propose to give up my independent judgment. There may be things that are in the public interest for which the Auditor General does not ask, and he may ask for things which I would think were not in the public interest. The question is whether or not there should be some audit with respect to stores and supplies of the Intercolonial Railway, made by an officer who is independent of the government.


John Charlton: That would be a valuator, not an auditor.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the hon. member recognize that the present functions of the Auditor General are something more than what is popularly called auditing ?


John Charlton: Would my hon. friend say that the Auditor General is called upon to value the supplies covered by the accounts which he has to audit, and has to decide whether the beef, the pork, and the various other articles were bought at proper prices V He lias nothing to do with that. He simply audits the accounts, sees that they are entered properly and that there are vouchers for the payment. He has nothing whatever to do with the values of the articles to which the accounts relate.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to express as distinctly as I can my absolute divergence from the view expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton). Not only has the Auditor General that power, but he has exercised it over and over again. If my hon. friend will look over the Auditor General's Report for the last half dozen years he will see that the auditor more than once has sent out officials to measure work which has been done, and has made a report that he does not think that it is worth the amount sought to be exacted from the government. Did he not, under the late administration, send down to value some work on the Curran bridge.


John Charlton: He was not called upon to say whether the work was worth so much a yard, but to ascertain if the work was performed. It was a scrutiny of the accounts.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is not aware of what the Auditor General has been doing during the last eight or ten years. If he will look 406i
up the Auditor General's Report, he will find that whether or not the Auditor General has the power to do it he has at least been exercising that power frequently. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) seems to think that because there was an auditor in the Department of Railways and Canals, there was an end to the question. It does not put an end to the question, because the functions of the Auditor General are entirely different from those of an auditor who is under the control of the government. If the argument of the Minister of Public Works were carried to its legitimate conclusion, it would result in the abolition of the Auditor General, because every department of the government has its auditor. The Auditor General is the servant of the people through parliament, removable only by parliament, and not by the government. The point taken by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is that we should have an audit of the same kind as that made by the auditor of the department performed by an officer who is not dependent on the government, and who cannot be dismissed at the will and pleasure of the government. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposition. I do not suppose the Auditor General can value every dollar's worth of supplies, he cannot push this work to extremes, but you can give the Auditor General power to investigate where he has reason to believe, for example, that work at a particular station is being done at an excessive price or that the work for which a claim is made has not been done, or that the work is being improperly divided as between capital and maintenance accounts. Investigation of that kind must be performed by some one if you are to have any check. It may be done by officers of the department at the present time, but there should also be power in the Auditor General to supervise that work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is very little, if any, difference between the hon. leader of the opposition and myself. In closing my remarks, I said to the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that if he had advocated for this stores account a valuation by an officer not under the control of the Railway Department, but under that of the Auditor General, I did not think there would be any difference between us. But he spoke of an audit in a general way, and it is in a general way that I thought and stated that it would be impracticable. The hon. leader of the opposition and myself agreed ; I did not take the position which he says I did. The logical conclusion of the principle he has enunciated in his remarks would be to abolish parliament and the departments, and to leave the whole thing to the Auditor General. That would be a more logical conclusion than the conclusion which he drew from what I said. I quite agree with my hon. friend that if the Auditor General

thought it desirable in. any particular matter to have a valuator in his department, he should have one. I can quite understand in this particular case that if parliament was not satisfied with the way that stores account was being kept, or with the values put upon the stores by the department, parliament should ask their own official to make a valuation and report. But it seems to me impracticable, and ridiculous for any one to argue that the Auditor General and his branch must be held responsible for the value of the goods purchased, Ac. X agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that the people of Canada do not want to have the Auditor General control all the aff airs of this country ; they look to parliament, to their representatives here. They must leave the power in the hands of parliament, even over the Auditor General.
The officials of the various departments, who are supposed to be perfectly capable and. honest, must certify the accounts before they are passed by the Auditor General ; just as every business man has to depend on the officials of the various branches of his business to certify to the correctness of ' the accounts for goods purchased. I would go so far as to say that if, for example, the Auditor General found accounts coming to him from the Public Works Department for lumber at $30 or $40 a thousand, which was purchased at some point where the ordinary price was $20 a thousand, I think he would be neglecting his duty if he did not report the matter to the minister, and inform him that he would report it to parliament if it were not properly explained. But to say that the Auditor General must be responsible for the prices paid by the department, I think every one will admit is a ridiculous position to take.


Mr. THOMSON (North Grey).: Do I understand the minister to say that a proper inventory of these stores is made at stated intervals ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I presume there is. In so large a department as the Department of Railways and Canals, there must be a proper set of books, and the accounts must be properly kept, although they go through the Auditor General's department. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) suggested, as did the hon. member for Bothwell, that the officials of the department, or the minister, would desire to show that their purchases had not been improperly made, or that they had not bought more than they required.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman, I think, misunderstood me. I did not enter into the question of whether purchases were wisely or unwisely made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That would be the result.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


James Clancy: No, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOK NS.: It was suggested that if they had overbought, and prices afterwards went up, they would try to hide the fact. In such a case the Auditor might appoint a valuator to go over the account ; but as an expert book-keeper he could not value the goods. A man might have an expert knowledge of certain goods and be unable to read or write. In the same way, it would be improper to hold the Auditor Genera] or his department responsible for the prices paid. On that point, there is no difference between the hon. member for Hamilton and myself, that if in stock-taking there was any doubt.about the prices paid, the Auditor General might appoint an officer separate from the department to report whether the prices charged were fair or not.


James Clancy: Nobody would pretend to go so far in either direction as the Minister of Public Works has suggested. No one would go so far as to take away ministerial responsibility by making the Auditor General responsible for anything but neglect of duty. The Auditor General cannot be responsible for the payment of excessive prices. All he can do is to call attention to it. It is no new thing to have an account certified with the statement that the prices are reasonable and fair. I have often seen that certificate when I knew that the prices were not fair. Without attempting to place any wrong-doing at the door of any minister, we know that the tendency under all governments is to pass these accounts. It becomes largely a mere matter of form. The hon. gentleman may ask, have you no confidence in the officers ?	1
do not think I need enter into a discussion of that phase of the subject at all. Confidence or no confidence, goods have been purchased, under former governments as well as under the present government, for which too much has been paid. That will always be the case under our system, where party favouritism is shown in the purchase of supplies. Let us not close our eyes to that fact, it is one of the evils of our system. It seems to me that it is a fair proposition that when goods are purchased at an excessive price, the minister and the general manager should be informed of the fact. The officer who makes the purchase or the officer who values the goods in the store, is not going to call attention to it; and the minister and the general manager will have no means of knowing it unless they get the information from some other source. It seems to me it would be of substantial benefit to both to have a technical officer who knew values. I think it is going too far to say that you could not get a man who had technical knowledge and was an auditor as well. There would be no difficulty about that. The hon. member for Hamilton has pointed out the great advantage of such an officer

in tlie department, where there are so many chances of leaks, and great leaks, in spite of the energy and close scrutiny of the general manager, upon whom the minister must rely. We must give him very wide scope. It is a very natural state of things. You destroy his usefulness if you do not do that. He cannot always run to the minister for advice. He must be a man capable of taking responsibility on himself. The minister, it is true, is responsible for the conduct of the general manager, but would not this greatly facilitate the work in the department ? Let us shake off all the rid usages that cease to be useful and enter upon a new, enlightened and intelligent method which will best serve every interest in the department. I think my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has called attention to a question which is not to be disposed of by saying : this is impossible. It is quite possible. Everybody knows that there is not one department in which goods are not purchased at too high prices. It is not possible for the minister to always guard against that, but let us guard against it as far as we can.


Mr.   BDAIN@: Do I understand the Minister of Public Works to say that the Auditor General has no responsibility as regards the fairness of the prices charged ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think parliament would expect him to be responsible for the prices. If he had reason to suppose that the prices were not fair, his duty would be to report that to parliament if he did not get satisfaction from the department ; and it is for the people to punish their administrators for having paid excessive prices. Nobody would hold him responsible, except for not reporting.


James Clancy: He exercises his powers in every case to prevent a recurrence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Of course.


Mr. BLAIN.: I thought his duties extended further than that. In looking over the Auditor General's Report of last year, I see some correspondence that indicates something altogether different from the understanding of the minister. For example, some printing was done outside the Printing Bureau. The account was sent into the Auditor General, bearing a certificate that the prices were fair and just, but he refused to pass it, because he said it required another certificate.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From the King's Printer.


Richard Blain: It had a certificate from the King's Printer, but he said it required a further certificate that the prices did not exceed those which would be charged in the Printing Bureau. Therefore, the Auditor General must consider that he has some
responsibility with regard to the prices charged by outside parties. If that be not the case, the officer of the Railway Department, whose duty it is to find out if the prices are fair and just, could send in an account in which the prices were double what they should be, and the Auditor General would be justified in paying it. Surely he must have some option, or he would pay every account that came along, and the responsibility would not rest in ms department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman says that the Auditor General would joay the accounts. It is not his business to pay accounts at all.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister will admit I am right in saying that no accounts are paid -without the Auditor General's certificate ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The point taken by the Minister of Public Works, that the Auditor General ought not be held responsible for prices is correct. If the other view is correct, if he is responsible for the prices, and if what the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) says is correct, that many claims have been paid where the prices are excessive, then the Auditor General should be dismissed as incompetent. But he is not responsible for the prices. In the case of the King's Printer, the Auditor General claimed that a certain certificate was required ; and if that had been attached, he would have passed the account.


Richard Blain: What certificate was it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Act requires that the prices should not only be fair and just, but correspond with the prices at the Printing Bureau. A certificate to that effect -was not attached ; but if it had been, the Auditor General would have passed the account, and nobody would say that he was responsible for the prices. All he had to do was to see that he had the proper vouchers according to law. To hold him responsible for the prices would be to impose on him a responsibility which was never intended, and which he would not accept himself.


Richard Blain: That contention is not justified by the letter of the Auditor General himself. The Auditor General did receive a certificate that the prices were fair and just, and still refused to pass the account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He required another certificate that the prices were not in excess of those charged by the Printing Bureau. Under the Act, he must have that certificate, and it had not been given him.


Richard Blain: That is what the Auditor General's letter says :	I quote only part
of it :

Please make no further payments for printing out of your letters-of-eredit, except on vouchers whose certificate includes the fact that the prices do not exceed those which would be charged for such printing at the Government Printing Bureau.
I do not understand that the Act under which the Auditor General discharges his duties calls for such a certificate. If it does, the responsibility for correct charges of goods rests with the Auditor General.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In that particular case.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a distinction between being responsible for the charges and being responsible for the getting of a certificate. One involves judgment as to whether the prices are reasonable or not, and the other involves seeing whether the certificate is attached or not.


Richard Blain: Of course, I do not wish to euter into controversy with the Minister of Finance on this subject, but I would like to understand it. I take it, from the letter 1 have read, that the Auditor General felt responsible for the correct prices in the accounts which I have referred to, for the reason that the account, when it went to the Auditor General, bore the certificate of the officer whose duty it was to certify that the prices were fair and just. That measured up to the requirements of the law


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Auditor General says it did not.


Richard Blain: I feel sure that I do not misunderstand it, because the Auditor General does not say that the law requires a further certificate, but, as an officer feeling some responsibility in respect of the prices, he calls for a further certificate, not only that the prices are fair and just, but that they do not exceed those charged in the Printing Bureau.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) has misunderstood it. The Auditor General sometimes claims pretty wide and generous powers, but it is only just to him to say that I do not think he claimed in this case to judge whether the prices are fair and just. I speak from recollection, and, having none of the papers before me, subject to correction, but I think I am correct when I say that the Auditor General had been passing these accounts for many years with the certificate in the same form in which the hon. gentleman has quoted it, but it suddenly occurred to the Auditor General-I do not say he was wrong-that the statute under which he was acting required another certificate, and that certificate he demanded. We have passed an Act this session to make it clear that the additional certificate is not required.


Richard Blain: 


James Clancy: The point that my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) has raised is this : This was a class of work similar to that being done in the Printing Bureau, and it was being done outside. As a gauge of what was a fair and reasonable scale of prices, he fixed the prices that would have been charged had it been done in the Printing Bureau.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Parliament fixed that.


James Clancy: I quite understand. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has not enlightened me at all by his remark. The Auditor General is not guided merely by the statutes, but he must have some discretionary powers which it would be impossible to embody in a statute. This printing was being done outside, and the Auditor General said :	I do not care what your certificate
may, be as to prices being fair and just, what I want to know is that the cost to the country is mot more than it would have been if the work had been done in the Printing Bureau. It was not a question of complying with the statutes


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) permit me a question ? Is he sure that the Act does not require that the certificate accompanying these accounts should be that the price is not in excess of the price that would be charged in the Planting Bureau ? I am not certain of the matter, but my recollection is that the Act under which printing is done outside the Bureau, as it was before the amended Act of this session was passed, required that the prices for work done outside should mot be in excess of those in the Printing Bureau. That was got over by the legislation of this session.


