1903-05-26

FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 180) to incorporate the Prince Edward Island Ferry Company.-Mr. Em-merson-by Mr. Fraser.

Mr.  W. M.@: GERMAN (Welland) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 181) to amend the General Railway Act of 1888.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) please state briefly the purport of the Bill ?


Mr. GERMAN.: The object of the Bill is to put the law in such a condition that persons owning property adjoining a line of railway, which property is injured or destroyed by fire resulting from the operation of the railway, will be able to secure compensation for damages more readily than under the law as it now stands. The present law makes it incumbent on owners of property injured or destroyed by fire from a railway to prove negligence on the part of the railway company. Practical experience has demonstrated that this is always difficult, and very frequently impossible. The evidence to prove negligence must he secured from the railway itself. It is quite evident that most of the locomotive engines at present on our Canadian lines of railway are equipped with screens of sufficient fineness to prevent the discharge of sparks and cinders that would be likely to set fire to the property adjoining the line of railway. But the difficulty is that the engine driver with a heavy train, coming to a piece of track on which is anything like a heavy grade, will immediately throw open the screen, the result being that large cinders, as large as an ordinary sized bird's egg will be discharged from the locomotive and carried upon property adjoining the railway. As the law stands at present, if the fire ori-Mr. SHERRITT.
ginates on the right of way and extends to property adjoining, the railway company have been held by the courts to be prima facie guilty of negligence. But if the fire originates on the adjoining property it is incumbent on the owner to prove negligence on the part of the railway company before he can recover damages. This, in many cases is impossible. For instance, a farmer has a large part of a crop of grain or hay destroyed by fire from a locomotive and sustains a loss of forty or fifty dollars. In order to prove negligence on the part of the railway company he has to ascertain in the first place, the number of the engine. That is a difficulty in itself. Then he lias to go himself or send experts to examine the engine to see whether it is equipped with a proper screen. Let ns suppose that on examination the engine is found to be properly equipped in this respect. Then, in order to prove negligence on the part of the railway company the farmer must call the engine driver to prove, if possible, that that engine driver had opened the screen allowing the free exit of sparks and cinders, which otherwise would not have escaped from the engine. We all know that when you have to prove your case with adverse witnesses you have great difficulty. The proposed amendment will absolutely overcome that. It will put the onus of proof on the railway company ; they will be compelled to prove that there was no negligence on their part. The Bill provides that if it is shown that the fire originated from sparks, cinders, or other burning substance which has escaped or has been discharged from a locomotive engine operated or being run on the line of railway, that is sufficient to fix upon the company the liability for the loss which has been sustained, unless they can show on.their part some good reason why it should not be fixed upon them. I think that the amendment is certainly in the interest of the people who own property adjoining a line of railway, and it is an amendment which fills a long-felt want throughout the country districts. I most sincerely trust it will be allowed to carry.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 182) to amend chapter 27, of the Revised Statutes, respecting the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) please explain the object of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: In 1893 parliament authorized the printing for the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward Island Rail-

way to be done in the maritime provinces as it was found to be more convenient to do it there than in Ottawa. There is a provision in the Bill to the following effect:
That the cost is not to exceed what would be charged at the bureau in Ottawa.
Now the King's Printer always certifies bills for printing as fair and reasonable ; ever since 1893 that has been the certificate put upon these bills. However, the Auditor General has decided that the certificate is not sufficient, that the terms of the statute must be carried out. Now the Order in Council is to change the law so as to authorize bills to be paid on condition that the cost does not exceed customary and fair commercial rates for similar work and for supplies of similar quantities. That is the intention of the statute, that is to , say it is to give effect to what has been done since 1893 ; but I must admit that what has been done since 1893 is to some extent a departure from the terms of the statute.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OP JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 183) respecting the Des-.iardins canal. He said : The object of the Bill is to confirm a discharge given by the governement to certain landowners within the limits of the city of Hamilton of a mortgage which was on their property. Those who are from that part of the country will remember that in 1832, Sir Allan McNab, who was then president of the Desjardins Canal Company, borrowed money from the then government, acting through the receiver general, to the extent of £5,000 to aid in the construction of that canal. To secure this money, Mr. Peter Hamilton gave a mortgage on some property which he then owned and which is now within the limits of the city of Hamilton. That property has since been subdivided and is now vested in a certain number of private individuals. The original mortgage has been lost. After having examined the question, a year ago or thereabouts, we came to the conclusion that it was possible that prescription might be invoked against the government if we endeavoured to enforce the claim when a case was brought against the different property holders, and it was then alleged that no money had ever passed in connection with this original transaction. As no money bad ever been paid over to Mr. Hamilton, and considering that during all these years we have not sought to enforce that mortgage against any one of the holders who had improved the property and who now were in possession of it, we decided not to enforce our claim. The discharge of the old mortgage was given to the persons interest-107
ed. I have personally some doubts as to the rights of the government to give a discharge of a claim of that sort. In order to set that doubt at rest we think proper now to come to parliament and get the sanction of parliament for what we did.
Mr. S. BARKER (Hamilton).: I desire to say a word or two in support of the Bill. As a resident of Hamilton, I am aware of the circumstances which the Minister of Justice referred to. The land covered by this mortgage is owned by hundreds of people, poor people and wealthy people ; and it would be exceedingly difficult, even supposing that it was possible, to maintain at the present day that anything was due on this mortgage from each of these people who may have been primarily liable. The amount of costs that would follow any attempt to enforce this mortgage would be something enormous. There is a grave doubt indeed whether there ever was any liability under it. Members of the legal profession fifty and sixty years ago, who were familiar with all the facts at the time regarding this mortgage, treated it as an unexisting security, as something that had no claim behind it ; and for sixty years at least this document which was again brought into existence apparently about a year ago, was treated as an absolute nullity. So that it would be a most unfortunate thing for many unfortunate poor people who own small portions of the property in the city of Hamilton, if any attempt were now made to enforce it.


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

[Stage Direction]
PETITION OP SHIPPERS OP FROZEN FISH. Mr. LEFURGEY asked :
1.	Has the government received a petition, during the year 1903, from the shippers of frozen fish and other perishable goods, from the province of Prince Edward Island, asking for compensation for losses sustained, owing to the failure of the government to provide communication from the island to the mainland, during last winter ?
2.	What is the intention of the government with regard to this petition ?
3.	Will they make good the loss sustained by the shippers ? And if not, why not 1

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaRIVIERE asked :
1. Has the following report been communicated to the honourable the Minister of Customs :-
[Stage Direction]


Winnipeg, May 12, 1903.
To the President and Members of the
, Council of the Winnipeg Board of Trade. Gentlemen,-Your committee, appointed on the 11th May to report upon -the German surtax, beg to submit the following :-
1.	That the date fixed by the government, viz., July 1, 1903, before which German goods, to escape the surtax, must be entered for consumption, and duty paid, will not allow sufficient time for Canadian importers to receive goods for which bona fide orders were placed before April 16th last. A large quantity of such purchases are for fall and winter delivery ; and in some cases importers have sold these goods on the old tariff. And we would, therefore, suggest that the board should strongly urge upon the government the necessity for an extension of the time to September 30, 1903, in which bona fide purchases may be entered for consumption in this country at the old rate of duty.
2.	That as Winnipeg and other western points are situated at long distances from the seaboard (transportation talcing from two to six weeks from Montreal and other eastern Canadian ports), legislation providing for a uniform date of entry would greatly discriminate against the larger portion of Canada. And it would, in our opinion, be only a matter of justice to all parties concerned that the arrival of goods at any seaport in Canada in the vessel in which they are shipped should be considered evidence by the government of their arrival ; and additional time allowed to pass entry and pay the duties on such goods reaching their final port of destination.
Respectfully submitted,

[Stage Direction]
Chairman Committee. 2. Is it the intention to so extend the date fixed by the government, viz., July 1, 1903, bo as to give ample time to western importers to enter at the old rate of duty ?
The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS (Hon. Win. Paterson) :: 1.	Yes. .
2.	As this is a subject that has not only engaged the attention of the Winnipeg board of trade, but of traders throughout the Dominion, I will say a few words in reference to it so that business men may be apprised of the action which the department, sanctioned by the Governor in Council, are about to take. The resolution before the committee defined that goods ordered prior to tile 16tli of April should be admitted without tlie surtax being charged, provided the goods were for immediate transportation. The time had to be defined by the department, and we thought that by giving ten weeks we would allow time either to cancel the orders that had been given or to make arrangements to transfer the goods via some other country. That notice reached the business men of the community, but very soon afterwards communications from all parts of the country reached the department pointing out that there were exceptional circumstances connected with the German trade, particularly that some kinds of goods were ordered and had to be made after the order went in, such as goods for the holiday trade, and it was impossible for the merchants to cancel the order, and even
Mr. LaRIVIERE.
if they did cancel it they would be in this position, that travellers had already been on the road with samples selling them. The department after considering the matter and finding that a greater portion of the orders would be covered by the 30th of September, instead of the 30th of June, it is my intention to recommed to my colleagues an extension of time, maintaining firmly that the order must have been actually placed before the 16th of April, but that the time for the importation under the term ' immediate transportation ' shall be extended to the 30tli of September. With reference to the second suggestion of the Winnipeg board of trade, that inasmuch as goods landed in Canada might require some weeks before they reached the port of destination and make entry, to require not only that goods should be landed in Canada, but entered in Canada, would be manifestly unfair. The department has no desire to deal inequitably with any merchants living in any part of the country, and it is the intention to have that rectified by providing that the arrival of the goods at any port in Canada shall be sufficient notice to the depaitment.


CATTLE-GUARDS.
Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the government to the cattle-guard question. On the 6th April last, the House adopted a motion for the bringing down of all correspondence in connection with the cattle guard inquiry, including the appointment of commissioners and all matters of that kind. I have inquired and I find that these papers have not yet been brought down. The government will see the importance of having these papers brought down immediately. A long time has elapsed alreadv and if we are to have any benefit from them they must be brought down soon. Within a short time the government will have under consideration the Bill introduced by


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) must not make a speech in asking a question. If he wants to make a speech we will go into Supply shortly and he can then discuss the question.


Haughton Lennox: I am not going to make a speech. I would like to ask the minister if the report of the commission has yet been brought down ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: What report ?


Haughton Lennox: The report in reference to the cattle-guard commission.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I cannot say but I will take note of the inquiry of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) and I shall endeavour to give him an answer after recess.


TREADGOLD CONCESSION.
Mr.   I@: I made an inquiry yesterday in regard to the terms of the proposed commission to investigate the Treadgold concession. The hon. acting Minister of the Interior (Hon. Sir William Mulock) said that possibly the government might be in a position to make an announcement to-day, and I merely rise for the purpose of reminding the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) in case he should be prepared to make any announcement.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend (Hon. Sir William Mulock) informs me that he has been engaged to-day and that he has not been able to give his attention to the matter. I have reason to believe that after recess I will be able to lay the commission on the Table.


HALF-BREED CLAIMS COMMISSION.
Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Froveuclier). Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. acting Minister of the Interior (Hon. Sir William Mulock) when 1 can get the balance of the return in regard to the half-breed claims commission ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The Deputy Minister of the Interior informs me that the preparation of the remaining part of the return would involve a great deal of labour- many weeks-and it was a question whether we would not have to seek outside assistance. I do not think it would be possible to get it out before the end of the session. Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. LaRiv-iere) could reduce his demand to something within reasonable limits and let me know and I will be glad to meet his object. Perhaps his order is a good deal larger than he intended it to be. It was for that reason and not from any wish to withhold at all the information that he desires that I instructed the department to prepare as much of the return as possible.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. From what I can gather from that part of the return which I have already received there are some 3,000 names on the list, and surely it would not take very many weeks to write down 3,000 names.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman may be correct. I have no knowledge myself. I am only telling him what the deputy minister informs me. If the hon. gentleman would find it convenient to call on the deputy minister and make clear to him exactly what is wanted, he might be able to get the return completed.


I.C.R.-WINDSOR JUNCTION ACCIDENT.
Mr. E. F. CLARKE (West Toronto).: In answer to an inquiry made yesterday, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon.
107i
Sir. Blair) said he had no objection to lay on the Table of the House the evidence taken by the commissioner appointed to inquire into the cause of the recent accident at Windsor Junction. I would like to know when that finding can be laid on the Table of the House.