James Clancy: If that were the law,' it is not necessary to cure a difficulty or an imaginary difficulty


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it is necessary to cure an imaginary difficulty. I will give my hon. friend the case.


James Clancy: I was pointing out to the Minister of Finance that the Auditor General might take the course he has taken in the exercise of powers which should properly be his. Where work is done outside, he should make sure that it does not cost the country any more than work done in the Bureau. No one would imagine that it would require a statutory enactment to authorize the Auditor General to do that- it would be within the proper exercise of his powers. And the case to which the hon. member for Peel calls attention seems to show that the Auditor General felt that it was not enough for him to see to it that the prices were reasonable, but that the cost to the country was not made greater through the work being done outside. That is the essence of the whole thing. If the hon.

minister will point out where I am wrong I shall be glad to be set right.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think it would be well to be drawn into a discussion of the merits or demerits as to this question of the cost of the printing. But I state my recollection of the case. Many years ago, in the time of the late government, an Act was passed intended to permit certain printing to be done in portions of the Dominion far from Ottawa, and it was provided-or seems to have been so intended-that if the prices were deemed fair and reasonable from the point of view of the local conditions under which the work was done, they should be accepted and approved. That appears to have been the spirit of the Act, and for many years the Auditor General allowed that spirit to prevail, under the late government and under the present government, and accepted and approved accounts which bore the certificate that the prices were fair and .iust. The accounts did not bear any certificate comparing the prices with those in the Printing Bureau. In fact the whole intention as I understand it was to recognize the fact that the prices might not be those of the Printing Bureau, the work being done under different conditions. But the Auditor General, after passing such accounts for many years, came to the conclusion-I do not say he was wrong-that the statute under which he was acting required a further certificate, and lie recently demanded that certificate, claiming that it was required under the statute. I have not the Act under my hand, but I think lie was correct. This year an amendment was introduced to carry out what was intended to be the spirit of the Act from the beginning, the spirit under which the Act was administered for many years under both governments.


James Clancy: Does that mean that excessive prices may be paid for the work done outside. If I understand the Finance Minister correctly, it means that the Auditor General has lost control in these matters. It means that the Auditor General has passed accounts for years, possibly at excessive prices-I am going to admit that, fox-, these things are as likely to have happened in the past as to happen ixow; let us be fair and frank about it. The Auditor General of course, like any other man, learns from experience. He had passed accounts year after year under both governments without inquiring whether excessive prices were being paid. Then, I fear, he made the discovery-a very useful one and one that should be within his powers without direct statutory authority-that his duty was, not to prevent work being done outside the Bureau, but to see to it that the. cost of the work to the counti-y should not be more than if it were done in the Bui'eau. That is plain. The govei'nment has relieved the Auditor General of that portion of his duty
and of the exercise of that authority. It means no more and no less than that they have taken away the power from the Auditor General, and that now accounts are to be paid at such prices that, I repeat-and I regret to repeat it-the certificate is little more than a matter of form in some cases. But the conditions may have been such as did not warrant any government in getting it done there. The Minister of Public Works tells us that the government is responsible. That is a kind of responsibility we do not understand as having force in this country. Ministerial responsibility never repaid nor restored one cent to the people from whom it has been taken away, under any government. The moi'e power you give an officer to pi-event these excesses the better for the country and the more will the ministers be relieved of trouble.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are getting away fi-om the real point involved. But I may inform my hon. friend that the change that was made with regal'd to the printing did not necessarily imply that an excessive price had been paid. This printing being done in different portions of the Dominion at places where it suited the convenience of the department to have it done, prices that were fair and just according to the rates current in the place where the work was done, would be the fair and just prices for that work. That is the point of difference. The Auditor General understood it that, way for many years, and approved the accounts as not excessive, as being fair and just according to the standard prices of printing in the places where the work was done. That was the spirit of the Act, that was the way in which it was interpreted for many years. But when the Auditor General took it into his head to make a different interpretation, even though he had a statute to support him in doing so, it was thought well to make a change. However, that is going into the merits of the question. The origin of this part of the discussion was whether the Auditor General was responsible for the prices being fair and just. I say I do not think the Auditor General is responsible, or should be held responsible: that a part of ministerial responsibility. His duty undoubtedly will be to call attention to any case in which he thinks there was fraud, or dishonesty, or excessive charges, and so forth. But the responsibility is not his, the responsibility is the minister's. His duty is to call attention, to remonstrate if he likes, to blame, to spread the story out before parliament- that is the limitation, in my judgment, of his authority ; he is not responsible whether the prices are fair or not.


James Clancy: I think the Minister of Finance will agree with me that it is the duty- of a responsible minister of the gover-ment to place every power In the hands of an official to prevent these improper prac-

tices. That is the best way for the ministers to shield themselves, to protect themselves from tlie matters to which we are now calling attention. I quite agree that it would be impossible to make the Auditor Geueral responsible for the prices. He could not help excessive prices being paid, and to censure him for that would be wrong, and impossible to carry out in practice. But what my hon. friend from Hamilton is pointing out is the desirability of placing at the disposal of the Auditor General every means of preventing these improper practices.
Mr. BLA1N. As to whether the accounts require a further certificate, as the Minister of Finance thinks they should, let me read three or four lines from a letter from the King's Printer, Mr. Dawson :
I have given the certificate the Audit Act requires. I have certified that the prices are fair and just. According to the rules of equity there should be no hesitation to pay such prices.
The King's Printer says that he gave merely a certificate that the prices for printing were fair and just. I do not know whether the minister would go so far as to say that the King's Printer is wrong, and that it does require a further statement that the prices do not exceed the prices that would be paid for such printing elsewhere. The King's Printer says that he has been doing this for ten years.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Speaking from recollection, I think the Auditor General took the ground that there was another Act somewhere dealing with the matter, which required an additional certificate, and that was the certificate he demanded.


Richard Blain: When was that Act passed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say, it has been in operation for many years.


Richard Blain: The King's Printer says there is no such Act.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 think tne Auditor General was able to show that there was an Act somewhere which required that. He was merely acting, as he claimed, within the limits of some statute, and asking for certificates in accordance therewith.


Richard Blain: The point is that the King's Printer says, over his own signature, dated December 26th, 1902, that the accounts have been paid continuously upon the simple certificate that the prices were fair and just.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is no doubt correct, that was the form of audit for a while. While the Auditor General accepted that certificate for many years, he recently required something else, and clai ned that he had statutory authority to demand it.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: My opinion is that the Auditor General was quite right I Mr. CLANCY.
in requiring that the prices should not exceed those of the government office. I can understand that If the printing was given by tender there would be no necessity for the Auditor General making such a reference ; but from the fact of the printing being farmed out, it was necessary to have some basis upon which to arrive at the proper cost. Would the acting Minister of Railways and Canals tell me when the last inventory of stores was made, what was the value of the stores, and by wborn was it made ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The inventory is made on the 30th of June every year. According to the books of the Auditor General for 1901-2, the value was $1,500,000; the value at the last inventory, at the close of the year 1902-3, was about $917,302.24.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: By what official was that inventory made ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The manager informs me that the inventory of the track stores along the line is taken on the 31st of October, and of the rest on the 30th of June. The general stock-taking is on the 30th of June but they prefer to take stock of the track stores at the end of the season.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The hon. gentleman has not yet given me the information I have asked for. Who has charge of the stock-taking ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The accounts are taken by the officials of the Intercolonial Railway, men in the department specially assigned to make that investigation.


Samuel Barker: I have sent for the Act respecting the Printing Bureau, and I see that there is nothing in it requiring a special certificate, and that the amendment made this session does not do away with such a certificate, -because there was no certificate required. The amendment made this session provided that:
Nothing in this Act shall require that stationery and printing tor the purposes of the Intercolonial Railway or the Prince Edward Island Railway shall be obtained or done in the said establishment in any case where such stationery and printing may be more conveniently procured elsewhere at a cost not exceeding customary and fair commercial rates for similar work or supplies in similar quantities.
That section was brought in, not to do away with any certificate that had previously been required, but to enable the government to get its printing done apart from the Printing Bureau. Therefore, the Auditor General was acting within his right in demanding the certificate required by the statute.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My recollection is that the Auditor General d'd claim that he was acting under the

statute. Howevei, tlie point is not of much importance, because I am simply contending that the House cauuot expect* to hold the Auditor General responsible for the prices paid for stores being fair and reasonable. All you can expect the Auditor General to do is to see that the accounts are correct, and that if in any case he has reason to believe that the accounts are improper, it is his duty to call attention to them and to investigate. But we could not hold him responsible for the pfriees paid1 for goods throughout Canada, and I do not think he would be willing to accept that responsibility.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I cannot understand who the official is who makes the inventory of stores. There will no doubt be an official in charge for the stores department, but these supplies will be scattered along the railway and will be at the different stations. Who makes out this inventory ? Is it the gentleman in charge of the stores or some other official ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The inventory is taken by the store-keeper, with the assistance of such officials as he has in his own branch and of others from other branches of the railway service as may be required.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Who fixes the valuation of these stores ? Is it the gentleman in charge of the stores ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The valuation of these stores is based on the prices which were paid for them, subject to any loss that may occur in keeping or handling them. The general manager has given me this illustration for instance : If a quantity of oil was placed in the store, in measuring it out there would be a certain amount of loss that would be charged up against revenue. You could not measure out exactly the same quantity of oil as you put in. In that case, the books would be balanced by charging the loss against the revenue account for the year.
On section <3,


Mr. BI  A IN@: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there is any classification of this large amount of money that is expended on the Intercolonial Railway ? If there is jilaced to the credit of the Department of Railways and Canals $1,500,000 for the Intercolonial Railway, do I understand that the minister would have the right to say that it should be expended in any way he wished ? Would it be apportioned in such a way that so much money would be voted for the purchase of steel rails and so much for the purchase of locomotives ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, it would be general.


Richard Blain: Could the minister take the million and a half and purchase whatever kind of goods he wished ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a very extreme case, but he could. But what would he do with them afterwards ? He would have to make use of these goods. There would be no great pleasure in having them in store, and he could only use them on the Intercolonial Railway at such places and for such purposes as parliament had, authorized.
Mi-. BLAIN. I do not think it is fair that the department should have the right to apportion the full appropriation made by parliament, or that the minister should have the right to expend the money in any manner that he wished. The minister should come forward and say that so many thousand dollars should be applied to one part of the railway and so many thousand to another part. But to give the minister carte blanche to expend this money seems to me to be giving him very extended powers.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think, if my hon. friend were starting a shop and wanted $100,000 to carry his stock, that he would find it convenient to state that so muqh should be devoted to goods of one colour and so much to goods of another colour. I would like to call the attention of the committee to the wording of the Act of 1S93 respecting the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. It contains these words :
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be held to require that the printing for the purposes of the Intercolonial Railway or the Prince Edward Island Railway shall he done in the said establishment in any case when such printing may he more conveniently done elsewhere at a cost not exceeding that which would be charged for such printing at the said establishment.
Therefore, what the Auditor General asked was that a certificate should be given in accordance with the words of the statute. His demand rested on the statute.


Mr. BI  A IN@: May I ask if the Auditor General objected to these accounts without that special certificate ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know what the Auditor General did before the Act was passed in 1893, but I know that for long years afterwards he passed these accounts without the certificate.
Mr. I?LAIN. The Auditor General did not enforce the Act in respect to the special certificate which the hon. gentleman has referred to ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I believe that is the fact.


Richard Blain: That is rather suspicious. It looks as if somebody was trespassing in regard to the accounts, when there was no such trespassing in days gone by. Perhaps my hon. friend can tell us why the Auditor feels it to be his duty to enforce this law to the very letter now, when he felt it to

be his duty for many years not to enforce it at all ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Prices were fixed toy Order in Council, and that Order in Council was passed by the late government.


James Clancy: And these were to be the prices not exceeding those charged at the Bureau ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, they were not.


James Clancy: That is what the Act says, and they could not pass an Order in Council contrary to the Act.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman says they could not. An hon. gentleman said a few minutes ago that whether tlie Auditor General has power to do a certain thing or not, he does it. That Order in Council was passed. We will take another illustration. Twenty years ago the Superannuation Act was passed, whereby a man was entitled, upon his retirement, to receive an allowance in proportion to the number of years of his sei-vice. After the Act was passed a case arose where a man had a few months over the year' to his credit, and the question came up as to how it should be dealt with. The government of the day passed a very sensible Order in Council to the effect that if the number of months was less than six they should not be counted, while if there were more than six they should count as another year. For twenty years the Auditor General accepted that Order in Council as a good law, but a few months ago it occui'red to him that it was not good in law, or in common sense, and he cut down the allowance of a lighthouse keeper, saying that this was not what the law, said, and this year we have had to change the law.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will, no doubt, find cases of that kind. It is not to be expected that after years of experience, the Auditor General would not find out that in some respects he was not acting sti'ictly according to the law, but the strange thing about the matter now is that just as soon as the Auditor Geuei-al acted up to the law passed in 1893, the Minister of Finance comes in with a Bill and says to the Auditor Genei'al : The law of 1893 provides that while printing may be done outside it shall not cost this country any more than it would cost if it were done at the Pl'inting Bureau at Ottawa ; it will not do for you to insist on a strict observance of the law, for if you do we will repeal that law so that we can close your mouth, and we will give such prices as may be charged to suit the conditions in outside towns. The government of the day is not justified in getting one line of printing done where the conditions are as favourable for economical work as they are in the Printing Bureau. You may say that it is more Mr. BLAIN.
convenient to have it done here or there, but hon. gentlemen opposite know very well the evil tendency of pursuing a course of that kind. The pressure of party friends under our system is a great danger to the public, and the moment you take away the Auditor's power, and say to the Auditor General : True, you are living up to the Act of 1893, but under such circumstances we cannot give our friends any printing because their conditions are such that they cannot compete with the Bureau, and therefore we cannot give it to them. The government are not justified in doing this. There can be any number of conditions under which yoxx can pay anything you like, and say that it is a fair price, that a mani is not making any undue profit. One man may not be able to make even a living where another man can make a profit. The minister is taking a dangerous step in this, and one that he will have reason to regret.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE, i'lie hon. gentleman finds great danger in things that ai-e done by this government, in which he saw no danger when his own friends were in power.
Mr. ClANCY. I am talking on general principles, and I said it was wrong if it was done under the late government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The merits of the printing question do not happen to be connected with this Bill, but let me state briefly the facts of the case. The late government passed an Order in Council; the hon. gentleman said they could not do so.


James Clancy: I said they had no authority to do so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is now proving that his friends set the law of 1893 at defiance when they passed an Order in Council declaring that this work might be done in different parts of the country on certain terms and conditions having regard to local conditions. For years that system was carried on under both governments and the Auditor General allowed it to be done, accepting the certificate of the King's Printer that the price was fair and just. Then the Auditor Genei'al makes the discovei'y that this was not consistent with the statute, and says : I will live up; to the statute. Then, we come in and say -I did not introduce the Bill, but I accept my share of responsibility-that that which was the understood policy of both governments for many years, and to which the Auditor Genei'eal did not object, should continue to be the system in force. In regard to the superannuation, much the same thing occurred. For 20 years the Auditor General paid the odd months to the poor lighthouse-keepei', but at this late stage he awakens to the idea that it is not legal and refuses to give the lighthouse-keeper the



OCTOBEK 2, 1903 129S2

[Stage Direction]
benefit of these months. We step in and say that we will give the lighthouse-keeper the odd months, because it is fair and reasonable.
James Clancy: The hon. gentleman cannot take shelter under that. The hon. gentleman is too intelligent not to know that when I said the late government could not pass such an Order in Council, I meant that in so doing they exceeded their authority. The Auditor General had a perfect right to call attention to the fact that if such an Order in Council existed it was contrary to the statutes. The fact that the former government did that does not justify the present government in doing it. We should adopt such a policy as will inure to the best interests of the country. X am not here to defend any act of the former government that is not defensible, I do not think it is the business of any man on either side of the House, because his party may have made mistakes or have gone too far, to justify these mistakes. Ret us, I say, adopt such a policy and such rules as will inure to the best interests of this country. The hon. minister is trying to take shelter behind what ? Behind the fact that the former government did it. Is he adopting all the virtues as well as all the vices of the former government ? Has he laid down the rule that because a former government did this, whether it be good or bad, that he is to adopt it. Is it in the interests of'the country to take this power from the Auditor General by repealing the Act of 1803, notwithstanding that the Order in Council has n >
legal effect ? I ask him. too. if it is in the public interest to take that power out of the hands of the Auditor General and to permit printing to be done anywhere in Canada at prices which, under the conditions, can always be justified as being fair ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My bon. friend (Mr. Clancy) has criticised the action of his friends in the late government. I will be more generous. I am going to defend the late government. I will not allow them to be maligned by the hon. member for Botbwell (Mr. Clancy). When the late government passed the Order in Councillor, I think, the Conservative government dealt with both of these questions, with printing and superannuation-it was a common sense Order in Council. Tn relation to superannuation, where the statute had failed to take account of the odd mouths, it was reason and common sense that the government should say : where a man has seven months to his credit, we will count it as a year, and if he has only two or three months to his credit we will not count it at all. That was common sense and in carrying that out we have been simply doing what is fair and reasonable. The late government for years allowed their friends to do the printing. Our predecessors did it as
we do it. I am here to defend the principle of giving our friends the preference every time provided the prices are just, and I am not in favour of concentrating all the work into the Printing Bureau at Ottawa If a portion of that work has in the past been done in other portions of the Dotnimon,
I do not think we should concentrate it all in Ottawa. There has been no change in regal'd to method or price. The Conservative press did a certain amount of work for the Intercolonial Railway at a price settled bv Order in Council. If that system has been continued by the present government at prices which are fair and just, I say there is no wrong to the public treasury, and I am here to defend the action of the late government in that respect.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I wish to differ from the policy of the government in respect to giving out printing to any other office than the Printing Bureau. I am not here to say whether the late government did what was right or what was wrong. In my humble opinion they did what was wrong, and I believe that where the government has a Printing Bureau, as they have in the city of Ottawa, capable of doing a large amount of printing, it is not wise to give the Railway Department authority to get their printing done in any part of Canada they choose. Whether the prices are fair and just or not, I do not express any opinion at the moment. I wish to express my dissent from the policy of the government in this respect. I do not think it will receive the endorsation of the people of this country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a little late ; the Bill is passed.	.


Mr.   BRAIN@: I think it is the duty of the government to take away such power from the department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think there was a division on the Bill ; so I am afraid my hon. friend is bound by it.


Mr.   BRAIN@: Perhaps I should not say what is in my mind about that sort of criticism. The hon. minister sought to drag the superannuation question into this discussion. We are not responsible for that. I want to remind him of the promise he and the minister who sits behind him made to this country, that if they were put in power they would abolish the Superannuation Act. Yet. tlie charges to the country under that Act are now greater than they were under the late government.


Peter Macdonald: I have been waiting with great patience and expectation for the last ten minutes, thinking that the committee would stop this irrelevant^ discussion ; but finding that they are widening it, I am constrained to ask them to he good enough to return to the question.


Edward Cochrane: I hope the Minister of Finance will take notice.


Peter Macdonald: Yes, both sides.


Richard Blain: It is very kind of the chairman to show so much patience ; but I notice that his patience generally ceases when a member of the opposition has the floor.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Richard Blain: However, I bow at once to liis ruling. I do not think the superannuation question should be discussed at this time. We are not responsible for the introduction of that question, and I have said all I have to say upon it. In my opinion this Bill gives too wide powers to the Railway Department. I do not think that department should have placed to its credit ?1,500,000, with tire right to purchase for the Intercolonial Railway whatever kinds of goods they wish, in whatever quantity, wherever they wish, and at whatever price they wish. I think the Act should specify that a certain amount should be placed to the credit of the department to purchase steel rails when required, a certain amount to purchase locomotives when required, and so on. I do not think such great powers should be given to the minister. The new minister seems to require very great liberty.
I do not know whether his predecessor would think this a proper measure; he is not in the House. For myself. I think it is very dangerous legislation, and I wish to express myself as against it.


Robert Laird Borden: This morning I raised a point with regard to the first section, which I did not press very strongly, because the Minister of Finance and my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) both seemed to entertain a somewhat different view to that which I expressed. But I must say that I am not quite convinced yet. I think I understand the intention of the section, and the difficulty I have in regard to it is owing possibly to some lack of care in the way in which it is drafted. As the section reads at present, with the last line struck out, it provides that advances may be made indefinitely. There is no necessary connection between section 1 and sections 2 and 3. My difficulty would be to a great extent eliminated if you added after the word * advances,' in the first section, the words ' on railway stores account.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection to adding these words though I do not think they change the meaning of the section. I move that section 1 be reconsidered, and that these words be inserted.
Motion agreed to; Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER,



PILOTAGE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine) moved second reading of Bill (No. 261) respecting the pilotage district of Montreal, and the port and pilotage district of Quebec.
Robert Laird Borden: I mav say to mv lion, friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that I have a communication from my hon. friend for Montmorency (Mr. Cas-grain), who says he cannot possibly be here to-day but that he will be here on Monday, and he would be greatly obliged if this Bill were held over until Monday. It concerns the interests of his constituents to a certain extent, and he would like to be present.
Motion withdrawn.



NAVIGABLE WATERS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 200) to amend the Act respecting certain works constructed in or over navigable waters, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
George Taylor: I would ask the hon. minister to let this stand over until next session so that we may have time to consider it. This government has never given a dollar for the purpose of erecting a wharf on either side of Howe island there. The farmers, in order to get over from that island, have established a ferry service operated by cable, and have built a row of docks along both sides. Why should the government compel these people to take out a license and pay $5 for permission to use the ferry they have established themselves? This Bill will apply to ferries which have been running for the last fifty years.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Raymond Prefontaine).: I do not see why we should not have a law to regulate the use of these cables in order to protect life and property. In the case of certain ferries which have been long established, we might not charge any license, but it is necessary, that they should be subjected to some regulations. There have been a number of accidents owing to the absence of any regulations. Nearly a whole family was drowned at Bout De L'lsle near Montreal a few months ago. A cable had been stretched aci'oss the channel without license. It was under water, not seen, and there was nothing to indicate its presence. These people came across this obstacle and their boat was upset and they were drowned. The only recourse their successors have is to sue in damages the parties who laid the cable. In Manitoba repeated accidents of a similar kind have happened.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman's argument is not sufficient justification for the

course lie intends to take. There are many accidents on steamboats which are licensed and carry licensed engineers, captain and pilots. I do not see how there can be any danger in leaving these cables undisturbed, because they run along the bottoms of rivers. If the hon. gentleman will allow the Bill to stand, he will find that he will get representations against it from many of the provinces.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Does this Bill refer only to navigable waters ?
The MINISTER Oh' MARINE AND FISHERIES. Yes, I do not intend to regulate the use of cable across waters which are not navigable. I am going as far as it is possible to go under the present circumstances, and am acting on the recommendation that has been made. If the hon. gentleman wishes to apply it to non-navigable waters, the Bill will be found still more objectionable to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor). The principle is not new at all., but is involved in chapter 92 of the Revised Statutes of Canada respecting certain works constructed in or over navigable waters. This Act was passed in 1886, and the present Bill only expands the powers which are given under that Act and provides for the regulating of some things which are not regulated under the law as it stands. The non-regulation of which has led to loss of life and property.


James Clancy: I have in mind navigable rivers on which ferries are established by municipalities. If the present Bill becomes law, these municipalities will have to get licenses from the minister for a ferry, and, no doubt, he will send out an inspector to see that the work is done according to his regulation. If the hon. minister wishes to apply this to the North-west Territories, where they have no municipal institutions, I personally, would have no great objection. But if he wishes to interfere with the work in this respect now carried on by the municipalities in Ontario, I think lie is going altogether too far. How does the hon. gentleman intend to provide for the proper arrangement of these cables ? Is he going to send out a travelling inspector ?


Samuel Hughes: A lot of them.


James Clancy: I am afraid it is only a means of providing offices. I have not had an opportunity to study the Bill closely, but from the hon. minister's explanation, I am led to believe that he is not warranted in taking charge of ferries now controlled by municipalities and properly managed. Nor is there any reason why he should demand a license fee of $5 from a municipality for carrying on such a work.


Samuel Hughes: Supplementing what the hon. member for Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) has said-the hon. minister can answer both of us when he speaks. I understand that in the North-west Territories they establish these ferries and maintain them for the- convenience of the settlers. Would not the hon. minister run foul of the North-west council there as well as of the municipalities in the ease my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has referred to ? And, if a license is charged, would not the government be responsible for seeing to it that these ferries are kept in proper condition, and be liable in case of accidents V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) surely is not serious. If a bridge is constructed over a navigable water according to plans which have been submitted to the Governor General in Council and approved, and an accident occurs, would the hon. gentleman contend that the government is responsible ?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: He will not pretend that before a court, I am sure.


George Taylor: In support of what my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) lias stated, I may say that one of the cables from Howe island to the main shore is owned and controlled by the municipality, and a man is paid by the municipality to operate it. The other, at the end of the island, is owned by a private individual. I do not know whether the hon. minister intends to provide that these ferries cannot be operated without making application to his department and paying $5. He says that this does not apply to non-navigable waters. Will the hon. gentleman define navigable and non-navigable water ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The hon. gentleman must know that as well 'as I do-everybody knows what is meant by navigable water.


George Taylor: Well, will the hon. minister explain ? In referring to the remarks of my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) lie spoke of non-navigable waters. What are non-navigable waters ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Waters on which boats cannot be used for regular transportation. The statute makes it very clear what is navigable water and what is floatable water. I do not see any object in having a debate on the subject.


George Taylor: What, in the hon. minister's opinion, is a non-navigable water ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: One that it is not possible to navigate.


George Taylor: With what kind of a boat ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: With a canoe ?
129S7


George Taylor: Even the smallest pond in the country can be navigated with a boat of some kind. So this would apply to every patch of water we have.