The PRISIE SIINISTER.: I will take note of the inquiry.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Miscellaneous expenditure including Northwest Territories, $37,000.
["of service, grant unto him an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the_ time of his resignation ; to commence immediately after his resignation, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life, provided such judge has (a) attained the age of seventy-five years, and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts, or as such judge, and as stipendiary magistrate of the North-west Territories, for twenty years or upwards ; or (b) attained the age of seventy years and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for twenty-five years or upwards ; or (c) continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for thirty years or upwards.\n2. Every County Court judge who has attained the age of seventy-five years shall be compulsorily retired ; and His Majesty may, by letters patent, under the great seal, reciting such judge's age and period of service, grant unto him an annuity, if he has continued in office as such judge for twenty-five years or upwards, equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement ; or if he has continued in office as such judge for a less period, equal to two-thirds of such salary ; the said annuity to commence immediately after his retirement, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life."]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) is not here, but we expect him in a moment. This item for miscellaneous expenditure is the same as last year.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I just wish on this item to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) to the point I raised some time ago. It is that prisoners of all grades are carried in the North-west Territories as first-class passengers and they sit in the coaches with those who have purchased first-class tickets. I drew the attention of the House some time ago to the fact that last fall there was a murderer and two or three other condemned criminals of the lowest type travelling from Edmonton to Regina in a car, and sitting in a seat adjoining a number of students who were going to attend the Normal School at the latter place. In Ontario and other parts our volunteers have to travel second class, and they have frequently been known to travel in box cars and cattle cars. I think it is a very improper thing that criminals should be allowed to travel in coaches with ordinary passengers.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: I think this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by the mounted police. The mounted police have charge of the conveyance of prisoners in the North-west Territories, and I apprehend that because officers connected with the police like to travel first-class they take these prisoners with them. However, now that our attention is drawn to it, I think that practice should be avoided if possible.


Samuel Hughes: We want something more than to be left at the mercy of the mounted police, although I always stand up for the mounted police. I am perfectly willing that the mounted police should be able to have every possible comfort, but I object to these prisoners riding in that way. Do I understand that the Hon. Minister of Justice will give the subject his attention ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will have the attention of the officers of the mounted police drawn to this remark.


Robert Laird Borden: What is covered by this item ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think this is practically all expended in the Northwest Territories. Judging from the way in which it is drafted you would imagine that it was intended to cover expenditures other than those in the North-west Territories, but as a matter of fact, it is almost entirely expended there. It covers for instance the maintenance of prisoners at police barracks; transport of prisoners by North-west mounted police; Crown prosecutors; legal services and expenses; jury and witness fees; coroners inquests; sheriffs' fees; clerk of courts, &c. Last year these services cost; Maintenance of prisoners, $11,224; jury and witness fees, $11,673; transport of prisoners, $3,847; sheriffs' fees and expenses, $761 ; extradition fees, $2,091; and so on.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the administration of criminal justice dealt with directly by this government so far as the expenses are concerned.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Absolutely controlled by us.


Mr. BORDEN (Haifax).: And paid for by us.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.
Travelling allowances and expenses of judges In Manitoba, $3,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this the usual sum for this purpose.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. This amount has been paid under authority of Order in Council since 1882, and there has been no variation.


Robert Laird Borden: There are travelling allowances for all the judges in all the provinces.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, but they are dealt with differently. In Ontario a round sum is paid each year to each judge, and in Quebec there is an allowance of $6 per diem while judges are attending court in other districts.


Robert Laird Borden: In Nova Scotia it is a lump sum per circuit.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Frederick William Borden: In Manitoba it is a per diem allowance.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is fixed by Order in Council passed in 1882. The judge is allowed his actual moving expenses from his residence to the place where the court is held and return, and $5 per day during the time he is absent.
Travelling allowances of judges in British Columbia, $13,000.


Robert Laird Borden: This seems to be a large amount compared with the other provinces.


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The distances are very great in that province. The payment is based on an Order in Council passed in 1887, which says that the travelling allowances of the Supreme Court judges shall be fixed and determined by their actual and reasonable disbursements for travelling and hotel accommodation to be certified by themselves according to a stipulated form. In the case of county court judges an Order in Council of 1879 provides that each judge shall be paid his actual moving expenses from his residence to where the court is held and return, and $5 per diem for the time he is absent attending to the duties of his court.


Mr. SPROULE.: I may say that when I was in British Columbia last fall I had quite a conversation with one of the judges, and from my experience of travelling through that province I am quite sure that they are not overpaid.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They are not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In fact I believe they are underpaid.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It did seem to me that the cost of living and especially the cost of travelling is much greater in British Columbia than it is in any other part of Canada. One can hardly appreciate it until he has travelled in that country, and I think the government would be justified in making an even more liberal allowance for this purpose. It is not as liberal an allowance as in the older provinces, taking into consideration the increased expenses in British Columbia.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The judges in British Columbia are paid less than is received by the judges in Quebec and Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On what basis are the judges paid for the weekly high court sittings in Ottawa and in London ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When the judge sits at Ottawa he is allowed $25 for moving expenses and $10 for London, besides a per diem allowance of $5 during the time he is absent from his residence attending to this court.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you mean by ' moving expenses ' ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I should think that would mean the ordinary transportation expenses and the per diem allowance would go to pay his board bill.
Salary of divorce and matrimonial court, New Brunswick, $500.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that under the statute ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That amount is voted each year. If it were omitted from the estimates one year the judge would not have it, as there is no statute which sanctions the payment of this sum.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any difference in this regard between the judge of the Matrimonial Court of New Brunswick and the judge of the corresponding court in Nova Scotia ? The Minister of Justice knows that at the time Nova Scotia entered confederation the judge holding the position of Judge in Equity was, by statute, authorized to dispose of divorce cases and matrimonial cases generally. The title of Judge in Equity has been, I think, continued in Nova Scotia for that reason; but apart from that the title of Judge in Equity has no significance in Nova Scotia, as all the judges in that province have the same general jurisdiction. There is a certain amount of business of this kind in Nova Scotia as in New Brunswick; and I do not see any reason for making any distinction between the judges performing these duties in the two jn'ovinces.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Last year the hon. gentleman brought this matter up in the course of the discussion of my estimates. I was struck with the force of his remarks, and on inquiry I found that the distinction arose from the fact that the judge in Nova Scotia accepted his duties and performed them without demur, whereas the judge In New Brunswick made it a condition of his taking the office that a salary should be attached to it. It did not strike me that this was a very satisfactory reason for the distinction, and when my hon. friend sees the supplementary estimates, I think he will find that the observations which he made last year have borne fruit.
Expenditure under cap. 181, R.S.C., $700.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the meaning of this ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is. to meet the expenses attending executions.
Office for clerk of the court and judges' chambers. Prince Albert, $260.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this for ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is represented that there is not sufficient accommodation in the court building for the offices of the clerk and the sheriff; and rooms are rented in the town of Prince Albert, outside the court for these officials. I hope that some day we may have proper accommodation there, because if a fire occurred, the registers of deeds might be destroyed. Although provision has been made for their protection, the proper accommodation would be the construction of a court-house. I have
endeavoured to bring this about, but have not yet been successful. The construction of a court-house is not under the control of the Department of Justice, but is connected with another branch of the public service.
Allowance to ad hoc judges, $200.


Robert Laird Borden: What ad hoc judges are there ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I find on looking over the accounts that this allowance has not been drawn upon for several years. However, it is occasionally found necessary, when a judge is required to hold court for another judge who is disqualified, to provide his moving expenses, and this vote is for that purpose.
Supreme Court of Canada-reporter, $2,100.


Mr. TAYLOR.: There are increases of $50 each in the case of five or six officials.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These are ordinary statutory increases.
For the purchase of law books and works of reference for the Supreme Court library, $4,500.


Robert Laird Borden: The condition of the library of the Supreme Court at the present time is not, I think, very creditable to the country or to the court or to my hon. friend's department, although I have no doubt that no blame is to be attributed to him in that regard. The books are increasing to such an extent that it is almost impossible to do any work there. The room which is now used as a library was never very suitable for the purpose, and now that the number of books has increased so very greatly, there is really no room at all for counsel. It is impossible for the officers of the court, the librarian and the assistant librarian, to do their work properly. It is impossible for counsel to prepare their briefs. The whole library is to some extent in a jumble for lack of space. Besides I believe a large number of books are stored in the attic and another large number in the cellar. I think some steps should be taken to provide the library with better accommodation. To do that may involve a larger proposition than anything we can discuss very fully this afternoon. Still, I think it is right that the attention of the government should be brought to this condition of affairs, and I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who has some practical acquaintance with it, will realize it just as much as I do. If my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works would go down there and look at it, his inspection would convince him that some remedy should be sought at a very early date. It is the highest court in the country, and counsel from all over Canada come there, and they have no place in which to get ready for the argument of their cases, except the library of the Supreme Court. The space formerly used as

a means of communication between the two ends of the court-house is at the present time crowded with shelving, and one can barely edge his way through it. The condition of affairs is such that I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works should consult the hon. Minister of Justice and see whether something cannot be done to improve it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The matter has been brought to my attention by the hon. Minister of Justice, as well as by a delegation which I met some two weeks ago. Personally, I believe the best policy would be to erect a new building, especially for the court, but whether that would meet the views of my colleagues I do not know. I doubt whether any improvements could be made in the present building. The matter, however, will receive the consideration of the department as early as possible, and I hope to be able to make some recommendations at an early date.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to add to what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said that not only is the present court building very inconvenient, but it is exceeding dangerous to have the valuable library there in the condition in which it is at present. Some of the books could never be replaced, and it would cost from $50,000 to $60,000 to replace the whole library.


Robert Laird Borden: There are the records of the court besides.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. I visited the building with my hon. colleague the Minister of Public Works, and we agree that no improvements of any value could be made and that the whole building would have to be reconstructed.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that the building has been patched up as much as it possibly can be. When suggestions were made with regard to acquiring more land, I have always thought that there was no need whatever of our acquiring any more ground, as we have all we require in order to construct all the public buildings this country needs. The ground on which this building is erected, together with such additional land as could be taken in, would suffice to provide ample accommodation for the records of the court and the library and probably the Department of Justice.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I fear very much that we have not ground enough, judging by recent requirements, for the public buildings we require. I agree with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that the site of the Supreme Court may suffice for one building, but if we are to have the public buildings required in Ottawa, I fear that it will be necessary to spread out and acquire more ground. When one looks to the great increase of business Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
during the past few years, one can form some idea of what may be the increase during the next twenty years, and we will have to face the necessity of acquiring more land for public buildings. No doubt a good building could be erected on the site of the Supreme Court. But whether it will be better to build on the open grounds is a matter for serious consideration. Opinions differ very much, but it will be most desirable to maintain the open spaces we have now and not crowd the buildings so close together.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that if we would build a high level bridge across the canal, we have there unoccupied land belonging to the government which we might use. A portion of this is taken up by the park, but if necessary for a public building, I do not see why we should not encroach on the park. We have, however, a lot of ground unoccupied, not used for park purposes, which we might use to build on. Then there are some departments which might be further away. At Washington many of the buildings are some three miles apart, no doubt owing to the great scarcity of ground. In this city there are departments which might be transferred to another portion of the city, and which could be easily reached by the electric cars. And it would not be difficult to get ground not very expensive, but which would be a little remote from the grounds here, and which would suit the purposes of the departments which the public do not often require to visit.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: The suggestion of the hon. Minister of Public Works is, in my opinion, a very good one. There is no doubt that we shall have to acquire more land to meet the requirements of the public service. I would throw out the suggestion that the government look out for some other site on which to erect a new parliament building and devote the present building to departmental purposes. In this we would be following the examples set in London and Paris and other capitals, and it seems to me that we could devise a plan for a building in which the representatives of the people could meet which would be a credit to the country at large.
Supreme Court ot Canada-'contingencies and disbursements-salaries of officers (sheriff, registrar as editor and publisher of the reports, usher, &c.), books for judges, not exceeding $300, and salary of messenger, $330, $5,030.


George Taylor: There is an increase of $30 here.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I find that the sheet of my memoranda containing the details of this vote is mislaid, so I cannot give details. The sheriff, of course, is given a per diem allowance during the sitting of the Supreme Court, and the registrar, as

pditor and publisher of reports, receives an amount in addition to his salary.
Printing, binding and distributing Supreme Court reports, $3,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is that work done at the Bureau ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: At what price are these sold ? Is it sufficient to meet the cost ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At $2.50. The details are given in the Auditor General's Report. If lion, gentlemen will turn to page M-52 of the Auditor General's Report, they will see the amount paid not only for the Supreme Court Reports, but for the Exchequer Court Reports as well.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I see that $3,149 was received.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: From the sale of Supreme Court Reports, yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The expenditure in connection with the preparation and printing of these reports exceeded the receipts by $3,000 per annum ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, we here have to provide for the expense of preparation and publication, then the amount which is received, as shown by the Auditor General's Report, goes into the consolidated revenue fund.


Haughton Lennox: Then, a little more is received than is expended ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.
For the purchase ot law books and works of reference for the Supreme Court library, $4,500.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the explanation of that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is an amount which has been voted for several years past for the purchase of law books for the Supreme Court library. I do not think that my hon. friends who visit the library will find there is any objection to the expenditure, because we are obliged to expend a large sum for reports, for we receive the Canadian reports, also the British and the American reports that are of value. In addition, we must buy text books. Those who are obliged to maintain a working law library find it an exceedingly expensive undertaking.


Robert Laird Borden: One of the objections is that after you get the books you will have no place to put them.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No place to use them.


Robert Laird Borden: And not even much of a place to put them.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the great difficulty.
Exchequer Court of Canada-junior second-class clerks, $1,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many junior seQpnd-class clerks are there ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are two in the department-one has reached the maximum of his class, and I am making special provision for the other.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then, this covers the salary of only one clerk ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it should read ' second-class clerk.'
Junior second-class clerk, Duncan Clark, notwithstanding any thing in the Civil Service Act, $900.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister seems to be giving this officer three statutory increases at once.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I wish to explain the circumstances. I can fairly say with regard to the Civil Service Act that I heartily approve of the conditions it imposes on the executive with regard to the treatment meted out to civil servants. This is one of the departments controlled by the Act, and so we could not give this officer more than $50 increase in one year. But there are special circumstances in this case which lead me to come to parliament and ask its approval of what I have done in increasing his salary to the extent of $150. The registrar of the Exchequer Court, under whose immediate direction this young clerk is, wrote to the deputy minister of Justice that this young gentleman has been in the department for nine years. He says :
He has proved himself a faithful, reliable and able officer, and the work he has to do is one of responsibility and requiring skill. Mr. Clark keeps all the documents and books in this office and takes down in shorthand and transcribes on the typewriter all my correspondence. He sells law stamps and generally does all the work at the counter, and in the discharge of such duties has proved himself most faithful. I may also add that he has not yet got one annual statutory increase. I believe he is most deserving of the increase which I now recommend.
I concur in the recommendation of the Deputy Minister of Justice, and I think it my duty to come to the House and get the statutory increase which has been recommended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has he been getting the regular or statutory increase from year to year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With one exception, in 1897. From the information which was furnished to me about this young gentleman by the registrar of the exchequer court, if they were deprived of his services now they would find it very difficult to replace him with the salary they are now paying, $900.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to draw attention to this feature of the ease, that there are many deserving clerks in the civil service who have had no statutory increase for a good many years, some of them owing to the fact that they were in the maximum of their class and could not be transferred to another class. This clerk has been receiving the regular statutory increase, it appears, with the exception of one year; hut there are many others who have remained for several years without it, and it seems to me an injustice to them.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is a case of special merit. This young man went into the department many years ago, and has risen to the position he now occupies. He is vigilant and active in his duties, and under these circumstances we ought to show our approbation of what he has done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think I can point out instances where men have been in the service over twenty years and have received no statutory increase for the last eight or ten years.
Contingencies-judge's and registrar's travelling expenses, salaries of sheriffs, &c., printing and stationery, &c., and $50 for judge's books, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In regard to travelling expenses this is a very expensive court. The Exchequer Court sits at various places throughout the Dominion as occasion requires. If there is a case at Halifax or Vancouver originating in the Exchequer Court, and where it is necessary for witnesses to be heard, the judge goes to such place. As a result of that arrangement four-fifths of the time of the judge and registrar of the Exchequer Courtis spent in travelling about from place to place. At the present moment the judge of the Exchequer Court is at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, trying a case. To-morrow lie may have to go. to British Columbia. I think he is careful in his expenses. I understand the expenditure stands now at the amount at which it stood in 1890. I think that is fair evidence of the fact that the judge has not been extravagant.
Additional to registrar as editor and publisher of exchequer reports, $300.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The registrar of the Exchequer Court has taken the responsibility of editing and publishing reports of the judgments rendered in that;' court, and for these services he has been receiving for many years the sum of $300. The registrar of the Supreme Court performs a like duty with respect to the judgments of that court and he also receives an additional salary.
Charles Morse, for furnishing reports of Exchequer Court decisions to legal periodicals, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $50.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These reports are extracts of the judgments which are rendered, and are furnished to the legal papers for the information of the general public.


Haughton Lennox: I do not see that the government should pay for that service. The papers who are publishing that legal information should pay for It themselves.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend, who like myself belongs to the profession, knows that the unfortunate publishers of legal periodicals are not as a rule overburdened with this world's wealth. These periodicals, though they are exceedingly useful to the profession, are not a source of great remuneration to the publishers. As the expenditure has been going on for a number of years, it is hardly worth while to object to it now.
Salary of registrar in Admiralty, Quebec, $666.06.


Robert Laird Borden: With reference to this item and the next one for salary of marshall, in what way dre these officers distinct from the registrars at St. John and Halifax ? Are they paid on a different basis ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These gentlemen who are connected with the Admiralty Court at Quebec were appointed at the time that court was a branch of the Imperial Admiralty Court, and their appointments were made subject to the approval of the home authorities. At the time of the change in our admiralty system when the A dmiralty Court ceased to be a branch of the Imperial Court and became a branch of the Exchequer Court of Canada, these officers who were then in the receipt of a salary were taken over, it was understood their salary was to continue on as long as they remained in the office at the same rates that they were then paid.


Robert Laird Borden: I think in the admiralty courts df other provinces the marshall and the registrar are paid by fees, which are a burden upon the litigants. I suppose the intention is, after the present incumbents cease to hold office, to place the court in that respect on the same footing as tlie courts in the other provinces.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Act provides that when these incumbents cease to hold office their successors should come within the operation of our Exchequer Court Act, which provides that they should be paid by fees. In addition to this salary they receive fees also.
To provide accommodation when necessary for Exchequer Court in Admiralty, $300.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this vote usually drawn upon ? Do not the judges in the Exchequer Court and the Admiralty

Court make use of the court-house buildings Why should a stenographer travel to Ot-provided in each of the provinces ?	tawa ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Sometimes a claim is made upon us, but this vote is not usually drawn upon. Take, for instance, the case of the Halifax court-house which, as far as my limited knowledge enables nie to speak, is under the joint control of the province and the county.


Robert Laird Borden: The city and county.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, the city and county. A claim has been made on us by the county in respect to the occupation of the court-house by the judge of the Exchequer Court. The point is still in dispute, but it is to meet such cases that we have this vote. It has not been drawn upon to any extent.
Yukon Territory-travelling allowances of judges, $1,500.


Robert Laird Borden: Do the judges in the Yukon go on circuit at all ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Very little, but they sometimes sit at White Horse and occasionally they have to move away from Dawson. I have made inquiry as to the amount spent under this vote and 1 find it is very small'as a rule.


Robert Laird Borden: How much was expended last year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have been referred to page M-17 of the Auditor General's Report and I have looked the matter through, but I cannot find that there appears to have been any amount paid. I cannot speak with any degree of accuracy. But I asked what amount had been paid under that item, and I was told that the judges sometimes went to White Horse and that a certain expenditure was made, but that last year a very small amount was paid.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty I find about page M-17 is that there is no item at the top to show out of which vote these things have been paid.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the page given to me in the brief that was prepared for me in connection with my estimates, but, upon looking at the page, I find that it does not give me any information whatever. There is an item for travelling expenses of $791.75 made up as follows :
George Craig, stenographer, travel, Dawson to Ottawa and return, $322.45 ; George D. Taylor, police magistrate, travel, Bothwell, Ontario to Ottawa, and removal expenses to White Horse, $49.30.
I do not find any item showing the travelling expenses of judges.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hou. gentleman explain what is the meaning of this item of $791.75 for travelling expenses ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In respect to Mr. Taylor, I know that this expenditure was connected with his removal when he went into the country, but in respect to Mr. Craig, why we should pay his travelling expenses from Dawson to Ottawa and return, I am not in a position to say. I am quite willing to allow that item to remain over for the purpose of making inquiry as to these expenses.
Item allowed to stand.
Salaries of sheriff and clerk of Territorial Court at $4,000 each, $8,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the Auditor General's Report at page M-54, there is some correspondence in reference to sheriff's fees. Would the hon. minister give us any explanation about that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That was a difficulty that occurred with the sheriff previous to the estimates of last year. The sheriff was in the habit of receiving in addition to the salary voted to him a portion of the fees, but last year it was decided by the government that in future he should not have the right to receive any fees.


Robert Laird Borden: What are we to understand by that ? Are the fees paid into the consolidated revenue fund, or are they abolished 1


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They come into the consolidated revenue fund. The arrangement with the sheriff formerly was that he received a certain amount by way of salary, then he had a living allowance and lie retained one-half or one-tliird of the fees of his office. The Auditor General argued that it was doubtful whether the government had the right to make any such arrangement as that with the sheriff and after considerable discussion and some correspondence, it was decided that we would take statutory authority to pay the sheriff eacli year a fixed salary of $4,000, and take away his right to sheriff's fees. So that, the fees now go into the consolidated revenue fund.


Robert Laird Borden: Was that put into the form of a statute last year ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes. and the salary was fixed at $4,000 a year.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Do you make an allowance to the sheriff besides that for his travelling expenses ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We give the sheriff a living allowance in the dis-; trict.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: One thousand eight hundred a year.


John Graham Haggart: And no travelling expenses ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.
Salaries of deputy sheriff and two assistant Clerks of Territorial Court at $1,800 each, $5,400.


Haughton Lennox: Is that necessary ? We have a sheriff and a chief clerk of the Territorial Court, as well as a deputy sheriff and two assistant clerks, I would like to ask the hon. minister if he lias looked into this matter at all. I do not know whether it is necessary, but I would not think it necessary.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have been recently pressed for the appointment of two additional clerks of the Territorial Court, and I have withstood the pressure up to the present time because I could not believe it was absolutely necessary. I was under the impression that a chief clerk and two assistants ought to do the work of the court. But, in respect to the sheriff my information is that a sheriff and an assistant are required. The courts have had a good deal of work to do during the last two or three years, and I do not think any complaints have been made that the officials have not had plenty to do. There is considerable litigation going on in the Yukon.
Salaries for two stenographers of Territorial Court at $2,000 each, $4,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these salaries in any way provided for by charges made against litigants ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The litigants are charged an amount which is more than sufficient to provide for that expense.
Yukon-living allowance of judges at $5,000 each, $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Three or four years ago we had as an explanation of this item, that living expenses were very high in the Yukon, but notwithstanding that the cost of living Is decreasing, the allowance is kept as high as ever. What is the explanation of that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will remember the trouble we had last year with respect to the living allowance paid to the judges in the Yukon. That trouble arose out of the fact that a certain sum was allowed by the Department of Justice, and in addition to that the judges were allowed residence, and fuel and light, by the Department of Public Works. We thought It better to take the position that we should pay these gentlemen in addition to their salaries of $5,000 a year each, a fixed sum of $5,000, in view of all claims for living allowance. They now receive no per-quisities or allowances of any description that we know of, except this sum. This was done last year after the difficulty had arisen in connection with Judge Dugas. I may say that it became necessary for us to 'take action against Judge Dugas to make him account for certain perquisites he received outside of his living allowance paid


John Graham Haggart: by the Department of Justice. We came to the conclusion that he should have to account for anything he was paid by any other department than the Department of Justice, and we are having that issue settled in the courts now. To avoid all possible difficulty in the future, we have decided that the judges shall each receive $5,000 a year as salary, and $5,000 as living allowance, and no more. That amount was fixed after the discussion last year in the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are the judges given residences besides that amount ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, we do not give them anything whatever except the $5,000. We take the position that we give a judge in the Yukon $5,000 over and above what would be paid to a judge in a similar position in one of the older provinces, in order to compensate him for any additional expense he may be put to in connection with his residence in that country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a good deal better system than the former system which was growing to be a scandal, because no one could tell what we were paying these judges every year or from what source it was coming. This system has the merit of showing us how much we are actually paying. I am not prepared to say whether the amount is too high or not, but it is claimed that the cost of living in the Yukon has much decreased, and if that be so, it would seem that the compensation is very ample. I see that in addition to that we are paying the sheriffs and other officials as well. I do not see why we should do that now. We are giving them good salaries, and in other portions of the country they would have to provide for their own living.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This amount for living expenses is put in the estimates every year, so that we may be in a position to reduce the amounts at any time we may think proper. It was originally suggested that the judges should receive $10,000 a year all told, and that that should be put in the statutes, but we thought it wiser to give the Yukon judges the usual salary paid to other judges in a similar position, and to vote the living allowance each year, so that we could decrease it at any time we thought we would be justified in doing so. I think, however, that the conditions have not yet reached that position where we should decrease the amount, but at all events, under the present system we can consider it each year.