Edward Cochrane: The minister ought not to dismiss this question with a nod of his head. He seems to think that everybody ought to know what is a navigable water, but, being a layman, I confess that I do not know as much as the minister does on these matters. What is a navigable water ? The hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) suggests that any water is navigable on which you can float a canoe. Does the minister agree to that ? Take the case of a river with an island in it. On one side is the boat channel, but on the other, between the island and the shore, boats do not go. Would the part not used be navigable under law ? Or, take the case spoken of by the hon. member for South Deeds (Mr. Taylor). The island lie mentions, if I remember well, is at the foot of Lake Ontario. The farmers have stretched a cable across to the shore in order to work a ferry. That channel may not be used for steamers, but is it or is it not navigable water ? Where municipalities have established these ferries, of course, the ferries are as well managed as they could be by the Department of Marine and Fisheries or any officer the minister might send. If the minister takes this under his control, would lie insist upon the municipalities carrying out certain regulations made by his department, and would he insist upon their getting a license ? These are questions which should be answered before we pass this legislation.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that nobody will deny that the Dominion has jurisdiction over all navigable waters, and that it would be a defiance of Dominion authority for any person to lay a cable in navigable waters that would interfere with navigation. As I understand it, the object of this Bill is to fix the liability. If my hon. friend or some of his friends happened to be navigating a river and met with an accident in consequence of these cables, and if he could not fix the liability anywhere, he would say that the government were neglecting their duty. As I understand the object of the Bill, it is simply to provide that these people shall pay a nominal fee, so that there will be some' responsibility, and in order that this work may be carried on without interfering with navigation.


Edward Cochrane: Would the minister consider the River Trent, for instance, a navigable stream ? It is not navigable in its present state, but with certain improvements it may be made so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Laymen like the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) and myself would Mr. HEYD.
get into deep water if we undertook to explain the legal meaning of a navigable stream. It may be, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says, that a stream is navigable on which navigation can be carried on for commercial purposes, unless it has been declared not to be so by Act of parliament.
Mi-. CLARKE. Declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are streams that are navigable, and might be construed to be navigable unless they have been declared by Act of parliament non-navigable streams. In such a case the jurisdiction over them would fall within the province instead of the Dominion. There are other streams where, at certain seasons of the year, not even a canoe could be paddled over them, and yet they are legally navigable streams, as I have found in my experience.


George Taylor: As I understand the Act defining navigable waters, it places jurisdiction over them in the Department of Public Works. Now, why is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries going to take charge of these ferries when they properly belong to the Department of Public Works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That may be correct in a general sense, but my hon. friend knows that fisheries and navigable streams are under the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the old government. I think, put ferries under the Inland Revenue Department. But in a general way, I think my hon. friend is right, and it would be better, in the public interest, that the granting of licenses to these parties should be in the Marine Department rather than in the Public Works Department.


George Taylor: If a party wants to build a wharf on any navigable water he must make application to the Department of Public Works, which has control of all navigable waters. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries may think that these cables are interfering with the fish that may resort to these waters. That may be the object of introducing this Bill, for fear that these cables stretching across these waters may interfere with the fisheries; otherwise, I do not see that it has any justification unless it is to bring some grist to his mill, and give him some more patronage. I do not seq why we should have legislation spliting up departments, putting one part of a navigable stream under the control of Public Works and another under Marine and Fisheries. If the government have promised to give the Minister of Marine and Fisheries more patronage, let them come down with an Act and define what jurisdiction he has, instead of running in these little annoying Bills, taking parts of jurisdiction away from the

Department of Public Works tliat properly belongs to it. But aside from that, take the Rideau canal from here to Kingston, I know several of tliese cable ferries running from one side of the Bideau canal to tlite other, that have been working for years. Have these people got to stop using these ferries ? I ask the minister to point to a single accident that has ever happened to anybody navigating the waters of the St. Lawrence or of the Rideau canal, in consequence of these cables, or point to any other place in the Dominion, or cite one case where a family was going across in a row-boat and ran against one of these cables and were upset. That happens every day in the week without a cable. People get upset in row-boats and lives are lost. But merely on account of one accident, is he going to put the people of this country to this great inconvenience ? Does lie pretend that if a rowboat is paddled over the water that makes it a navigable water ? Then, every stream in the Dominion is a navigable water.
I never heard of an accident happening to a steamboat or a sail-boat coining in contact with one of these cables. These cable ferries are a great convenience to the people in all parts of the country, and the people, in order to have communication with each other, have a little boat which they pull across with a cable. That cable lies at the bottom of the river when it is not in' use, and will not interfere with anything except when it is used to pull the boat across. Then the people see the ferry moving and can keep out of its way. But the minister wants to make a place for some half dozen men to go round and inspect these cables and collect tolls, putting the public generally to great inconvenience.


James Clancy: Has the minister had any demand from the province of Ontario for this legislation ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: This legislation is not new at all, the principle was adopted nearly 20 years ago when the first Bill was passed regulating the use of navigable waters. That was a consolidation of many previous laws then existing. I refer to chapter 92 of the Act respecting navigable waters, which provides that bridges, booms and so forth shall be regulated in a certain manner, and when a bridge is destroyed and has to be renewed, or when a bridge needs repairs, the plans therefor must be submitted to the Governor General in Council, who will not sanction them unless it is made clear that they will not interfere with navigation or render navigation more difficult. Therefore, this legislation is not at all new. I did not expect, of course, that all these questions would be raised, otherwise I could have looked more deeply into past legislation. But I find that chapter 35 of 49 Victoria, refers to a number of Acts previously existing, which it repealed. Those Acts are the following :
45 Vic., c. 37, respecting bridges over navigable waters constructed under the authority of provincial Acts; 40 Vic., c. 43, respecting booms and other works constructed in navigable waters, whether under the authority of provincial Acts or otherwise ; 46 Vic., c. 44, to amend an Act of the present session respecting booms and other works constructed in navigable waters, whether under the authority of provincial Acts or otherwise; 48-49 Vic., c. 6, to amend the law respeetng bridges, booms and other works constructed over or in navigable waters, under the authority of provincial Acts. This law of 1886 is a consolidation of all those statutes.


Edward Cochrane: Not a word in those Acts about ferries.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not about ferries, but about all the rest. At that time probably accidents which have occured since had not occurred and it had not been deemed necessary to pass such a law. I have cited accidents on the St. Lawrence river. There was also an accident on the Red river by which a man in a yacht lost his life because the yacht passed at a point where a cable was laid and there was no notice that the cable was there. I do not see that it would be a bad principle to protect the life of a citizen against such accidents as these if at the present time it is a good principle to protect the property only of the people. The law regulating booms, bridges, &c., on navigable waters is in the interest of protecting the life of citizens. It is in the interest of navigation pure and simple. I do not understand the hon. gentleman's argument. The hon. gentleman says that this law is introduced to create some patronage. I do not see where the patronage comes in. You might as well use the same argument whenever you undertake to regulate any matter affecting the public interest. In cities you might as well contend that there should be no police to maintain the law because it might involve a question of patronage. Some one has to see that the law is executed. It is not provided in the Bill that any officers shall be appointed to enforce the Act. It will be executed by the officers of the department. We have officers all over the Dominion and it will not be very much trouble to see that these cables are laid in accordance with the regulations. At the present time telegraph companies lay cables across rivers and streams and for their own protection they lay them in such a way as not to interfere with navigation because it would only be damaging their own property if their cables were interfered with. But, it is not so in regard to movable cables. The hon. gentleman says that they remain at the bottom of the river. That is not so. When the ferry passes from one shore to the other the cable is lifted and that is 1 where the danger comes in. The hon. gen-

*12992
tleman says it is very easy for those who navigate those waters to see when the ferry is coming across and that they should guard against danger. Perhaps it is impossible for them to guard against danger if there is a very swift current because there may be no indication that there is a cable at the point at which their vessel or boat is. I think, for all these reasons that this legislation is reasonable and that the objections raised by the hon. gentleman should not be allowed to stand in the way of it. I think that he makes these suggestions only for the sake of wasting time.


George Taylor: Because legislation has been passed regulating booms and bridges it is no justification for this legislation. We all know that if a man puts a boom across a navigable water a boat cannot pass. The boom is there and may be an obstruction. The same remark applies to a bridge. Legislation lmd to be passed to regulate the building of bridges over navigable streams in order that they might be placed at a proper height above the water. But, these cables do not interfere with navigation at all. They are generally put in a narrow stream and not in swift waters.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have seen them in swifter waters than are to be found any place in Ontario or Quebec. I have seen them across the Yukon river and if there is any swifter river in the Dominion of Canada I would like to know it.


George Taylor: If they cannot get them anywhere else they may put them in a swift current, but they are generally put in a narrow stream and where the current is not swift. Those at Howe island are less than one-eight of a mile long and there is no boat navigating that water except possibly a row-boat or sail-boat. They can see the ferry as it is starting out and they can remain where they are until the boat reaches the opposite shore. The ferry at Howe island has been operated for the last thirty years by the municipality. I think the city of Kingston furnished the cable and that the municipality of Howe island operates it. At the lower end of Howe island a farmer has a little ferry operated by a cable and if any one wants to get off the island he runs the boat over. It is not operated every hour of the day but only as there is a demand for it. It has never interfered with navigation, there has never been an accident and why should this poor farmer be obliged to come down to Ottawa to see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in order that he may keep up this ferry for the purpose of accommodating the people of this little island ? Why should he have to come down and ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to give him a license and pay him $5 in order that ho may be be able to oblige the farmers of Howe Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
island ? This government has never contributed a dollar to build a wharf for the poor people of Howe island. The Municipality of this little island built the wharf there, and the hon. minister now says that he will oblige them with a license and take $5 from them. I think it is an outrageous proposition. What is happening there will happen in almost every municipality in Ontario where the people have these little ferries which are operated with a chain or wire cable. I think, as I have said, that it is an outrageous proposition to demand that these people must take out a license to operate these two ferries or be liable to a fine of $100 or more if they fail to do so.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am at a loss to understand the opposition to this Bill. This Bill provides that nobody shall interfere with navigable streams or navigable rivers. Any man who puts a chain across a navigable river puts an obstruction in the river which is liable to cause accident. There may be places where this may be tolerated without any serious inconvenience being caused to anybody, because, although the stream is navigable, it may not be navigated, but there are places where it would be a serious inconvenience to the public if a party were allowed to put such an obstruction in a navigable river. Under such circumstances it seems to me to be only a wise precaution that nobody should be allowed such a privilege without having permission from some authority who can go and look into the circumstances of the case- and see whether it is advisable to grant such permission or whether it is inadvisable to allow such a cable to be laid. There may be places where it is advisable and there may be other places where it wmuld not only be the reverse of advisable but perhaps dangerous. Nobody could find fault that it should not be within the power of any man, however meritorious his intention might be, to put an obstruction in a navigable river because the consequences might be very injurious. The statement made by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) that there are places where little ferries are kept is very true. It does not follow that the owners of these ferries shall be obliged to come to Ottawa and take out a license. It does not follow that they will be obliged to pay $5 for if because the Bill says that the license fee shall not exceed $5. it may be $1. or it may be twenty-five cents. But, the principle of the Bill seems to be a proper one.


James Clancy: I do not think that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or perhaps the right hon. gentleman <Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), has quite considered how far-reaching this is. I may point out a case that comes under my notice almost every day. There are two branches of the river Sydenham, which is navigable for from 12 to 16 miles of its length, and on each of these branches boats are being operated con-

stantly during the season of navigation. This river does not separate municipalities, tout it runs through municipalities, and each municipality maintains ferries instead of (bridges, as the construction of bridges would entail a greater expense on the municipalities than they could undertake. Under the Ontario Act, there is a provision by which ferries may be established and controlled by municipal councils, and provision is also made for the establishment of ferries between two municipalities, tout in that case, of course, the assent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is necessary. I am putting the simple case where the ferries are established by the one municipality, and on this river there are five or six of these. That is not an interference with navigation, and these ferries are under the control of the municipality, which is responsible for them, and is more concerned than even the department hero could be to secure the safety of life and property. The intention cannot be that the municipality, after operating one of these ferries for half a century, having the greatest care for the protection of life, should have to come down here to ask for consent.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I desire to move that the committee rise and report progress, because the hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Etliier) has a Bill from the Senate which he desires to put on the Order paper before six o'clock.
Progress reported.