Haughton Lennox: The explanation af the minister appears to be satisfactory, provided that the decrease be made at as early a period as possible. I am not in a position to judge as to whether the $10,000 a year all told is too high or not, but it appears to me that it is quite questionable whether the additional $5,000 for living allowance is not

decidedly too high at the present time. We pay a judge in the province of Ontario $5,000 a year, apd out of that he has to furnish his own living. Suppose we estimate that at $3,500, and allowing, as we do, the Yukon judges $5,000 a year for living allowance, that would place their living expenses at $8,500 a year. As the result of the agitation from this side of the House last year, what has been referred to as an improper method of remunerating these judges has been done away with, and I have faith that the Minister of Justice will see to it that next session these living allowances will be revised. I do not want to put the judges in the Yukon on any unfair basis, but we should put them as nearly as possible upon an equal basis with the judges in the other parts of the country.


Mr.   O@: Did I understand the minister to say that there was a suit in progress against one of the Yukon judges to compel him to restore some moneys he has retained ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not say that. Last year we had a considerable discussion here with respect to the living allowances that were paid to the judges in the Yukon. I said that they received a certain amount by way of living allowance under the authority of parliament voted in the estimates, and it was discovered that in addition to the amount paid to them by the Department of Justice, they received divers other amounts from the Department of Public Works. I did not say they received money, but they received benefits such as being allowed to reside in houses that were the property of the government, or, that the rent of their houses had been paid by the Department of Public Works, or, that fire-wood or light had been supplied to them. When the matter was discussed in the House it was my opinion that it was more or less irregular that they should receive these allowances outside of the Department of Justice, and in order to have that opinion properly tested, I drew the attention of the judge to the fact, and asked him to refund the money. He replied that he was under no obligation to do so, because that was one of the conditions under which he went into the Yukon, and as the matter was in issue between us, I thought the proper way to have it tested was by a suit, and a suit was begun.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is trying the suit ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is an insinuation which I think I must repel. It will be tried in the Exchequer Court.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand the minister to say that the suit that is being brought is to recover, amongst other things, the money which represents rental and the expenditures for fuel and lighting which were in controversy a year ago ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.
Living allowances of sheriff, deputy sheriff, clerk of the court, assistant clerks, police magistrate and stenographers of Yukon Territorial Court, at $1,800 each, $14,400.


George Taylor: Will the minister tell us how much money Sheriff Eilbeck draws for salary, living allowances and incidentals, not only in his department, but in the other departments of the government ?	.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman is rather unfair in expecting me to answer for all the other departments of the government. So far as the Department of Justice is concerned, he receives $4,000 as salary and $1,800 as living allowance.


George Taylor: I see he was paid also expenses in connection with the execution of O'Brien, erecting scaffold, executioner's fee, &c., $586.80.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These are expenses which are paid in the other provinces by the provincial governments. When persons like O'Brien have to be disposed of, the Sheriff cannot be expected to pay the expenses out of his own pocket.


George Taylor: They cost a good deal, however. I also find that Sheriff Eilbeck is paid large sums by the Department of the Interior for selling town lots. He must be a valuable officer. I think his salary as sheriff should cover his services in selling government property at auction ; yet he is paid auctioneer's fees. I would like to know how much he draws altogether.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot say how much he drew in connection with the hanging of O'Brien ; but judging from the Auditor General's report, O'Brien proved to be an expensive luxury to the Dominion of Canada. It cost a good deal to catch him and a good deal to try him, but I think the way in which he was captured and disposed of reflected great credit on the administration of justice in the Yukon, especially on the North-west Mounted Police.


George Taylor: I see that Mr. F. C. Wade, Crown prosecutor, got $3,000 for his services in connection with the prosecution of O'Brien. It appears to me that these officials are drawing pretty large sums.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that all these officials are paid about as much for living allowances as they are for salaries. If their salaries are fairly adequate for the work done, I do not see why we should pay their board also. In no other part of Canada is it done. I could see some reason why it should have been done in the early history of that country, when living was exceptionally high ; but to-day living in Dawson is as luxurious as in most other parts of Canada, and the cost of living is not so great as it was. We pay two deputy sheriffs a salary of $1,800 each, which would be con-

sidered a fairly good salary in other parts of Canada ; and why we should add to that $1,800 more for living allowance I cannot understand. It practically means that we are paying $3,600 for a deputy sheriff in the Yukon, whereas in other parts of Canada such an official would not be paid half that amount. We are paying all these officials good salaries, and I do not see why we should pay them living allowances also.
The' MINISTER OF JUSTICE. I agree with the hon. gentleman that the officials in the Yukon are being paid reasonably good salaries, and I think the question of living allowances is one that must be considered in the immediate future ; and in view of the discussion which has taken place to-day, I will look into it very carefully. When these estimates were prepared in December last, I was told that the cost of living in the Yukon was still very high, and was fairly represented by the amount we allowed. Of course, I cannot speak from my own experience, as I have not been there ; but one of the gentlemen whom I consulted on the subject was connected with the North-west Mounted Police.


Mr. HENDERSON.: With reference to this increased cost of living in the Yukon, may I ask the minister if he knows the cause of it ? I understand that in the Yukon they are now producing grains and vegetables of the very best quality, and I fail to discover how it is that our officials there require so much compensation on account of the cost of living. I rather fear it is because of the extravagant habits they have got into, and I am not sure that this parliament is justified in cultivating those habits. Perhaps it would be wise to put a little check upon these officials, and ask them to live more as other people do.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course, if grain and vegetables were grown in the Yukon to a sufficient extent to meet the local needs. I would agree with my hon. friend. But if he supposes that to be the case, his knowledge of the Yukon is about as imperfect as mine. That is not my information. For instance, I have been informed that $75 a month has to be paid for a maid servant ; and if everything else costs on the same scale, one can understand what living in the Yukon means.


David Henderson: I understand that the hon. minister's source of information is the government officials. Of course, that does not explain why domestic help is so expensive. When there is so much immigration coming to the country, perhaps the government can do something in the way of providing increased help there.


George Taylor: I notice that there does not appear to be any regular scale of living allowance. The sheriff is allowed $1,800, and the police magistrate, who bears a good name-George L. Taylor-receives a salary Mr. SPROULE.
of $2,400 and a living allowance, from September 9 to June 30, of $2,433.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The police magistrate receives $1,800 living allowance.


George Taylor: The Auditor General's Report says he receives $2,400.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That was before last year.


George Taylor: Besides that, he is paid $469 for a trip from Bothwell to Ottawa, nnd from Ottawa to White Horse.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When he went into the country, the expenses of getting into White Horse were allowed him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take the stenographer there. He gets $2,000 per year, which is the same price as a stenographer gets here, and the work is not so heavy. But in addition he gets $34 per week for living expenses. Take the deputy sheriffs, they get $34 per week for living expenses, over and above their salary of $150 per month. If you were adding ten or twenty per cent to the salaries for the increased cost of living, that would perhaps not be unreasonable, but when you double the salaries, I think you are paying too much. It cannot cost a man $34 more per week to live there than here.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not say that there is not a great deal in what my hon. friend has said.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that be the case, then the hon. minister had better look into it.


Tlie MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Certainly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But we have the same thing every year. Although there is partial admission of the soundness of our criticism, still from procrastination or from some other cause, the government puts off applying any remedy and there is no improvement.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is an improvement. Formerly the sheriffs were paid salaries by way of fees, but a remedy has been applied. The question is whether $1,800 per year for living allowance is too much. My information is that it is a reasonable amount, but in view of what my hon. friend has said, I shall make further inquiries, and if I conclude that that is too much, I am not compelled to pay it. The vote simply puts a certain amount at the disposal of the government, but the government is under no obligation to pay it out. It is not a contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The vote is for a specific purpose, and I do not see how the hon. minister can get out of paying it. If we vote an amount for salary, we have to pay that out.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If a man is voted a certain salary then a bargain is entered into with him; but with respect to

living allowance, that is an amount which is to be paid him in addition to his salary unless we come to the conclusion that it is too high and notify him that we will not pay it. He then has the option of taking what we offer or giving up his place.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: As regards the cost of living in the Yukon, let me quote a few items from the ' Dawson Times ' of April the 3rd, 1903. Butter, 50 cents per pound; fresh eggs, $1.50 per dozen; cream cheese, 50 cents per pound; lard, 35 cents per pound; potatoes, 21 cents per pound; onions, 20 cents per pound; carrots, 20 cents per pound; beets, 20 cents per pound; apples, 9 to 10 cents; oranges, 25 cents; lemons, $1.50; flour, $4 per hundred pounds; rolled oats, 20 cents per pound; sugar, 15 cents per pound. Fresh meats : sausages, 50 cents per pound; beef, 30 to 75 cents per pound; pork, 43 to 50 cents; mutton, 35 to 60; veal, 35 to 75; poultry, 45 cents; turkeys, 40 to 50 cents; ducks, 40 cents; white fish, 50 cents; oysters, $1.50- 1 do not know per pound or not. Canned fruits and vegetables, canned tomatoes, which are retailed here at 10 cents, sell in Dawson at 50 cents; beans, 25 cents; canned peas, 25 cents. These are the retail prices in Dawson. Everything seems to sell at extraordinary prices compared with the prices in Ontario. Dried apples which we can buy in Ontario at three cents, are sold at Dawson at thirty cents; peaches, apricots and pears are sold at thirty cents. Pearl coal oil sells at $7, but 1 do not know whether it is $7 per gallon or not; oats, seven cents; hay 15 cents; bran, seven and a half cents.
This will give some idea of the cost of living in the Yukon. Of course this is in the month of April when things perhaps are higher than at any other season, but according to these quotations, it would cost a man twice, if not three times as much, to actually live in the Yukon as it would in Ontario.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No doubt it would cost him a good deal more, but the hon. gentleman has partially answered himself by referring to the fact that he has quoted the market when it is at its highest. But compare some of the items with Ontario prices. Butter sells at 50 cents in Dawson and at 25 cents here, which would indicate that in the staple articles of life, the cost is twice as high as it is here. But when we give these employees $34 per week for increased cost of living, it seems to me we are giving an extravagant sum. You can get your board here at $6 per week, and if you add' $34 to that, you have $40 as the price of board per week up there, and no one will pretend to say that it would cost that much. While the cost of living is much dearer there than here, it is not dearer in proportion to the increased allowance we give these officials. The hon. minister says he is at liberty to cut down this item. But suppose he
notified one of the employees that he intended cutting down his living allowance, and the employee went on doing his work to the end of the year and demanded his allowance for living expenses as now voted, I am inclined to think that the Auditor General would say that he was entitled to it. I do not think we could prevent it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That would be right.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That being the case, we ought to revise it. At the time this was struck I was going to mention that there were perquisites coming to these officers from many sources. I have no doubt that, with the salary, a liberal living allowance, and all these perquisites, we made their remuneration very high. And, as the cost of living comes down, we ought to reduce the allowance. But we are making no effort in that direction, so far as I know.


Mr. BOYD.: I would like to ask the minister from whom the- recommendation was received on which the allowances for expenses were based ? Who recommended to council to make these allowances ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The position we took*last year, when this was fixed, was that the cost of living in the Yukon was about three times the cost of living in eastern Canada. I did not follow closely the figures given by my hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Ross), but I should think the cost would be quite three times what it is in the east. In any event, that is the basis on which we proceeded.


Nathaniel Boyd: I am glad the hon. minister has given that explanation, because it enables me to draw his attention and the attention of the government to a matter we discussed here last year. It seems to me there is a little government clique in the Yukon, and whatever they recommend or propose or desire they are able to have carried through. I drew the government's attention last year to the fact that men are working in the Yukon

not labourers or anything of that kind-at salaries of $100 and $150 a month, without any allowance, I refer to the telegraph operators. It will be found by the Auditor General's Report that these officers are paid only $150 a month. These gentlemen are not in the clique I mentioned, and, not being in this little particular family circle, they are not allowed this $1,800 to $5,000 a year for living expenses. They are men of intelligence, education and ability, and, besides, they have a craft at which one cannot become expert with less than from three to five years' training. I would ask the Minister of Justice if he thinks this is fair treatment for one body of men as compared with that meted out to the sheriff, the Crown prosecutor and others ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I should not like to be asked to express an opinion

on what my colleagues may do; I have as J much as I can take care of to answer the questions with regard to my own department. But I do not think it fair to assume that this rate of living has been fixed at the suggestion of those who are benefited by it. X may say that when the rate was to be struck last year, I considered what was being paid out then, and I thought it ought to be reduced very considerably. I consulted those who, I thought, ought to be in a position to help me, including officials whose experience in that country would be likely to be useful in enabling me to judge what it would cost to maintain a man in that region. After considering the whole matter, X came to a conclusion that I thought fair. It may be that I looked at it from the generous side-I will not say that I did not; it may be that it is my nature to do so. I think I dealt fairly with these people. I may have transgressed somewhat, but I am willing to be criticised and to consider any facts relating to the matter that may be brought to my knowledge. When the supplementary estimates are before us, this matter will come up again. In the meantime I can discuss the question with those who are m a position to know, and, in that way judge as to the correctness of the conclusions we have reached.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I regret that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir AVilliam Mulock) was not here to hear the statement of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) with regard to telegraph operators. These are * skilled workmen, and, in view of the fact that they must devote a number of years to their training before they can become expert in their craft, it is only reasonable that this should be allowed for in fixing their remuneration. And, if a subordinate official receives from $1,200 to if 1,800 per year for living allowance, surely the claims of the telegraph operators are deserving of consideration. The Minister of Labour or the fair wage officer ought to look into the matter.


Mr. LA YELL.: Do I understand that this $5,000 of living allowance to the judges is not a matter of contract with the judges, but is within the discretion of the Department of Justice V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The position we took was that, under the statute, we would fix $5,000 a year as salary, and, with respect to the living allowance we would make that a matter of vote to be passed upon each year by parliament, so that each year we might reduce the allowance if we felt that the reduction of living expenses would justify it. That- is not a matter of contract at all, but it is a provision made by parliament for the maintenance of these gentlemen during the ensuing fiscal year. At any time, I take it, we could come here and say :	We will abolish the


Charles Fitzpatrick: living allowance altogether, or we could simply omit the item from the estimates. Or we could say :	In view of the altered
conditions in the Yukon, instead of proposing to parliament to give $5,000, we will propose to give only $3,000 or $2,500. Of course, there is a statute to fix the salary.


Mr. LAYELL.: But once the amount is passed in the estimates and fixed for the year by parliament, the judge is entitled to it as a matter of right ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: With regard to the amount for a judge, I would say that it would be difficult to interfere with it. But with respect to an official who is not in a position to be able to say that his position is permanent, I think we can say to him :	Parliament has voted $1,800 for
your living allowance, but I consider that excessive. I would be within my right to notify an official that, in addition to his salary, instead of $1,800 living allowance, he would be allowed $1,000 or $1,200. If this were done, it would be for him to decide whether he would remain in the employ of the government or not.


John Reeve Lavell: But, so far as the judge was concerned, does the minister think it would be a matter of question whether their allowance was within his discretion ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Clearly.


John Reeve Lavell: It seems to me that it is at variance with the principle of the independence of our judges to give the government control, practically over their salaries -for that is what it comes to. Most certainly, under these circumstances they cannot be as independent of the government of the day as-well, as the rest of the judges of the country are.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The judge is appointed by statute, and his remuneration is fixed by statute. In addition, he receives this amount, but that has nothing to do with his position.


John Reeve Lavell: Nothing to do with his position, but very much to do with his remuneration. As I said before, it seems to me that this is calculated to interfere very seriously with the independence of the bench, which is recognized as part and parcel of our very constitution. There are no other judges, so far as I am aware, whose salaries can be at all interfered with by the government of the day.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think my hon. friend has suggested a broad question in bringing this matter up. But it does not go any further than we have been in the habit of going when we appoint judges, for instance, to act as commissioners and vote them remunerations in addition to their salaries. All these questions are on the same line. When parliament under-i takes to give additional remuneration to I a judge for additional services, we get on

the fringe of the independence of judges, as my hon. friend has pointed out. I remember some years ago reading an interesting article on the subject as to whether, when a judge had been appointed for the purpose of giving the whole of his time to the country, it was not unconstitutional for us to take him from the service, to the-performance of which he was appointed, under the statute, and employ him for some other purpose, or to give him any other remuneration whatever for that additional work. However, that is one of the broad questions that I think I would not like to discuss now without giving it careful consideration.


Haughton Lennox: I think we might direct our attention for a moment to what has been said by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). The Minister of Justice pointed out that he has no direct control over this matter of the telegraph operators, but he tells us that his sympathies are in the line of generosity. I think we ought to enlist his sympathies on behalf of this class of persons. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Labour is not here. It would be satisfactory if we could get that hon. gentleman down to some practical action in relieving these parties who require In many instances the assistance of the Minister of Labour in order to get fair remuneration. We make a mistake in think-tbat because a man holds a pen, or fills some other jjosition that requires no particular amount of intelligence, he should get a large salary, whereas a man in a mechanical occupation which requires a good deal of skill, where he requires to be constantly on the alert, should be paid much on the line of an ordinary labourer.


An hon. MEMBER.: Less than a Servant girl.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, because according to what the Minister of Justice has said, a servant girl gets $75 and her board up in the Yukon. There seems to me to be a great disparity between the pay of these two classes of individuals. I think the scale of wages should be revised up in the line of assisting the telegraph operators, and revised down as regards these officials whose living expenses we have been discussing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When I total up the items for the administration of justice in the Yukon, I find they aggregate $123,800. That sum is spent in a country not as big as one of our ordinary counties. It seems extravagant, and ought to be reduced.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: By way of illustration, let me remark to the hon. gentleman that for the maintenance of prisoners in the North-west Territories we pay to the mounted police sixty cents per head per diem. But when you come to the Yukon the charge is $2 per head per diem. So you get some indication of the reason
why the administration of justice is so costly in the Yukon Territory. These figures show the difference in the cost of living between the two countries.	[DOT]


George Taylor: I understood the Minister of Justice to say that the living allowance for the sheriff had been fixed. What was it ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: One thousand eight hundred dollars.


George Taylor: Will he explain why he paid $2,437.23 from September to June ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That was for last year finishing in the month of June. The $1,800 was fixed during last session.


George Taylor: Could not the hon. gentleman have found a gentleman in the Yukon country suitable to be appointed police magistrate, without coming east and getting a man to whom he had to pay $461 to get him in there.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I don't think you could find a better man than Mr. Taylor.


George Taylor: The name is all right. He must be some party who wanted a government office pretty bad, and the government thought the best way to get rid of him was to send him out to the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: By chapter 36 of last year's statutes, we 'provided that the police magistrate may be paid, in addition to his salary, such living allowance as may be fixed by the Governor General in Council. Are all these fixed by Order in Council ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, and voted in the estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand how six of the judges were paid $3,000 living allowance according to the Auditor General's Report last year. Now we are to increase it to $5,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will remember what occurred last year when these items were voted. We had a very interesting discussion with respect to the payments to Mr. Justice Dugas. At the time I contended strenuously that he had been paid nothing except what he had received by way of living allowance from the Department of Justice. A reference to the Auditor General's Report established the fact that he had been allowed by the Public Works Department certain perquisites in respect to a residence and other matters of that sort. Then the question arose whether it was proper for the Public Works Department to make this allowance. I explained a moment ago that it had been necessary for us to take a suit against Mr. Justice Dugas to recover back the money

value of the perquisites he received from the Public Works Department, as a test question to ascertain whether he was entitled to receive these perquisites. Then we determined that the salary should he fixed at $5,000, and that the living allowance should be $5,000 each year-not $10,000 together, but in addition to the permanent salary of $5,000, we might give him from year to year a living allowance of $5,000 so as to be able at any time to reduce, that allowance without interfering with the independence of the judges.


Nathaniel Boyd: I see in the Auditor General's Report, at M-54, that the Auditor General says :
An Order in Council passed May 31 last, increases the sheriff's salary from $2,000 to $3,000 per annum, his living allowance from $1,200 to $1,800 ; and in addition allows him to retain one half'of-the fees after paying remuneration and expenses of his deputy or deputies and other expenses.
Then a little further down :
During the summer of 1900, Sheriff Eilbeck was paid $2,751.37 by the Department of the Interior for fourteen days services as auctioneer at the sale of mining claims in the Yukon.
Now, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice and also that of the right hon. leader of the government to these items. We all know the generosity of the Minister of Justice because his nationality would not permit him to he otherwise, we know the generosity of the right hon. Prime Minister himself. We all admit that and we are pleased with it. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the great disparity that exists between one class of the employees of the government and another. The right hon. leader of the government, I have no doubt, puts In the exact farthing that it costs to maintain the mounted police. Under the department over which the hon. Minister of Justice presides it costs $2 a day to keep a convict. They do not feed these men as a rule on delicacies; at least, they are not supposed to. If it costs $2 a day to keep one of these ordinary convicts what about the poor man who gets $100 a month, pays out $60 for board and has $40 left ? In view of the fact that a member of that particular family is involved in the question, $2,751 for fourteen days work does not seem to be out of place. This government will allow It to pass unquestioned. I would like to draw the attention of these generous members of the cabinet to the position of the mounted police to see if they will not do something for these men who, I believe, are under paid.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am sorry to say that we have been guilty of being too economical. We will try and not do it again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there no answer to make to the statement that the sheriff was paid this large sum as an auctioneer In


Charles Fitzpatrick: addition to the salary he received for his ordinary work ?


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: I have nothing to say about that. It is a question as to whether or not the Department of the Interior ought to have paid the sheriff any fee for the service he rendered in connection with the sale of mining claims. He never received it from my department and I am not responsible for the payment.


George Taylor: The hon. minister said : We will fix the salary of the sheriff at $3,000 and give him a living allowance, hut he said nothing about retaining his fees. The Auditor General makes the statement of the receipts and disbursements of fees by the sheriff. The disbursements were as follows :-
North-west Mounted Police and others
for serving papers	$	406 00
J. M. Eilbeck, as deputy sheriff		750 00
Retained by sheriff as his share of fees. 819 53 Deposited to credit of Receiver Gen-e-ral	 819 53
Total	$2,795 06
Now, some correspondence took place with the hon. gentleman's department in which the hon. minister's deputy, Mr. New-eombe, says :
The government i-s authorized to pay him a salary of $3,000 In addition to such fees of office as may be allowed by the Governor in Council.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I thought I had made myself clear about that. Last year there was a change in the position of the sheriff. We made provision that the sheriff, instead of receiving, as he had been in the habit of receiving, a share of the fees in addition to his salary, should be paid a fixed salary of $4,000 and $1,S00 living allowance. That was to take the place of tlie fees he had received heretofore and to avoid tlie difficulty which the Auditor General had pointed out. That arrangement took effect late in the year 1901 or in the early part of 1902.