OTTAWA VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ETHIER moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 2041 respecting the Ottawa Valley Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first and second times, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 262) to amend the Act respecting the harbour of North Sydney, in Nova Scotia, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: This is the style of drafting which I think is objectionable, inasmuch as looking at the Bill one has no idea whatever as to the effect of the amendment proposed. Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to read to us section 8 as it will read after this amendment has been passed ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (reading) :: The salary of the harbour master shall he at the rate of not exceeding five hundred dollars per annum.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: This section is open to the same objection. Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to read section 10 of the Act as it will be after this amendment is passed ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHEIt(ES (reading) :
The said harbour dues shall be collected by the collector of customs at the said port, who shall not grant entry inwards or clearance outwards to any ship until the harbour dues on her are paid ; and shall, after deducting five per cent for his remuneration, pay the balance.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SHIPPING CASUALTIES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 263) to amend the Shipping Casualties Act, 1901, read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Edward Frederick Clarke: What does that mean.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It means that in case of stranded vessels there shall be an investigation held. That has not been provided for before.
On section 2,


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman was to give us the recommendations of (lie British Board of Trade in regard to this matter on the second reading of the Bill, or, as we would have preferred, at some previous stage.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The object of the amendment is to enable the minister to appoint a permanent commissioner. An accident happens, it is reported to the department, and the minister^ happens to be absent, or for some reason or other he cannot be reached at once, and the matter is delayed. On the representations made to the department by tlie British Board of Trade, we have thought that it would be in the interest of navigation and for the improvement of the St. Lawrence route if in such cases it should not be necessary for the commissioner to wait the arrival of the minister to get the necessary authorization. I think the members of the committee will see that no harm can result from this, because the officer who is charged by the department to hold these investigations is generally the same officer, and he appoints his assessors. By this amendment he will not be delayed in holding the investigation.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend promised us, when the resolution was going through the Committee of the Whole, that



lie would, produce tlie request of the British Board of Trade. It is that I was referring to.


The MINISTER OP MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I have not with me to-night, owing to the absence of the deputy minister, the representations which were made to the department on this subject. But I suppose the hon. gentleman will take my word that this amendment has been demanded in the interests of navigation and shipping.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I would be happy to take my hon. friend's word, although he has hardly kept his promise with regard to producing the document. We might look at the suggestions of the British Board of Trade from a different standpoint; and, as the hon. gentleman was making some material changes in the Act, I thought it would be just as well to have their recommendation before the House when considering the Bill. Perhaps we might let it stand in committee until my hon. friend brings down this document.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: We might delay the third reading, in order to produce this correspondence. After all, this is only a domestic Bill. It is only a matter of organization in the department. I will bring down the demands that have been made and the suggestions regarding the amendments which are considered fair and reasonable.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that would be satisfactory. If my hon. friend will undertake to produce those suggestions and let me have an opportunity of looking at them before the third reading, that will suit. Will he be good enough to let me know when he does lay them on the Table, in case I should not be in the House at the time, so that I may have an opportunity of reading them before the third reading.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I will send them directly to the hon. gentleman.
On section 3,


Edward Frederick Clarke: This is intended to apply to masters, mates or engineers. Wliv not apply it also to pilots ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Because there is a Pilotage Act which deals with them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What provision is there in the Pilotage Act to cover such cases ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Chapter 180 of the Revised Statutes of Canada contains all the provisions respecting pilots.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I understand it, this Bill is intended to provide speedy means of Inquiry into marine casualties, but the power given the officials appointed to investi-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
gate only covers certain officers. Why not make it competent for them to inquire iuto the conduct of the pilot ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Because all that is dealt with in the Pilotage Act. We have special legislation as regards pilots.


Robert Laird Borden: Take the case of a stranded steamer in which it is perfectly clear the stranding is due to the fault of some one. There is a dispute as to whether it was due to the fault of the pilot or the captain or some of the officers. You are taking power to investigate the conduct of the officers, but can you use the investigation for the purpose of dealing with the pilot. If not, why should you make any distinction between the masters or officers and the pilot.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Especially as it is not likely you could know in advance who is responsible. It might be the pilot.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Investigation into the conduct of pilots is provided for in chapter 80 of 49 Victoria. And I may say that one of the reasons advanced in favour of the Department of Marine and Fisheries taking charge of the pilotage between Montreal and Quebec and the River Saguenay is precisely the reason advanced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke). In order to put the whole thing under one control, another Bill has been introduced ; the consideration of which has been postponed until Tuesday next. This Bill will have the effect of putting under control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries investigations to be held as regards the conduct of pilots. That is under chapter 74 of 49 Victoria.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But this Act contemplates the appointment of an official to inquire into cases of stranding and so on. Why not give this officer power to deal with the pilot as well as with the master, mate and engineer V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I cannot do it under this Bill, and that is why another Bill has been introduced. If that passes, then, under the amended law, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would be authorized to make regulations and give power to an officer to investigate casualties, and to take cognizance of offences of the pilot as well of the other officers. I think it is a good move and, as 1 stated when that Bill was under discussion, it has been recommended by the Board of Trade of Montreal, the shipping interests, and the harbour commissioners. And, to the credit of the pilots of the district, I must say that they have unanimously asked to be taken under control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. That is the reason for bringing the Bill before the House.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Suppose that an investigation is held under the provisions of the Bill now before us and the investigating officer iinds that the master, engineer and mate are blameless, but that it is the pilot who is responsible, what will be the modus then ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Under the Act which I am proposing to amend by this Bill, the investigating officer will have no authority, because it is a different class of people who have to be dealt with and they must be dealt with in a different manner and under a different law. But, in order to attain the end that the bon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) desires, the Pilotage Act also will be amended so that the commissioner who is called upon to investigate casualties under the Act may investigate, at the same time, the conduct of the pilot but with a little difference because there are certain provisions which will be followed.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the Bill to which the minister refers printed ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AN1) FISHERIES. Yes. It is the Bill, the consideration of which has been postponed until Tuesday, at the request of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax), in order to allow the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) to be present when it is discussed). Under that Bill the pilotage authority which now rests with the Harbour Board of Montreal, will be transferred;, with the consent of everybody, to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And Quebec too V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, as regards Quebec, I have to say that we have been unable to come to an understanding. And we do not care to coerce them. After all, as everybody consents to the change that is proposed respecting pilots between Montreal and Quebec, it might be just as well to wait and see how this law works. If it is satisfactory, no doubt the pilotage authority of Quebec will come to the same conclusion as that of Montreal, and so the authority of the Department of Marine and Fisheries will be extended, with the consent of the harbour board and pilots of the district of Quebe.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) refer to Bill (No. 2G1) respecting the pilotage district of Montreal and the port and pilotage district of Quebec, as the Bill that has been tixed for consideration for Tuesday next V


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In what way do the provisions of this Bill bring the pilot who m y be in charge of a vessel below Quebec, for 407i
instance, and who may be found to have been derelict in his duty in case of stranding or other accident, under the discipline-if I may use the term-of the commissioner who is to inquire into cases of marine accident ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It will not bring the pilots below Quebec under the authority of the 1 >epartment of Marine and Fisheries, for the reasons I have explained, that we could not come to an understanding with the pilots and harbour commissioners of Quebec. So, the law regarding casualties cannot be adopted to apply to those pilots. But, under the authority of the law that is proposed, it will apply to the pilots from Montreal to Quebec.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. minister has quite met what is suggested by my hon. friend form West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The Bill (No. 261) will place the pilots between Montreal and Quebec under control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but not so the pilots below Quebec. This Bill that we are discussing will have no effect upon them.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Of course not. If I had succeeded in getting the control of all the pilots on the St. Lawrence route I could have consolidated the two laws. But, as the control by the pilotage authority of Quebec over their own pilots remains, including the control of investigations, I thought we might as well leave the two laws existing, but change the authority vested in the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. If, in a year or two, it is possible to come to an understanding with the pilotage authority of Quebec, we can consolidate the two laws, and have authority which will deal with faults or negligence on the part not only of masters, mates and engineers, but of pilots as well.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I believe the hon. minister is working in the right line. Personally, from all I have been able to gather concerning the state of affairs, I think it is better to have the authority vested in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But take section 21 of the Act as it is proposed under this Bill :
The certificate of a master, mate, or engineer may be cancelled or suspended by a court bolding a formal investigation, if the court finds that any loss, or damage, or the abandonment or stranding of any ship, or any loss of life has been caused by the wrongful act or default of such master, mate, or engineer

and so on. I would ask the minister if it is not possible and practicable to add the word ' pilot ' either before or after ' master,' mate or engineer,' so as to give the commissioner who is to be appointed under the provisions of this Act. power, after having made an investigation if he finds a pilot

guilty of dereliction of duty, to impose a penalty upon him ? This Bill only gives the commissioner power to impose a penalty upon a master, a mate or an engineer ; why mt include the pilot as well, if he is the officer of the ship who was primarily responsible for the accident ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AN1) FISHERIES. For the reason I have explained. On account of the misunderstanding that exists we have to keep the two statutes separate. I have explained that the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, and the shipping interests as well as the pilots, who are a corporation, were strongly opposed to any change.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have we not power in this parliament to make any regulation we please ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Certainly we have, but it would be a change involving the obliteration to a certain extent of a corporation which has existed for nearly a century. The pilots are jealous of their rights and privileges, and think they can manage their own affairs better under present conditions than the Department of Marine and Fisheries could do it for them. Well, after studying the question, we thought the present was not an opportune time to force them, especially in view of the fact that the sliipping interests were not favourable to a change. If the shipping interests were favourable to the change we might then have concluded that, in the interest of transportation and of the safety of the St. Lawrence route, we would be justified in ignoring the prejudices of the pilots, and passing such a law as we thought proper. But none of the interested parties were willing that we should make the change, in fact they all opposed it; so we concluded that if we could not get a whole loaf, we would take a half loaf. In the city of Montreal the case is different, for there all the interested parties acceded to the wish of the government, and we are proposing a law which will be discussed by this House in a few days that will apply to Montreal. We could have included in the provisions of that Bill the Quebec pilots as well as those of Montreal, and bring them all under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but, as I have explained, the Quebec pilots and the shipping interests there were opposed to it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then this Bill does not interfere with the pilots, and does not apply to any investigation into their conduct ? I,s the government afraid to tackle the question ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: No, we are not afraid of the pilots, but when we found that all the interested parties, all those who were in-Mr. CLARKE.
terested in making the navigation as safe as possible were opposed to the change, we did not insist upon making the change.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did the harbour commissioners and the shipping interests oppose this Bill, or did they suggest that the government 'should not make provision in this measure for the appointment of a commissioner to inquire into the conduct of the pilots as well as into that of the masters and mates ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They did. The harbour commissioners, the shipping interests as well as the corporation of pilots all opposed any change. I sent the same memorandum to the harbour commissioners at Quebec, to the pilots and the shipping interests of Quebec, that I sent to the shipping interests in Montreal, to the board of trade and to the pilots of Montreal. In Montreal everybody consented to the change and approved of it, asked that it should be made ; in Quebec, on the other hand, they all opposed it. .


Edward Frederick Clarke: If it is in the public interest that a speedy and efficient means should be adopted to ascertain the cause of marine accidents and to impose penalties upon the officer responsible therefor, whether it be a master, a mate or an engineer, why should it not apply as well to the pilot, if he is the person in charge at the time the accident takes place ? Why not make a provision in this Bill to impose a penalty upon him ? I presume the minister is not consulting the interests solely of the pilots in Quebec or Montreal, but of the shipping interests generally, and endeavouring to improve the reputation which the St. Lawrence has. I think this is a very commendable Act, and I cannot understand why the government did not include pilots in the list of officers who may be dealt with by the commissioner.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: It appears that I have failed to make myself understood by the hon. gentleman. I said that the pilots of Quebec, the harbour commissioners and the shipping interests of Quebec were all opposed to any change.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Opposed to the government providing a simple means of having an investigation speedily made into the cause of accidents to vessels ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They have that already in Quebec.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this Bill to apply only to the river between Quebec and Montreal '!


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With respect to pilots, yes.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: 
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I may be allowed to say a word with respect to the conditions existing at Quebec. The pilotage authority for the St. Lawrence is divided into two parts. For that part of the St. Lawrence extending from Quebec eastward to the gulf, it is under the control of the harbour commissioners of Quebec. The harbour commissioners of Quebec have succeeded to what was formerly known as the Trinity Board, and they are now the pilotage authority. They are the authority having absolute control over the pilots' certificates. and they alone can grant a certificate to a pilot, they alone can withdraw the certificate in case of default or misconduct on the part of the pilot. With respect to the pilotage between Quebec and Montreal, heretofore the pilots were under the control of the Montreal harbour commissioners. The Montreal harbour commissioners, as I understand it, granted the pilots' certificates and also had control over the pilots in case of an accident in the river. My hon. friend introduced this Bill for the purpose of dealing with masters, mates or engineers. These are under the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department, their certificates are under the control of that department who can deal with them under the law, and they now have the power of appointing a commissioner, acting under the Department of Marine and Fisheries, for the purpose of dealing with their certificates. They can deal with them in so far as they deal with the certificates of masters, mates or engineers who are under the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department. But, take a certificate of an English captain who comes out here. This certificate can only be dealt with by the board of trade on the other side. In so far as pilots between Montreal and Quebec are concerned, my hon. friend intends by the Bill that he proposes to deal with on Monday next (Bill 261) to place the pilots between Montreal and Quebec under the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department. If that is done, then, it will be optional with him to allow this officer, whoever he may be, to investigate all matters connected with the pilots there because they will be under his control. But, as the pilots below Quebec are left Tinder the control of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, the investigation in the case of an accident is held by the Harbour Commissioners. I may say that the investigation is as speedy as could possibly take place here, because the Quebec Harbour Commissioners are made up of a certain number of gentlemen who are appointed by the government, men representing the city of Quebec, the ship-owners and the merchants and for the purposes of pilotage there is added to the board the president of Ike corporation of pilots, a gentleman possessing expert knowledge. So that, there is a very speedy mode of dealing with the pilot at the time the accident occurs. The captain is obliged by law to report the accident forthwith and the Quebec Harbour Commissioners are obliged to hold this investigation. They have held these investigations and the results have been fairly satisfactory. As my hon. friend pointed out, when it was suggested to make a change all those interested in Quebec opposed any change. Speaking for myself personally I think it would be in the interests of the shipping of the St. Lawrence if all these accidents which occur on the St. Lawrence below) as well as above Quebec were investigated by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by the admiralty court. I would like to place these investigations absolutely beyond the control of such a thing as local influence and I think it would be a step in the right direction if my hon. friend could see: his way clear to make a change so that whenever an accident occurs on the St. Lawrence it would be promptly investigated by the admiralty court, a court which is absolutely qualified to investigate these measures, and the judges of which court have power to appoint assessors for the purpose of assisting them in work of that sort.


Robert Laird Borden: Do the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec get power to deal with these matters under the Pilotage Act or under some special legislation applicable to them ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Act which is applicable to the harbour commissioners gives them power to deal with these matters independently of the Act respecting pilots.
Mr. BORDEN, (Halifax). It is not under the general Pilolage Act that they proceed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.
Chapter 80 of the Revised Statutes provides for the functions of these commissioners and they get control of the matter under their Act.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Am I correct in saying that the hon. Minister of Justice has just stated that the powers of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners are limited to investigating the conduct of pilots ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes,
they have no jurisdiction to deal with engineers, mates or masters, because they have no control over their certificates.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if there was

an investigation held into the accident to tlie Carolina wrecked in the Saguenay some time ago ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Not yet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there going to be an investigation ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes, instructions have been given.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That does not come under the control of the Pilotage Act.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty about the position, notwithstanding what the hon. Minister of Justice says, is this : I have had some experience in connection with the investigation of accidents under the very Act which is now being amended. Take such a case as that of the French steamship La Burgoyne which collided with the English ship Cromartyshire off the coast of Nova Scotia. We had an investigation under this statute and examined a number of persons who were not ordinarily resident in the province. They were witnesses who were going away in two, three or four days. They could never have been made available for an investigation by the Pilotage Commission, because the commission would not act quickly enough for that. The investigation was held two or three days after the arrival of the damaged ship in the Halifax harbour. If the suggestion of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) could be accepted, the evidence obtained in that way could be made available not only for dealing with tlie masters, officers and engineers, but for dealing with the pilots, whereas under the law as it stands- at the present time, you cannot thus deal with the pilots. Suppose a collision should take place off the harbour of Halifax and the witnesses left in, two. three or four days, or immediately after the investigation under this statute, how are you to get your evidence for the purpose of the investigation into the conduct of the pilots before the Pilotage Commission ? There should be no need of doing the work over again because the evidence which is available for dealing with the masters, engineers aud officers should be available in considering the case of the pilot. You close your investigation and the commissioner reports. You can deal with the masters, engineers and officers, but you cannot deal with the pilots. You may go on and hold your investigation before the Pilotage Commission but you cannot make the same evidence available and that seems to be a strong feature of the suggestion which my hon. friend makes. The pilots stand apart-in a different class altogether.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I admit that the difficulty


Edward Frederick Clarke: exists. We are trying to correct these difficulties but it takes some time to convince people that certain things should be done in a certain way. That is the reason why we have been obliged to proceed slowly, but we are moving as quickly as possible towards the point that we desire to attain. In regard to the pilotage of the Montreal district, if the departments had gone into this question without a spirit of conciliation or without a little diplomacy we would have been face to face with very great opposition. The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal might have been as jealous of their privileges as the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec have been, and they might have said :	You are taking away part of our
privileges and we object to it. The pilots might have said : We would rather be under the control of the Harbour Commission of Montreal because we know the members of the commission and result would have been that this change might have been delayed for two or three years more. Instead of that we used persuasion, and we tried to convince them that it was in their own interests and in the interest of shipping that this change should be made. They have consented with a good grace and I hope this will be found to be a move in the right direction. I hope that the district of Quebec will come to the same conclusion, especially if this law gives satisfaction to the shipping interests.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I notice in to-day's paper an account of an accident which occurred to the steamer ' Hibernian ' leaving the port of Montreal, within a mile or two of her dock. An accident of a similar nature occurred to another steamer about two months ago right in the harbour of Montreal. Was there an investigation into the circumstances of that accident ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: There was.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the result ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The accident was found not to be the result of any fault of any of the officers ; it was a pure accident that might happen at any time. The accident was due to the fact that at the moment when the steamer was turning around to take the channel, when it was essential that the pilot should be able to see in order to clear his course, a very heavy storm broke over the ship so that the pilot could not see ten feet before him ; the boat sheered aud went aground. There was no fault on the part of the officers. It appears from information I have gathered in the department that the accident this morning occurred under somewhat similar circumstances. I do not wish to pre-judge the case, but it seems from information we have received that possibly those in charge of the steamer allowed the tug to leave her at a point too high in the

channel. An ordinance has been adopted by the harbour commissioners providing that steamship companies are not to allow the tugs to leave their steamers until they come to Maisouneuve, about a mile below the point where the accident occurred this morning, and it may be discovered that the accident was due to the fact that having full confidence that everything was all right, the tug let go and the steamer took a sheer. These accidents are sometimes due to special circumstances, and in this case it is stated that the steering apparatus became entangled in some way just at that moment. Of course, we will know the cause of the accident after the investigation has taken place.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY-RAILWAY SUBSIDIES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion passes, might I again inquire as to whether the government proposes to bring down any railway subsidies, and if so, when we may expect to have them ?


Tiie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, railway subsidies will be brought down, I hope on Monday, certainly not later than Tuesday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will take up an item in the main estimates that seems to have been overlooked.
New Brunswick-harbours and rivers-Camp-bellton wharf, extension and repairs, $14,400.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that this item was passed in a previous sitting but there seems to be a misunderstanding about that. It was allowed to stand at one time. The question arose as to whether the property was being acquired by the department by purchase or whether it was being acquired by expropriation. The information was not furnished to me by the officers of the department at the time, but I find that the property is being acquired by expropriation, and the matter is now in the Justice Department. They were served with notice under the Act and the property was taken over by the government at the time, but we have not yet had a report from the Justice Department regarding the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the minister why the item stood ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I was not able to inform the House how the department was acquiring this property which belonged, I think, to a Mr. Shives, of Campbellton, New Brunswick.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The government is acquiring it in the regular way ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The government' is acquiring it by expropriation and the property is now occupied by the Marine Department. It is returning good revenue.
'The MINISTER OF FINANCE. We will take up the supplementary estimates for the Public Works Department at page 9.
Public buildings, Ontario-Ottawa Parliament Buildings-additional accommodation, &c., $7,000.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC W'ORKS. This is intended to cover some further improvements in the attic of this building, which have been asked for by the senators. They complain that their committee room is rather small, and they have made application to the department for a larger one.


Samuel Hughes: In this connection I would like to ask the minister to put the lavatories and bathrooms of the House of Commons into a somewhat more modern condition. There is not a shower bath in the whole establishment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will ask the engineer to look into that matter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I must say that the senators set us a good example. AVhen we go to that end of the building and see what commodious accommodation they have, they put us to the blush.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are living in hope that we may reach there some day.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the meantime, it might be well for us to pay a little more attention to the accommodation we have here, though perhaps some of us may not require it very much longer. In this connection I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the atmosphere that permeates some of the rooms. Through the courtesy of the hou. gentleman, several of us have a room up stairs ; but that room, after it has been closed for ten or twelve hours, is positively not habitable for some time after the door is opened. There must be something radically wrong with the ventilation, not only of that room, but of several other rooms and of this Chamber as well. If the hon. minister would look into the subject of the ventilation of all the rooms of this building, he would do the members a substantial service.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The ventilation of this building has been a subject of discussion almost every session. I til ink there has been some improvement in this Chamber from the fans which have been put in. I am inclined to think that while the air is close, we get more fresh

air than formerly, and without a draft. Owing to the construction of the building, it seems impossible to keep the air fresh. I will bring the remarks of my hon. friend to the attention of the chief architect.
.Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). The accommodation around the House of Commons for people who have to do any work is very bad. I have got so tired of calling attention to the kind of accommodation we have in the vicinity of No. 6 and No. 4 that I am almost ashamed to mention it again. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) comforts me with the assurance that No. 6 and No. 4 will not matter much to us after this session, whatever he means by that. If there is to be any additional accommodation for the Senate side, I would be inclined also to put in a claim for the House of Commons side. We have 214 members here, some of whom have to do a good deal of work during the session, and they have their choice of doing it either in the House, when they should 'be listening to what is going on, or doing it under circumstances of very great inconvenience. Members are frequently obliged to hold interviews with people in the hall or in one of the corridors; and when I hold an interview with any gentleman who comes to see me I have to do it to the accompaniment of the click of the typewriter, or else the stenographer in my room has to go out into the hall and wait till the conference is over. While I do not know very much about the disposition of the rooms available at present, I certainly do think that the House of Commons side is in need of additional accommodation. perhaps to a greater extent than the Upper House.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no doubt considerable lack of accommodation. The ministers themselves have not the proper accommodation to receive those who want to see them. Parties desiring to interview the ministers have to wait out in the corridors. We are proposing, however, to give from six to eight additional rooms for the accommodation of members by fixing up the upper flat. There are some rooms to be fitted up on the commons side in addition to enlarging the committee room on the Senate side.


Mr. BELL.: The most important change required is the ventilation of this chamber. Although this subject lias been discussed hundreds of times and efforts made from time to time to improve the ventilation, still it is very bad. After the House has been in session a number of hours, and particularly when the gallaries are filled, the air is almost poisonous. I would suggest that the Minister of Public Works should get some of the chemists in the department to test tlie air after the House lias been some hours in session ; and if they demonstrate that it Is dangerous to human life, possibly some-Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
thing may then be done to improve it. A good ninny years ago, while the subject of ventilation began to attract attention in London, specimens of the atmosphere were collected in some of the court houses and houses of parliament and other public buildings. at certain hours when the ar was in a vitiated condition, and analysed, and. it was found that it was a source of danger to tlie lives of those who were compelled to breathe it. A good many of our members can obtain relief by remaining away, but those who desire to attend public business steadily, have to sit here almost continually when the House is in session and there can be no doubt that they suffer from tlie bad effects of breathing a vitiated atmosphere. So far as I can judge by my sense of smell, it is certainly not advisable to breathe the air of this chamber any length of time. Still, as one may be deceived by his senses, I would suggest that we should utilize the services of some of the skilful chemists in the government departments and get them to inform us of tlie exact character of that atmosphere in this chamber. Almost every prominent public man in Canada, ever since we have had a parliament has complained from time to time on this subject. I remember reading a speech of Mr. Edward Blake, in which lie complained that he was actually suffering from a species of poisoning when condemned to spend long hours in the House. He was afflicted with liead-aclies, which he had every reason to believe were caused by tlie impure air. It is notorious that a great many members suffer from illness during tlie session. Any one who comes in here from the pure fresh air, after the House has been in session some time, can satisfy himself that it must be the cause of a great deal of tlie ill-health of members of parliament. It is discreditable to us that such a condition should not be remedied. No man. can do his best work intellectually when he is not breathing pure air. A foul atmosphere causes excessive drowsiness which is a species of poisoning. If we are to do our best in this parliament, the atmosphere must be purified.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Especially tlie political atmosphere.


John William Bell: I am not going to introduce anything of a partisan character. I am very much in favour of having something done. For the last thirty-six years this subject has been discussed but nothing satisfactory has ns yet been done. No doubt the officials in charge of the ventilation are doing their best with the facilities at their command, still no reasonable man who has to spend hours in this chamber can fail to feel the ill effects of this vitiated atmosphere. But unless some demonstration be obtained, which can easily be had by making use of skilful scientific men, of the actual con-

dition of affairs, we will go on suffering the same evils.


John Charlton: This question of the ventilation of the chamber has provoked a good de!U of discussion. The problem of securing adequate and proper ventilation is indeed a most difficult one. This chamber in which we are assembled is a box surrounded by passages, with no sunlight except at these upper windows, and they are made as dark as possible. The radical defects in the construction of the building are so great that it is, perhaps, almost impossible to thoroughly remedy the difficulties under which we labour. I imagine that if we had these passages taken out and had this room extended to where we could get sunlight in through the windows and get air when we need it, a great improvement would be affected.