George Taylor: Did you also relieve the sheriff of the privilege of being employed by other departments and being paid $2,700 for his services as an auctioneer, while neglecting his duty as sheriff, working fourteen days and drawing $2,700 for it 1


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Department of Interior made that payment.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that a question arose as to the collection of the fines, the correspondence in regard to which will be found in the Auditor General's Report at page M-59. The correspondence is in an unfinished condition as a reference is made to the Hon. Mr. Ross who was then the commissioner of the Yukon Territory, and it is said that the matter will be dealt with upon his return.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Are those the fines paid to the magistrates ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These have been paid over. The fact is that a magistrate there was of the opinion that he was entitled as part of his perquisites to receive these fines. I agreed with the position taken by the Auditor General and as a result the magistrate's cheque did not go out until he had paid these fines in.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is a very extraordinary view of the situation for a magistrate to take that he would be entitled to these fines.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He argued that he was entitled to receive a portion of the fines. I never had any doubt about the matter and it was speedily disposed of when it was brought to the attention of the deputy minister and myself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. minister to say that he had stopped officers receiving perquisites or salary from any other source.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not say ' salary from any other source.' You have the services performed as auctioneer, for instance. I could not control that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister think that the government should allow a practice like that to go on, if a sheriff gets $4,000 a year and which is supposed to pay him for all his time ? For fourteen days work auctioning off mining claims we paid him at the rate of $195 a day in addition to his salary ? Is that not an abuse, particularly when we consider that in addition to paying $4,000 a year salary we are giving him $1,800 for a living allowance ? That is $5,800 a year that he receives by way of salary and in addition for fourteen days work he gets $2,751. Does the government think this is good management or that it is not unreasonable extravagance and mismanagement of the funds of the country ? It seems to me that it is. If the sheriff is paid for every hour of his time surely he is not entitled to charge the country with a large sum of money in addition to his salary.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule). The sheriff has statutory duties to perform. His duties are fixed and circumscribed by the statute. He is obliged to perform these duties and he is not obliged to perform any other. If he is called upon to perform the duties of an auctioneer, then, be can reasonably be dealt with as if he were a stranger. He is not under any obligation to sell these mining lands or to perform these duties ? If he does perform them is it not possible tbat he may be dealt with as any other stranger would be ? It is not part 108
of his duties to sell them. If it were a stranger that was called upon to perform these duties would the stranger be entitled to receive this money ? What is the difference between them, and why should he not be employed as an auctioneer, not with respect to the Department of Justice but with respect to the Department of the Interior which has no control over him and no command over his services ? That is the answer as it occurred to me, but I would like at the same time to make it clear that I am not undertaking to be responsible for what anybody else may have done. I find that my road is as hard a one as I want to travel to explain my own short-comings.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the result of a very long inquiry in 1891, we found that many officials were receiving pay from different sources, and they set up the same justification for that as the minister now presents to the House. They said that having discharged their duty to their own department, they could sell their spare time to other departments without any injustice to the service or to the country. We found that civil servants were obtaining money from different departments while they were paid what was considered an ample salary for the services they rendered to a particular department. That was declared to be an abuse, and it was stopped. The law was amended so that if a civil servant were paid anything in addition to his salary under the Civil Service Act, it should appear in the estimates each year, and parliament if satisfied that such extra payment was justified, could then vote it after deliberation. Here we have the same abuse cropping up again, and we have the Minister of Justice giving the same justification for it as was given by the civil servants at that time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I did not justify it.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice is not responsible from a departmental point of view, because this is not in his department, but the responsibility of one minister is not confined to the minister himself. It seems extraordinary to pay $2,751 for fourteen day's work to any man, but when you find that that amount is paid to a sheriff who is in receipt of an annual salary, it does require an explanation from some member of the government who is familiar with the circumstances. We should know who was discharging the duties of the sheriff during these fourteen days when he earned a sum equal to about two-thirds of his annual salary of $4,000. It may be that the sheriff is not bound to perform these services for the Department of the Interior, but if he does he should perform them for a reasonable amount. We are entitled to an explanation from the Department of Justice as to whether the sheriff was discharging the duties of his office during these



fourteen days, because I suppose if the sheriff could earn $198 a day by conducting auction sales, he must have given his whole time to that particular work. Why, the remuneration which he received from the Department of the Interior was at the rate of $70,000 a year. I can hardly believe that possible ; surely this amount must include disbursements or something of that kind.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Are there no disbursements ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know. I cannot find out. I am not surprised that the Minister of Justice cannot tell us, but some member of the government should be able to explain what seems to be an extraordinary condition of affairs.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Is there any explanation given in the report ?


Robert Laird Borden: This is what the Auditor General's Report says :
During the summer of 1900, Sheriff Eilbeck was paid $2,751.37 by the Department of the Interior for fourteen days' service as auctioneer at the sale of mining claims in the Yukon.
That was paid to a salaried officer of this government; an officer who is receiving $4,000 a year as salary and $1,800 for living allowance. We ought to have some explanation of that transaction.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This item was paid in 1900, and therefore it would not come up in a discussion on the estimates of the Interior Department, but I am quite willing that this particular item should stand over, and I will get the best information I can. I recognize that something should be said about it.


Robert Laird Borden: That is perfectly fair.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the minister give us information also as to on what basis deputy clerks and assistant sheriffs and stenographers and so on, are paid a living allowance at the rate of $150 a month, while telegraphers in the employ of the government in the Yukon are receiving no allowance at all.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It was understood that this question of the living allowance would be resumed on the supplementary estimates, and I will then endeavour to deal with my own responsibility as to the question of the living allowances paid to the officials under my control.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice has suggested that the cost of living is perhaps three times as much in the Yukon as it is in the east. The Yukon judges get exactly the same salary as that paid to judges in this part of Canada, and out of which the judges here are required to meet their own expenses. That certainly presents an anomaly. If the judges in the east


Robert Laird Borden: had a living allowance of $1,700 a year each, then according to the view of the Minister of Justice, they would only be in the position which the Yukon judges now occupy. It, therefore, seems to me that some further consideration of these living allowances is necessary. I also recognize what my hon. friend (Mr. Lavell) has said as to the undesirability, on general principles, of having what is virtually the salary of judges, fixed by Order in Council so far as one-half of it is concerned. I do not think that is a very good principle to adopt, or one that should be persevered in any longer than is absolutely necessary. I understand the reason why these living allowances were given in the first instance. It was suggested that if you fixed a salary measured by the cost of living in the Yukon, you might have that salary fixed for all time, and, therefore, it was better, until the conditions of living in the Yukon became normal, that you should pay a salary and a living allowance as well. The question is whether the cost of living is not now approaching what will be the normal level for some years to come. If this is the case, speaking for myself, I should be in favour of fixing the salary and abolishing the living allowance, not only for judges, but for all other officials in that country. However, I understand that the matter will come up again when the supplementary estimates are before the House.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The difficulty we found ourselves in was this, that if we fixed the salary of a judge at say $10,000, that would be fixed for all time. The conditions in the Yukon might at any time become normal, and we could not explain how it was that we paid so large a salary. There is also this to be considered. The residences of these judges may not be permanent. It may be considered advisable at some time to take a judge from the Yukon and bring him to the North-west Territories. In that event, with this large salary, his position would be anomalous, and not fair to the other judges. So, under all the circumstances, while I agree that the conditions are not normal, and should not be continued for a day longer than it is possible to prevent them, this is the best solution I have been able to arrive at, that we should keep parliamentary control over these living allowances, and be in a position to regulate them each session.


George Taylor: The hon. minister has asked that this item stand until he can get some information with regard to the large payment made to Sheriff Eilbeck by the Department of the Interior. Will he bring down information as to the time that money was paid by the Department of the Interior, the time Mr. Eilbeck received leave of. absence to leave the Yukon and come down to Ontario, and the date of the bye-election in West Durham, which was at the same time

as he was granted leave of absence, and may have had some connection with it. Perhaps there will be some explanation why he was paid this large sum of 52,700 for fourteen days' work in the fact that he camped down in the town of Bowmanville during that election.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And if there is no connection, what will my hon. friend undertake to do ?


Haughton Lennox: I wish to call the minister's attention to a matter which I think requires immediate consideration. We have from the minister the fact that a lawsuit is pending against a gentleman who has acted very badly, a gentleman who was originally appointed to his position by the government, and we know that lawsuits are expensive. It is important, therefore, that the minister should carefully consider whether there is any reasonable ground for expecting that this lawsuit will be successful; because if it is not, it will only have this result, that it will be expensive to the government and that the only person who will reap a reward will be some friend of the government who may be employed in prosecuting it. My reason for directing the minister's attention to the matter is this : He tells us that a year or two ago the judges were receiving a living allowance of 53,000 a year from his department, and that they were also receiving from the Public Works Department certain perquisites which brought their full allowance up to |5,000, or perhaps more. Now, I wish the minister to take into consideration whether, in view of these facts, there is any reasonable prospect of success in this suit. We have one minister allowing 53,000 for living allowance, and another making certain allowances by way of rent, fuel, &c., towards the living expenses of the judge. How can we expect, under these circumstances, the allowances having been concurred in and probably originating with the ministry, that that same government bringing action can possibly succeed ? I do not think the attention of the Minister of Justice has been directed to that point, or I imagine that with his astuteness he would hardly expect to succeed. I believe the suit cannot be undertaken with the object of getting back this ill-gotten gain for the government, and, therefore, 1 have great confidence in submitting the matter to the Minister of Justice for consideration.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I may say to the hon. gentleman in all seriousness that I have carefully considered the question, and here is the way it appears to me : 108$
No man, whether a judge or an official of any other kind, is entitled to receive anything from the public exchequer, unless it has been authorized by statute. In this matter the Department of Justice was authorized to pay Judge Dugas a certain amount by way of salary, and a certain amount by way of living allowance. The Department of Public Works, when the judge went in there, gave him certain assistance in connection with his going in, provided him .with transportation, a house, fuel, light, and other perquisites. The question arises as to the authority of the Department of Public Works to do anything of the sort. It had no statutory authority to do it. The judge, on the other hand, says : These perquisites which I received, and the money value of which you ask me to refund, were paid to me under a contract which I entered into at the time with the government, as represented by the Minister of Public Works ; the Minister of Public. Works agreed to supply me with these requisites. The question comes back to the authority of the Minister of Public Works. The Auditor General came to the conclusion that the remedy was in his hands, and that all he had to do was to stop the monthly cheque payable to the judge, on the ground that he being indebted to the Crown and the Crown being indebted to him, he had the authority to stop the cheque. That appeared to me to be a rather high-handed proceeding, in view of the plea set up by the judge that if there were laches, the government were partly responsible for them. We have determined to try the suit with the judge and endeavour to get back these moneys, we urging that the Department of Public Works had no authority to make these advances, and the judge, on the other hand contending-I have not yet seen his defence-that the Department of Public Works, as a department of the government, made a contract with him, and that if he had not received that consideration he would not have gone in at all. There is the case, and I need not attempt to foreshadow the result. I have stated the facts and the law as I understand it, and my hon. friend must be content to let the decision remain with the judge of the Exchequer Court, always bearing in mind the proverbial uncertainty of the law.


John Graham Haggart: Surely there is an anomaly which must have presented itself to the Minister of Justice, that the Minister of Public Works had the statutory authority or he could not have paid the money.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is what I was trying to say.


John Graham Haggart: With the checks we have provided against any expenditure, unless authorized by the legislature, and with the Auditor General, how could the minister possibly spend the money without the statutory authority of parliament.


George Taylor: Oh, there is a connection all right.	.


Robert Laird Borden: We still undertake to say that it is a pretty high sum to pay for fourteen days' work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As this is an important case, might I ask who is acting for the Crown.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am under the impression that we drew the information ourselves, but I must confess that I did not want to take the responsibility of pressing the suit myself, as we had been in the habit of doing, through the action of the Deputy Minister of Justice, but handed it over to Mr. Chrysler or Mr. McDougall, 1 do not remember which. The information however was draughted by the deputy minister, and there is no man more competent to do it.