Robert Laird Borden: What is this change the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) suggests V


John Charlton: I am about to suggest a slight amelioration of the condition. We have at last, I believe, adopted a plan that 1 advocated for years, of forcing air into the Chamber toy means of fans. Formerly the air was brought in toy subterranean ducts from openings at the side of the hill. Thus, the air came to us practically through sewers, and it was poisonous and deleterious to our health. A good many long discussions had to take place before we could secure the remedy of that evil. I believe the air is (brought in now from where it is pure and forced in by fans. If we would adopt the precaution of allowing the air to escape, and so establish a current through the building, we should have tolerably fresh air. But there is a singular dislike on the part of many individuals to the feeling of a current of air. I have noticed it in crossing the continent on the train. If an attempt is made to ventilate the car, about half the inmates object, the ventilators have to toe closed and the air left vitiated and impure. We used to have windows opened at the top of this Chamber. I am told that, in consequence of putting in the fans, the opening of windows is not advisable, because the fresh air escapes by the windows, while the foul air settles near the floor. If we could have the doors and the outside windows open, and allow the air to pass in and out, the air in the Chamber would be improved. I frequently secure the privilege ,of having that done, and when it is done, I can realize almost instantly the improvement of the atmosphere in the Chamber. But when it is done persons in the Chamber complain of draught ; then the doors must be closed and the current of air stopped. The atmosphere is allowed to stagnate and so to become foul. I advise that the doors be kept open when the weather is moderate enough to allow of this
being done without danger. If the doors are kept closed, the air that is forced in lies dead and grows stagnant, carbonic acid gas is formed and the atmosphere grows more and more deleterious. And the consequence is, as my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) suggests, headaches, lassitude and depression, and all the other results that attend foul and vitiated air. Whether we can ever thoroughly remedy the defects of the ventilation of the Chamber is a question ; but the simple plan I have suggested would give relief. Why it is not permitted, I am unable to understand. Of course, there may be a little current of air in some part of the Chamber that may not be pleasant, but that can be met by putting on additional clothing if a person feels the draught. I secure the opening of doors when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair, and I hear no complaints. If we were simply to allow the air to enter and leave the Chamber that would be a partial remedy of the evils from which we suffer.


Peter Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on this subject of ventilation, as I think the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) who has just taken his seat are directed at me. When tlie windows and doors are open, there is, as you can well understand, a draught passing through the Chamber, and those of us who sit at the Table have our legs bathed in cold air. All three of us, after some hours of such an experience, have had our legs as numb as they can be to the knee. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat is. not very often in the House, nor does he remain very long when he comes. He is free to come in and go out as he pleases. And I have told him, when he has come to me to have the doors open, that it is well enough for one who is free to enter or leave the Chamber, but that I was nailed to my seat for about seven hours a day for months past. The hon. gentleman could go out and get fresh air if he wanted it, without compelling myself and others to sit in a draught that would bring on illness. Regarding the thing simply as a matter of self-preservation, I think the liou. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is safer in his seat than I in mine, and he should have some compassion and pity on those of us who are forced to remain in the Chamber.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), Might I ask why Mr. Deputy Speaker does not, under such circumstances, call the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charltonl to the . Chair ?


Peter Macdonald: I think that is what I shall have to do.


John Charlton: I shall be glad to show that it can be done without injury to one's health.


Peter Macdonald: Let me tell lion, gentlemen of another thing which nearly destroyed us who sit at the Table. Under the Table is a box that covers a register, through which a fan down below drives cold air. The cold air, striking the under side of the Table, was carried along so that we who sat at the Table had our legs bathed in it constantly. The ' Hansard ' reporters were often forced to raise the lid of the letter-box at the end of the Table so as to keep this cold air from blowing.in their faces. After two or three sessions, I discovered by accident last year that there was such a trap for our health, and, of course, I went to the engineer and had it closed. I believe I have the thanks of the parties who were being destroyed by this system of ventilation for what I did. Unless a better system of ventilation were adopted I certainly would resign my position and go home, rather than stay in the draught between the doors and windows. Then, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) were appointed to my place, he also would go home, not to his own house, but to his long home.
Mr. HUGHES '(Victoria). Eight or nine years ago this matter received a good deal of attention, and I was requested iby some hon. gentlemen then on the government benches to look into it. As a result of suggestions of mine, some improvements were made in various parts of the building. My object was to draw the foul air off. That was the proper principle. The foul air could be drawn out below and the pure air sent in higher up. You will find that the case at the present moment. At times the atmosphere is almost unbearable in this Chamber. The temperature at the present time is nearly 70 ; that is too high for men to sit long in one room. I am satisfied that a very simple principle of ventilation could be evolved. The system at present in vogue appears to be this : The air is forced in over the towers from the underground ducts below. It enters the Chamber from above the galleries. It is bumped over the towers on the sides of the Chamber at both ends. I do not know where it comes in, but it should come in from points high up in this Chamber, and should come in in good volume. If necessary that air could be warmed in cold weather, so that it would not be dangerous to hon. gentlemen who are getting baldheaded. But if taken hold of in a businesslike way, I think a satisfactory system could be evolved, and I trust the Minister of Public Works, before he leaves the office, will secure for us a modern system of ventilation by which the air is drawn out at the bottom and brought in, either cold or warm, at the fop.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 will bring the remarks of the hon. gentleman to the attention of the chief architect, who I know has given a great deal of atten-


John Charlton: tion to this matter. I am afraid that it is owing to the peculiar construction of the building that we have this difficulty.


Uriah Wilson: I have not heard any very lucid explanation of this $7,000 that is asked for. I have- not heard of any plan being submitted. I think the minister ought to give us some idea of what is to be done with this money. He says in a general way there is some fixing up to be done in the third or fourth stories.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not got detailed plans and specifications.


Uriah Wilson: Tell us how you got that $7,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have taken $10,000 in the main estimates, and I then gave all the information of the purposes for which it was required. In addition we are asking for this $7,000 with which the chief architect informs me he can fit up additional rooms in the attic, 1 think three or four. Then a committee of the Senate consisting of the Speaker, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, and the Clerk. I think, waited upon me and asked that some change should be made in the Senate Committee Room. The chief architect thinks that with this $7,000 additional he will be able to make the improvements that were asked for.
Harbours and rivers-Port Arthur and Port William, additional dredging, $75,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the amount which the chief engineer thinks should be spent at present in these harbours under the plan we have adopted. All the details of the plan have not yet been worked out. The total cost at Port Arthur under the general plan will be about $103,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that all for dredging ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Practically. It gives twenty-one feet clear.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this work to he done both in the harbour at Tort Arthvfr and on the river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Does it involve any work on the Mission river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. I gathered together all the plans and asked the engineer to make a report. The general plan as outlined here is being carried out. All the appropriations have been spent under a general plan at Port Arthur and Fort William. These improvements will cost in the neighbourhood of $500,000. Those to be done with this money are the most urgent, so that boats may be enabled to get up to the present wharf.


Robert Laird Borden: Does tlie present expenditure involve the deepening of tlie Mission river, or is that only part of the larger plan ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All this work is being carried out under a general plan, and includes the deepening of the Mission river and of the Kaministiquia river, and the dredging for the wharf. I do not think any work will be started on land this season.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much is to be spent on the Kaministiquia river V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think, to make all the improvements provided under that plan, it will take about $115,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What depth of water will there be in the river ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Twenty-one feet clear.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is this work being done by contract or by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think most of the dredging is done by contract, at fifteen cents a yard.


William Rees Brock: I would like to ask the minister if this sum is in addition to the large amounts of money that have been spent in these harbours during the last five or six years, now amounting to an enormous sum. This is in addition to the very large amount of money that was spent on these harbours during the last eight or ten years. You are going to spend a large amount of money on this harbour. I suppose this is to accommodate' the large vessels going in there and taking cargoes of grain from that port. I did expect that the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) would rise up in his might and say that we are wasting the money of this country, because we are going to be able to carry such enormous quantities of grain by the cheap route that he is advocating that this harbour will become useless. You must accept one horn of the dilemma or the other. We must understand whether we are going to spend this money well in improving our water-ways or whether we are going to spend a large amount of money badly so that as the hon. member for North Norfolk has said grain can be carried so much more cheaply by the all-the-year-ronnd route that he speaks of. I do not know why we should go on and spend so much money on a harbour which is going to be closed up during a portion of the year. Either one plan or the other must be at fault and I would like to know which plan is at fault.


John Charlton: The hon. gentleman should bear in mind, that the blessings to be derived from the transcontinental railway. which will be all that I have depicted, cannot be secured to the country for five
or six years yet. In the meantime, we will need to improve our present methods of transportation from the west, and I apprehend that we shall never entirely dispense with the lake route for reaching the sea. In looking to the future, we have the fact before us that in all probability we shall have a very large market for our food products in the United States. The tendency in the agricultural states is to lessen, year by year, the produtcion of wheat. I remember when the state of Illinois and the state of Iowa were great wheat-producing states, when these two states made a leading business of the production of wheat. To-day neither of these two states grows its own bread.


William Rees Brock: Does our grain go in there duty free ?


John Charlton: You can travel over both of these states for hours and hours without seeing an acre of wheat. It is said that , the state of Minnesota will cease to produce its own bread within 25 years. Under this condition of things, with the urban population of the United States increasing as rapidly as it is, and there being ten millions or twelve millions of inhabitants in the cities of the central and middle states, we look forward to the time when the United States will be a very large consumer of the food products of our western prairies. Already there is an agitation in the United States for the removal of the duty upon wheat. The removal of the duty upon wheat will be secured in a comparatively short time. When we reach that enormous market we will not reach it to any great extend by the transcontinental railway. The transcontinental railway will serve tlit purpose of carrying our export wheat on its way to Europe, but with the cities that are now' existing, the cities that are growing rapidly, and with the towns of over 4,000 population, having a large number of inhabitants in New England and the middle states, the time is coming when they will depend very largely upon the prairies in the Northwest for their food, and while building the transcontinental railway will improve our facilities for reaching the market of the world and will secure, as far as circumstances will allow, the trade for our own seaports, we will still have in that great country, which has now a population of eighty millions, and likely to be one hundred millions within the life of some men in this House, an ever-increasing market. The shackles placed upon the trade of these two countries will be removed to a large extent, and we shall need the great lakes, wTe shall need the harbour of Port Arthur with 21 or 22 feet of water, we shall need improved facilities for navigation upon the lakes, and this will not interfere with the operation of tlie transcontinental railway or with any other mode of communication that we may adopt for reaching our own sea-

ports for the purpose of exporting our food products to Europe.


William Rees Brock: We are really grateful for this essay, this delightful word picture, from the hon. memBer for North Norfolk. While it is not very practical, it is certainly very pleasing to listen to. We are going to have the markets of the United States as a result of the deepening of the channel that we are now speaking of. This is going to afford us a market in the United States of one hundred- million people. We have it on authority of the hon. member (Mr. Charlton) that the United States are going to remove the duty on wheat and bread-stuffs and allow the products of this country to go in free, and on that account we are required to deepen the waters of Port Arthur. I do not know what traffic that magnificent railway he has advocated that can draw such an enormous number of trains, each of 2,000 tons of wheat the year round and every day in the year, is going to secure, but he promises to develop the North-west country to a most extraordinary extent. I think that the government should be startled at the extraordinary development that is to be brought about by the hon. gentleman in connection with this railway scheme. I do not think anything could bring home to the minds of the people more clearly the ridiculousness of the project which has been advocated by the hon. gentleman than the statement that we are going to have a market of one hundred millions of people flo the south of us for our breadstuff's.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Why not take it round by way of Quebec, and send it from there ?


William Rees Brock: I think our friends at Quebec will find that they are going to have a lean time with that road north of the height of land, up in that magnificent clay belt. I say we should call a halt, because we must accept either horn of the dilemma. Either we are doing wrong in building that railway or we are doing wrong in expending a lot of money in improving our navigation. 1 contend that the government are perfectly right, and that the country is perfectly right in going on and improving the navigation of our water-ways and in providing every facility for getting our grain out in that direction. I believe that we should adopt the plan that was suggested not only by the bon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), but by the hon. ex-Minlster of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), and spend our money in our own country to bring out our grain to our own ports. I contend that we should spend our money on such projects as are before us, and that we should not go ahead and spend money upon the projects which has been advocated so loyally, so strongly and so learnedly by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). I have no objection to spending money on the harbour of Port Arthur and


John Charlton: upon the harbour of Fort William. This is in the right direction.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will that $160,000 to be spent at Port Arthur give a depth of 21 feet of water ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the estimate of the chief engineer of the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, as to Fort William, how much is it proposed to spend there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Including the river, and to give a depth of 21 feet all around, it is proposed to expend $300,000, and probably a little over that.