Haughton Lennox: I quite appreciate the force of what the hon. Minister of Justice has said. He puts an entirely new feature of the matter before the committee. I had no reason to apprehend that there was so great an irregularity as is disclosed by what the hon. minister has told us, but even should the suit result disastrously as to costs, if it is shown that the government may be estopped by the action of its ministers, that will be a useful piece of information for the country, and we will probably not be paying too high a price for it.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) moved that Mr. Clare be appointed a member of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts in the place of Mr. Ganong.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at six p.m.
HOUSE or COMMONS.
' Tuesday, May 26, 1903.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, the Exchequer Court Act, and the Act respecting the Judges of Provincial Courts, and to provide as follows :-
1. If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Superior Court in Canada, resigns his office. His Majesty may, by letters patent, under the great seal, reciting such judge's age and period
John Graham Haggart: of service, grant unto him an annuity equal to the salary of the office held by him at the_ time of his resignation ; to commence immediately after his resignation, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life, provided such judge has (a) attained the age of seventy-five years, and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts, or as such judge, and as stipendiary magistrate of the North-west Territories, for twenty years or upwards ; or (b) attained the age of seventy years and continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for twenty-five years or upwards ; or (c) continued in office as judge of one or more of the said courts for thirty years or upwards.
2. Every County Court judge who has attained the age of seventy-five years shall be compulsorily retired ; and His Majesty may, by letters patent, under the great seal, reciting such judge's age and period of service, grant unto him an annuity, if he has continued in office as such judge for twenty-five years or upwards, equal to the salary of the office held by him at the time of his retirement ; or if he has continued in office as such judge for a less period, equal to two-thirds of such salary ; the said annuity to commence immediately after his retirement, and to continue thenceforth during his natural life.



SUPPLY-TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['The lion, gentleman will find on the preceding page a comparative statement of the cost per capita for six years for the different penitentiaries, Kingston, St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester, Manitoba and British Columbia.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Customs, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Wednesday.', 'Wednesday, May 27, 1903.']
Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the government a matter of some importance, and as to which I think there should be some announcement of policy by the government at the very earliest possible moment. In the speech from the Throne we find this passage :
The great influx of population into our Northwestern Territories and the very large additional areas of fertile lands which are being brought under cultivation, combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
That speech was delivered to parliament nearly eleven weeks ago, and up to the present time we have had no announcement of policy, and no commission lias yet been appointed. The utmost we have been able to obtain in the way of Information on this subject is from one of the ministers of the Crown, some four or five weeks ago, who announced in the city of Montreal that certain gentlemen were to compose this commission. But there was some question as to whether he announced that as a matter that had been determined upon, or merely as a sort of prophecy witli regard to the gentlemen who would probably occupy places

Unless the Grand Trunk Pacific build their line through to some maritime province port we believe the export business will continue to go through an American port as in the past.
Mr. Hays rightly says shippers can route freight as they please and if the Grand Trunk are interested in route via Portland, shippers can be easily influenced to route practically every ton of export freight that way.
We cannot believe that any arrangement can be made between Intercolonial and Grand Trunk which will prevent this.
We urge in the strongest terms that no government assistance be granted to any transcontinental railway that does not undertake to build their line through to some maritime province port.
I must confess, that, having regard to the conditions as they are in Canada at the present time in regard to the Grand Trunk Railway, I have not been able to reach a conclusion that such guarantees as have been spoken of in the press and in these resolutions, can be very easily enforced or carried out. I should be glad indeed to see the Grand Trunk Railway taking its part in the solution of Canadian transportation problems, and I hope it will be able to do so, but we have to consider conditions as they are and we know that the interests of the Grand Trunk Railway to a very considerable extent are, of course, centred in a winter port in the United States in which it has expended a very large amount of money in terminals and shipping facilities. The subject is one that I have not been able to consider carefully or attentively, and I am not professing to express an opinion upon it at the present moment, but, be that as it may, I think the House and the country are entitled to hear from the government an announcement in regard to this very important subject. Is the government in a position at the present time to say to the House and the country in what way it proposes to deal with this transportation problem ? Is it able to disclose to the House and the country any really comprehensive national policy by means of which it may be able to deal with this question of transportation in the west and in the east also ? We know that not on'y in the west of Canada, but in the east of Canada as well, it is of the utmost possible importance to the people, it is vital to the interests of the people that they should have means of transporting their products to the foreign market equally as cheap and equally as available as those which are enjoyed by their competitors to the south of us, and we know that it is otherwise impossible for our people in the east or in the west to compete on fair conditions with their chief competitors, the people of the United States of America.
Now, has the government any policy upon this matter which it is prepared to disclose to the people of this country, and if it has not any policy at the present time when may we expect that its policy shall be announced to the country ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is some eleven weeks since this session began. It is no new question. Transcontinental lines have been engaging the attention of the people of Canada for a year at least. During last session it was currently said that great pressure was placed upon the government for the purpose of inducing it to grant aid to a proposed transcontinental railway and the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made a statement in the House during the latter days of the session in which he announced, as far as I recollect his language, that the government would come to a conclusion in' regard to the matter at an early day, but that they were not able at that time to make any announcement to the House.
There are some interesting problems in connection with the transcontinental railway question at the present time. There are some interesting questions arising in connection with it. For example, has the government at the present time determined whether or not it will grant assistance to a transcontinental railway, and if it has decided to grant any such assistance is it prepared to state what form that assistance shall take ? I think this is a matter upon which it is right that the House and the country should be informed while this Bill, to which I have alluded, is under consideration by the railway committee.
In the next place, has the government any policy in regard to the construction of an additional line from Winnipeg north of Lake Superior so as to connect with the east ? This is a subject which is discussed very much in the public press at the present time, and it is one of tbe gravest possible importance to the country. Has the government come to any conclusion as to whether or not the congestion in the west can in any way be relieved by the construction of another line north of Lake Superior ? Is it a fact, as has been stated in the public press and as has been stated, I think, by public men in this country, that tbe present line which runs north of Lake Superior does not command one-fifth, or even one-tenth, of the traffic which it would be capable of handling, and if that be a fact does the government seriously think that the building of another line north of Lake Superior will in any way relieve the difficulties with which transportation between the east and west is confronted at the present time ? Whether or not the government lias any policy, or any ideas upon this subject I do not know, but it does seem clear, speaking with all deference, that this is a subject upon which the government should have made up its mind before this, and it is a subject upon which it should have been prepared to state to the House and to the country what it intends doing.
Has the government any policy in regard to the proposition of my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), who seems to adopt the view that the best



[Stage Direction]
solution of the difficulty is to build a line which can be used in common by all railways between Port Arthur and the east, or between Winnipeg and the east, and in that way assist in bringing the produce of the west to the east at such rates as will enable our people in the west to compete on fair terms with the people of the United States ?
And let me ask this, especially : What guarantees or safeguards does the government think necessary, or efficient for the purpose of seeing that traffic over any transcontinental railway to which assistance shall be afforded shall be carried from the east to the west of Canada through Canadian routes and shall leave Canada for the markets of Europe by Canadian ports ? What is the policy of the government with regard to that ? Does the government regard that as a sound policy, and if so, in what way does the government expect to meet the difficulty pointed out by the telegram from St. John which I have read to the House, and which, quoting the language of Mr. Hays, says : Traffic must be routed in accordance with the wishes of the shippers. I think we might even go further than the business men of St. John have gone. Suppose that the Grand Trunk Railway should construct its line to the maritime provinces; suppose that it made connection with a port in the maritime provinces, what guarantee can you have, what safeguard can you have that the traffic from our Canadian west shall go through Canadian routes and via Canadian seaports.
Lastly, but not the least by any means ; why is it that the government has so long delayed the proposal which they laid before the House and before the country at the opening of the session ; why is it that they have so long delayed the formation of this commission on transportation. If we are to have in Canada any broad comprehensive policy of transportation, it seems to me that the government must call to its assistance the very best experts with regards to such matters that this continent can produce. It is not any ordinary problem that confronts the government of this country at the present time with regard to transportation, and so we understand from the speech from the Throne :
The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy our attention and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
If what we hear through the press, the organs of public opinion which are in very close touch with the government; if what we hear is true, the government proposes to deal with this question without obtaining the slightest assistance from the commission which is proposed to be formed; indeed it would appear that the government is likely to deal with the matter even before the commission has undertaken its work.
I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that on a question of this kind which touches the whole future history of the transportation question of this country, the government ought not to take any leap in the dark, it ought not to take any step at haphazard. If the government proposes to appoint a commission it should have appointed that commission long ago, and that commission should have been at work dealing with and studying the very problems of transportation which are now confronting the government. I submit that whether the government proposes to deal with the matter in that way or not, it is highly right and proper at this stage, when a very important measure is engaging the attention of a committee of this House, that the government should give to the country some indication of what its intentions are with regard to this matter, and should thus enable the House and the country to deal with the question of transportation between east and west in a more intelligent way than it otherwise could. I think therefore, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances, I am justified in asking the Prime Minister to take the House and the country into his confidence with regard to this matter, and to mftke that announcement of policy which it seems to me should have been made long ago in this session which has already occupied nearly three months ; and to state to us fully and frankly what we are to expect from the government in the shape of a policy on a question of so much importance to the most vital interests of the country.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have to express my regret that my bon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) did not give me any notice of his intention to bring before the House such an important question as this. I would have been able to give him more information than I feel warranted in doing at this moment had he given notice, but at all events, I shall endeavour, though it be on the spur of the moment, to give to lion, gentlemen all the information to which they are entitled on this question which is no doubt of very great moment. In my humble judgment, the transportation question under existing conditions, resolves itself into three different parts. First of all there is the question of water transportation, chiefly connected with the terminals. Then there is the transportation question for the new and rapidly growing settlements in the prairie sections ; and then there is the question of transportation from the prairie sections to the seaboard. With regard to the first, this is the question which we had chiefly in our minds when at the opening of parliament we declared that the transportation question was engaging our attention, and that we intended to appoint a commission to deal with the subject. We

have been carrying on works of great magnitude at all parts of our great water system, in order to develop it and to make the transportation of the products of the west, and of the products going from the east to the west cheaper to the producer and to the consumer. We have works on the great lakes ; we have works on the St. Lawrence ; we have works at Port Arthur and Fort William, and it is possible that we may require some more. We have works at the head of canal navigation at Port Colborne which are now under construction ; we have works in the city of Montreal which have been carried on both by the Harbour Commission there and by the government; we have works at Sorel and Three Rivers carried on by the government; we have works at Quebec and we have also extensive works in St. John, New Brunswick. Now. 1 think it may be said that all these works have been carried on, not under any general system, but chiefly from the local point of view of each particular place. We deem it of the greatest importance to have, if possible, all these different works carried on under a general comprehensive system. Before we ask for more money to be expended upon them, we think that it is advisable to have the report of a commission of the best experts that we have in the country in order that we may be able to lay before parliament at this session or next session a comprehensive plan, as to what should be done in these different localities or in other localities in order to meet the object in view. I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) that the commission has been organized, and not later than tomorrow its terms will be laid on the Table of the House. I may say now that the commission is composed of men of great experience whose names will X think command the confidence of the country. Sir William Van Horne is one, and Mr. John Bertram and Mr. Harold Kennedy of Quebec are the others. As to Sir William Van Horne it is useless for me to say anything. His experience, his great ability and talents will at once command the confidence of the country, and I believe it will be admitted that no better selection could have been made. I am sorry to say, however, that I am not yet sure if we can secure the services of Sir William Van Horne for this important work. He is engaged in so many other enterprises that it is doubtful whether he will be able to engage in the work of the commission. At all events we are using our best efforts to induce him if possible to take charge of this commission as we intended that he should do. Mr. John 'Bertram is one of the great merchants and ship-builders of the province of Ontario, and next to Sir William Van Horne I think that no better man could have been selected for the position. We have been informed that Mr. Harold Kennedy who is an experienced and extensive ship-owner in the city of Quebec cannot undertake the work of the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
commission as we intended, and we propose to replace him by Mr. Fry of the city of Quebec, who is Lloyd's agent there, and who is a man of great experience in the shipping business. The commission will be laid on the Table of the House to-morrow, and my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) will be able to judge whether or not its terms are sufficient to meet his views, think myself that they will be found not only to be sufficient, but extremely practical, and that they will form the basis of what I trust will be a very valuable report.
There is another feature of the system of transportation to be considered. At the present time the west is filling very rapidly. Next year the valley of the Saskatchewan will be one of the greatest producing areas of the country. It is of immediate necessity therefore that another artery in the form of a railway should be built in order to afford the settlers not only an outlet for their products, but a means of bringing in what they require from the eastern provinces. Probably this week, certainly at an early day, it will be the duty of the government to lay on the Table of the House certain resolutions with regard to this railway. But apart from that, there is another scheme which has been engaging the attention of the House and the country at large. It is generally accepted, I believe, at the present time, that we must have another trunk line to connect the producing centres of the prairies with the tidal waters of the east. This is the point which my hon. friend had chiefly in view when he spoke a moment ago. I may say to my hon. friend at once that the government are not connected, though he implied that they were, with any scheme which has been proposed. We are considering the matter, but I am not prepared to say that we can at this moment lay on the Table the conclusions at which we have arrived; but we shall deem it our duty to do so before the session is over. If we are not prepared at the present moment to lay on the Table of the House the conclusions at which we have arrived, we cannot be accused of dilatoriness. The scheme is a new one. It has only recently been launched. My hon. friend says that I referred to another transcontinental railway scheme last session. My hon. friend is in error.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say with regard to this particular company ; I said with regard to transcontinental railways.