John William Bell: How much has been spent in the past ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Since confederation there has been $550,000 expended.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I do not object to the expenditure in connection with the deepening of these harbours, but do think that where so much money of the people is expended that it should be expended in a proper way and under proper supervision. A large amount of money is paid out for the dredging of these rivers. Would it not be better to have a proper plan for the whole work, and to let it by contract ? I am satisfied that in that way it could be much more cheaply and satisfactorily done. I do not see why, on an important work of this kind the government of Canada should find it necessary to do part of this work by the day and part of it by the yard, instead of having a proper plan and estimate made, and then letting the work by contract. I am satisfied that a great deal of money would be saved if that were done. I do not object to the expenditure, but I think we should have some better system. I would ask whose dredges are doing this by the day or by the yard. I have been talking with contractors about this work at Port Arthur and they say that we are not getting the best value for our money, and that the work there is costing too much.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think my hon. friend has been misinformed. I know Mr. Boone, of Toronto, and I think he has the best dredging plant in Canada. From the reports of the auditors of the department, I learn that no contractor has given better satisfaction than he has. I may say that I have heard from parties who have been pressing for this work, absolutely no complaint. Neither the mayor, nor the members of council, nor leading citizens, men interested in the shipping irrespective of political parties who have been here have complained to me of the work that is being done. The hon. member finds fault with everything we are trying to do. I admit as he does that pos-

sibly we may not get the best value for our money owing to the fact that we have not a plan, but I am having a plan and survey made and.then perhaps we may be able to let the work by contract and perhaps get it done at a cheaper rate, but so long as we have no survey and no plan it will be understood that owing to the great variation in the nature of material to be moved you cannot very well make a contract except at various prices, because any person knows that you cannot move hard-pan and rock, &c., for the same price as you can earth, so that we either have to have it done under our own supervision and pay for it according to the material moved or have a plan and survey and let a contract.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I can quite understand that where there is a small contract there can be no objection to the department letting the work by the yard or by the hour, but where nearly half a million dollars is being expended it seems to me to be remarkable that we should have to farm it out by the yard. It is not that the work is not properly done, I suppose you can always get the work done, but at a great cost ; my objection is to the amount the work is costing when let in this manner. I suppose that this gentleman is a competent contractor, and that his plant is a good one, but that is not the qeustion. Sixteen cents a yard seems to be an enormous price, more particularly when there is such a large amount of work to do. The department have under contract the dredging of Owen Sound harbour, and I am satisfied that if the department had done that by the yard it would have cost them twice as much as they are paying by contract. Hence I think it would be better for the government to either cease work or to do as little as possible until they have prepared plans and specifications in order that a contract may be let for this work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is exactly what I am trying to do now.


William Humphrey Bennett: We are approaching, if I understand the minister's estimates, an expenditure of $600,000. First there is the work at Fort William costing half a million dollars and then there is the work at Port Arthur costing $160,000, but the vote asked up to the end of .Tune of next year is altogether only $75,000. It seems to me that such a trifling estimate can only be a drop in the bucket for such a large expenditure and I would ask the minister how lie proposes to apportion this $75,000, what proportion he intends to spend1 at Port Arthur and what at Fort William and whether the work will be done this fall or next spring.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tlie lion, gentleman has rather exaggerated the figures I gave.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think $500,000 was the right amount for Fort William ; 1 took it down at the time.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total estimate of the engineer was $593,000. My hon. friend's error has arisen through his taking the $600,000, or properly $593,000, which is the total estimate for both, Fort William and Port Arthur and adding to it the $163,000 which is the estimate for Port Arthur. It is true that this is a very large expenditure, but my hon. friend will see that we have an amount in the main estimates, I do not remember exactly what amount, and between that and the $75,000 I think we will make very fair progress in that work. This vote is only until the 30th of .Tune of next year. The work is going on now under the estimate.
I agree with my hon. friend, I would like to have been in a position to have plans for this work which will be of great assistance in improving our transportation facilities. When we have completed our improvements there and at Port Colbome I have every confidence that we will reap very material advantage. After we have perfected out plans and completed the surveys we will probably get a great deal more value for our money, but at the same time we could not afford not to go on with this work now because we have had boats standing outside the harbour in the deep water lightering into the wharfs because they were not able to come alongside. Therefore a certain amount of this work had to be proceeded with and I am pleased to know that it has been done on plans that are part of the general plan so that there is no wasting of money in the works that are now going on and they are giving great satisfaction this season because they enable the boats to get up to the wharfs. This is Very important as some of the finest elevators on the continent are now being built there. We are pressing the work. I am unable to say how much is being done at each of these two places because the chief engineer places the dredge wherever the work is most urgent in order to enable the boats to get 1o the wharfs.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Does the hon. gentleman not think that 10 cents a yard is an enormous figure for dredging at Port Arthur ? I am satisfied as I said that Mr. Boone is competent to do the work and that his plant is all right, but the price that is being paid is extremely large. Is work being done at as high prices in any other place ? Tlie ex-Minister Of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) expressed the opinion that it was much cheaper when the work was done by dredges owned and controlled by the government. He said that in that way the work could be done for one-half what contractors charge. I believe that and I think he estimated that dredging could be done by the government dredge for 3 cents

per yard. If that is the case, 16 cents a yard is an enormous price.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I did not say 1G cents ; the average rate estimated by the chief engineer is 15 cents. The price depends altogether on) the materials and the conditions under which the dredging is being done. I do not think that any one who is an authority on these matters would be able to stand up and say whether it can be done better by contract or by government-owned plant ; the cost will be regulated altogether by the conditions. Some material at Port Arthur costs as much as $1.25 to move, some costs 40 cents and the average is 15 cents.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The dredging at Port Arthur is not hard as the material is principally mud, and therefore I think that 16 cents is a very large amount. Have you any similar work being done on the Georgian bay except at Port Arthur where the price is as high as 16 cents a yard ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The price is fifteen cents not sixteen cents. The chief engineer informs me that that is the average price for the same kind of work all over the Dominion. The prices on the American side are very much higher-so much so that some of the dredges have left Canada, and we had to offer extra inducements to keep some of the plant here.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I am surprised that any one in the department should say that the government are in the habit of paying fifteen cents per yard for dredging on the Georgian bay. Pour or five years ago it was done at half that price. I think it is desirable that all these harbours should be deepened to twenty feet. At the same time, I think we shall get very little for the amount of money we are spending. The contractors will make immense profits. Who is doing this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Great Lakes Dredging Company.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is that the only company you have at work at Port Arthur V


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, we have also Mr. Boone, of Toronto. There are four dredges at work. I am anxious to press on the work faster, but it is impossible to procure mare dredges at the present time. I am acting under the advice of the chief engineer, and according to his estimate, these amounts of $85,000 and $75,000 will cover all the work for which we can procure plant.


Uriah Wilson: Will the minister tell us how the prices he pays for contract work will compare with what it costs to do the work with our own dredges ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am unable to tell the hon. gentleman, the conditions vary so much.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: 


Uriah Wilson: The officials of the department should be able to keep track of the work, so that the hon. minister could tell.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If we had a systematic set of books we could probably make comparisons. But my hon. friend is asking me to give him the information now.


Uriah Wilson: When may I expect it, if not now V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can give the hon. gentleman the cost of dredging at any particular place.


Uriah Wilson: 1 think the minister will admit that the question is a fair one, and is not at all captious. 1 simply wish to know whether it pays better to do the dredging by contract or with our own dredges and under our own supervision.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not able to answer that question.


Uriah Wilson: Can you do it during the session V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say. It would require considerable experimenting. For instance, the work in the St. Lawrence channel is estimated to cost three cents a yard. That of course does not include interest on the plant, expenses during the winter, payment of officers, and many other things ; nor are the conditions there to be compared with the conditions in small harbours. If a dredge is sent to do dredging for a week at a small port, the expense of its going and coining would form a large part of the cost.


Uriah Wilson: I quite understand the statement made by the hon. minister. I know that he pays more for a small job than he does for a large one. At the same time, we have owned some dredges for a good many years, and it seems to me that the department ought to be able to give some information as to the cost on this point.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not consider my hon. friend's question a captious question at all ; but If my hon. friend understood the conditions as I do, he would see the difficulty of making the comparison. I do not know of any work that has been, done for some time which would afford a basis for comparison.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The ex-Minister of Public Works gave a good deal of attention to this matter. He made a statement to the effect that the government with their own dredges could do this work at half the figures the contractors charge. The dredging at Port Arthur is not difficult because it is soft substance and ought to be the cheapest class of work. The hon. gentleman is paying fifteen cents per yard while the exMinister of Public Works said that the gov-

eminent dredges would do the work for three cents a yard. There is an appropriation of $75,000 here. No doubt it is a year or more since the government entered into a contract to pay fifteen cents per yard, and this is for additional dredging. Does the hon. gentleman purpose asking for new tenders in connection with the expenditure of this $75,000, or will he simply hand it over to these people and pay them the same prices they have been charging all along ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The intention is to' go on with this work at the prices arranged for. I have already explained that some dredges have left Canada already because they get better prices on the other side. That applies to the northern and southern districts.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are Canadian dredges allowed to work at American ports 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, in bond, under the same regulations as American dredges are subjected to here.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the government satisfied with the work 1 J. Israel Tarte ' is doing this year 7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The dredge or the gentleman ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The gentleman is turning up more mud than the dredge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman quoted the ex-Minister of Public Works, I am not going to assume responsibility for statements made by the ex-minister. Any statements I make with regard to this or other matters will be on information obtained by myself and for which I will be responsible. Sometimes the dredge ' Tarte ' does very good work.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the government dredge which was lost on Lake Ontario at Bowmanville been taken up yet 7
' The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. I have already stated several times that no government dredge was lost at Bowmanville. There was a dredge called after the First Minister lost there but it had no connection directly or indirectly with the government.


John William Bell: Is this the only item for dredging in the supplementary estimates 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I am sorry to say it is not. We will come to Nova Scotia by and by.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The minister has not answered the question I have put him. Is it his intention to spend this $75,000 by handing over the work to the companies doing it at their present prices 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 do not exactly like the term used by my hon. friend. It is not the intention to hand this money over to anybody, but to have
the work done under the contract made with the department.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: When was it made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This season. It was a renewal of the prices last season.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: It is simply a renewal of the contract at the same prices. Did the hon. gentleman ask anybody else to tender 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, we have been very active in asking all over tlie country, and I am sorry to say we had to go to the other side of the line to get some of our work done.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who are the partners in this Great Lake Dredging Company 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know, but I will get the information and bring it down.


John William Bell: In view of the fact that there is difficulty in getting dredges, is the government considering the propriety of building additional dredges 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 think that is a matter of very great importance. I am asking several votes which 1 hope will meet the approval of the House.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is mot this firm an American one ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that Mr. Bowman, of Southampton, is the principal man. but cannot say positively.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Are they Canadian or American dredges 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Altogtlier Canadian, so my chief engineer informs me. I shall get the information and bring it down.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The names of the partners -and where the headquarters are 7


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is Mr. Connolly or Captain Sullivan in that company ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not that I am aware of. I know nothing directly or indirectly, but they may be.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the department know whether or not the deepening of the Mission river will result in lengthening the season during which grain can be carried from Fort William and Port Arthur to the Georgian bay ports 7 Last year 1 went to the mouth of the Mission river in a tug boat, and it was pointed out to me that the opening of the river and the nse of the new -channel created in that way would result in lengthening the season by ten or twelve days.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations have been made to the department that that would be the result, but the chief engineer will not take the responsibility of endorsing them. When we have these surveys completed, we will have more definite information to work on.
Mr. THOMSON (Grey), I understand that the hon. minister has promised to bring down the names of those who were in the firm, where their headquarters are and who are connected with this Great Lake Dredging Company.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Kingston graving dock-to pay amount of award made in favour of contractors Connolly & Co., by Mr. Justice Burbidge, July 2, 1896, under Orders in Council of January 29, and May 7, 1896, together with price of steam derrick purchased from said firm, interest thereon to be paid at the same rates as that received by the government on their counter claims against Connolly & Co., $46,096.12.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I found that Connolly & Company had several claims against the government and the government also had claims against them, some of them under judgment. This vote really represents some $5,000 or $0,000, being the difference between the amount which Connolly & Company owe the government and the government Connolly & Company. As I understand it, the position the Auditor General took was that the so-called judgment against us that Connolly had was an award of the judge of the Exchequer Court, and not a judgment, and that it was still at the discretion of parliament to pay the amount of that award or not. This matter has been standing for a long time, and I thought it unfair both to Mr. Connolly and the department, that these claims should remain so long. I referred the matter to the officials of the department, and they arranged with the Auditor General and the Finance Department aud all matters between the government and Mr. Connolly were adjusted, the balance being something between $5,000 and $6,000. The reason I cannot give the exact amount is that the Finance Department objected paying the interest that Connolly claimed, the award -or judgment, as he called it-of the Exchequer Court carried with it. I believe it was finally decided that on the judgments that we had against Connolly and the amounts due to him the rate of interest should be t ho same. This item is put in the way the Auditor General and the Finance Department worded it. So, I cannot give, to a few dollars, exactly what the difference would be, but it will not be more than I have stated. Practically we are voting this to ourselves.


Robert Laird Borden: Why does not the hon. minister take a vote only for the amount to be paid ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Because the Auditor General objected to having it that way, and I am anxious to meet his views.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What work is this award for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The principal amount due to Connolly is m connection with the Kingston graving dock, and the principal judgment we have against Connolly is in connection with the Quebec harbour works. And' there is another in the hands of the Justice Department, in connection with some security given by Connolly for some person.
Transportation facilities-Port Colborne improvements-South-east breakwater, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: This item will involve considerable discussion.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be another item with relation to this work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the subject of this item can be discussed when the other comes up ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, if hon. gentlemen wish it.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: , What business will be taken up on Monday ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We shall proceed with supply.	;


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 5, 1903.