The PRIME MINISTER.: It was not with regard to transcontinental railways, but with regard to railways from the east to the new and rapidly settling districts of the Northwest. Our policy in that matter is prepared; and we shall be able to place it on the Table of the House probably this week, at any rate at an early day. The proposi-

tion to liare another transcontinental railway is a new idea, and it behooves the government not to launch too rapidly upon its consummation or to come too hastily to a conclusion with regard to it. X may say to my hon. friend that the government are not prepared to say that on that subject they have settled on this or that policy; but we are prepared to give at once to the House the salient ideas which we think should be kept in view in carrying out this new proposition. The first idea is that such a line must be exclusively on Canadian territory, from tidal water to tidal water, that is to say, eventually to connect the waters of the Pacific with the waters of the Atlantic; and that the first point at which it would reach tidal water at the east would be the city of Quebec in summer and Halifax or St. John, or both, in winter time. My hon. friend rather assumed that the government were committed to the scheme of the Grand Trunk. I may say that the government are not committed to the scheme of the Grand Trunk nor to any other scheme; but we say that if we are to have another transcontinental railway-and it may be that we should have to take steps in this direction during this very session-the salient idea which ought to guide our minds, and on which I believe we can command the support of the House, is that that road must be built exclusively on Canadian territory and afford the cheapest possible route to the east for the products of the west. My hon. friend asked what guarantee we had that the trade would not be diverted to American ports. I may say to my hon. friend that this is a subject which will be discussed with more propriety when we come before parliament with any proposition. At the present time perhaps it is premature to say how we can bind any company or any undertaking of that kind in such a way as to make it absolutely under any and every possible circumstance, that the trade should not be diverted from our own channels to American channels. Whenever we should lay any proposition before parliament on this subject, we shall do the best we can by legislation to ensure that object; but I have very little hope that any legislation which this parliament could place on the statute-book would ensure the result which my hon. friend and I have equally at heart, if we had to rely on legislation alone. It is always easy for lawyers, such as my hon. friend is, and as I was at one time


Mr.   R.@: Jj. BORDEN (Halifax). I hope my hon. friend has not left the profession.
The PRIME MINISTER

to legislate on
such matters; but even railways have sometimes found it not easy to carry it out. But there is another way of guiding the railways so that every pound of traffic shall go through Canadian channels; it is to take
advantage of our geographical position, and to make sure that such a line would be the cheapest and the shortest between the Pacific ocean and the Atlantic ocean at the city of Quebec. A line of that character should run from the city of Quebec north of the mountains and on west to the prairies. With such a line we should have solved the problem, because we should have provided the shortest route from the Pacific ocean and the prairies of the west to the tidal waters of the Atlantic ocean. I am not prepared to say, however, how that line is to be built. Three propositions have been made to us, and between them we should have to choose. It has been suggested to us that the government should own and operate a railway itself, just as we do the Intercolonial railway. It has been suggested also that the government shouud build a railway and not operate it, but lease it or give it to any lines which would take charge of it. It has also been suggested to us that we should subsidize and give assistance to any of the companies now seeking aid. There are three companies seeking aid-the Trans-Canada, the Canadian Northern, and the Grand Trunk. I may say to the House that the government have not made up their minds to any one of these schemes-whether they will be prepared to aid this one or that one, or any one at all. The question is under consideration, and requires a good deal of consideration before any conclusion is come to. The field is open to all. I may say this much, however, to dispel some anxiety which exists in the minds of a good many people, that if the government make up their mind to give assistance to some company, it cannot be in the form of a land subsidy. The subsidy must be given in some other form. More than this I do not know that I can say at present. But I may say, before sitting down, that no conclusion will be come to before we shall have an ample opportunity of discussing the matter with those who do the government the honour of giving it their support.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the weakness of the government's position is this, that an intimation was given to the House in the speech from the Throne at the opening of the session that a commission would be appointed immediately. After we have been here ten weeks, we have the announcement that a commission has been appointed or is about to be appointed. But, if I am not mistaken, the government intimated in the beginning of the session that this commission would be appointed in time to make inquiry and report to the House before the session closed. But certainly if the commission be only appointed to-day, it will be utterly impossible for it to report to the House before prorogation. The right hon. gentleman tells us that the commission will be appointed immediately. What does he mean by imme-

diately ? Ten weeks have elapsed, and it has not yet been appointed.
The right hon. gentleman also told us that the transportation problem consisted of three important links :	First, water stretches and
harbours ; second, eastward to the seaboard; and third, an important space which must be built up by railway. I presume, then, no scheme can be the very best which will not embrace all those different portions and dove-tail them into each other so as to work in one harmonious whole. But no such scheme can be framed until the information which the commission is intended to gather is in the hands of the government.
Have the government proposed a policy on any portion of the scheme for a transcontinental line, on which, we are told in the press, week after week, the government intends giving us information ? But should a decision be arrived at without any definite knowledge on the part of the government, such decision cannot be in the best iuterests of the country. The government are face to face with a; choice between two things. They must either bring down an immature scheme this session or await the inquiry and report of the commission. There are three schemes mooted-Grand Trunk Railway scheme, the Canadian Northern, and the Trans-Canada Railway. The government have not given us any information as to which one of these it will take up or whether it will take up any of them or not. They are therefore misleading some of the companies or the companies are misleading the country. The Grand Trunk Railway have certainly given the people to understand that their scheme has been practically adopted by the government. The president of that company wired home to his directors that the Grand Trunk Railway scheme will undoubtedly be carried out without any additional burden being imposed on the company. If that means anything, it means that the government are prepared to give the Grand Trunk Railway ample assistance to carry out their project. Is that correct or not ? Has the president of the Grand Trunk Railway misled his own directors, or are the government misleading the company, or are both the Grand; Trunk Railway and the government misleading the country ? It is important that the House should have information on this question at an early day, because if brought down at a late day, it cannot be maturely considered and the worst results are likely to be the outcome. The government should come to a decision and inform the House without delay. If they wait for the railway resolutions, which are usually passed through the House at the dying stages of the session, that information will be received too late to be of any practical utility. If the government have any policy on this very important question, they should give that policy to the House and country at the earliest possible day. The House ought to be in a position to deal with


Thomas Simpson Sproule: any such policy intelligently, but if the government should spring such a policy on this country when it is too late to give it full and careful consideration, they will be doing considerably less than they ought to do.


John Graham Haggart: I am very much interested, Mr. Speaker, iu the discussion of this important question. I agree with the right hon. the leader of the government that it is one of the utmost importance. It is the most important that has engaged the attention of this House for a number of years. This question divides itself, as my right hon. friend has said, into three sections :	The prairie, the lake and
river, and the section connecting with the maritime provinces. I wish this House to remember that all grain exported from the North-west will seek the shortest route to Lake Superior, because it can be carried down thence to the place where it can be consumed, either in American or European markets, cheaper by water than it possibly can by rail. All railways that are carrying western products to the east try to secure the shortest possible route to the head of Lake Superior. The Canadian Northern Railway has done it, the Canadian Pacific Railway are doing it, and any railway which carries the surplus products of the Northwest and Manitoba will get to that point as quickly as possible. We have in the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has a route fromi Winnipeg to Lake Superior, a line of route as good as it is possible to get from the western prairies to Lake Superior-a line with low gradients and built at an immense cost to our people. Coming eastward, the grades are about twenty-six and a half feet per mile, and going westward fifty-two feet per mile. It has an even roadbed, well constructed and capable of carrying three times as much as is carried from the west to the seaboard. We have besides another route, the Canadian Northern, which goes partially through American territory, connecting now with Port Arthur. It is not perhaps quite finished or in a proper state for carrying products, but I think it will be shortly. Then that part of our transportation policy will be accomplished, namely, to get all the routes we possibly can, with the easiest gradients to the head of Lake Superior. There will be no grain of any account carried on any road constructed to Quebec or Montreal, or St. Johns, or Halifax, because such a road would compete with other lines which connect with the waterways and reach the Atlantic. Any grain that is carried down that route, and over the Intercolonial Railway will be carried at a loss to the country-the people will get no return in any respect. We carry grain from Quebec to St. John and from Quebec to Halifax at an expense to the country, and it will be| the same in carrying it from Winnipeg to Quebec, if it is carried to compete with grain going by the Canadian Northern or the Canadian Pacific

Railway, and other routes through the North-western States that reach Lake Superior. The very quickest all-rail route from the North-western to the seaboard would not at all compete with the route which goes in part by waterway.


Mr. CHARLTON.: How about the winter?


John Graham Haggart: I dealt with.that in the remarks I made a couple of years ago. I showed the advantage the water route had over the all rail route. I showed that it amounted to from one cent to one and a half cents a bushel. I am not going over that again, but I assert it to be a fact that cannot be controverted that grain that reaches the head of Lake Superior and is carried eastward by the water route has the advantage over grain carried by any all rail route that it is possible to construct across the continent of America.
As to the traffic going westward, it may be necessary to build a road from Quebec to the north, not necessarily a competing line with those which we already have and which we have subsidized : the Canadian Northern and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I would favour the route proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister, keeping it as near as possible to the height of land and running, perhaps, to the north of' Lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan valley. This would open a new country, and I hope to see the day when there will be cities to the north of Lake Winnipeg greater than Winnipeg and a traffic in that country greater than that now carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway to Port Arthur and Montreal. The right hon. gentleman says that he is bound to no route. In other words, he says that the government has put off the formulating of a plan of transportation policy until another session. He says that when the government have considered it, and decided upon a policy, they intend to bring that policy down to this House and ask that it be given the fullest con si diction. When the speech from the Throne was discussed in this House on the 13tli March last, I took the opportunity, when the right hon. gentleman was addressing the House on the question of transportation and saying that this question, including that of affording terminal facilities at our lake ports and seaports would be referred to a commission, to ask when that commission would be appointed, and the right hon. gentleman said that it would be appointed 'next week.' I asked the right hon. gentleman :	Then we shall have the
report of the commission, with its full consideration of the whole subject, so that we may intelligently discuss it, before any aid can be given toward the building of other routes, and the providing of facilities on our ports on the lakes and on the Atlantic ? And that commission has not been forthcoming yet, and its members not yet appointed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The commission is appointed.


John Graham Haggart: I believe the right hon. gentleman (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says the commission has been appointed. But he has not yet received acceptance of appointment from the most important man on the commission, and the only one named that I know of as fit to sit on such a commission. I know Mr. Harold Kennedy. He is a very efficient man. But he has not accepted the appointment. I never heard Mr. Pry's name in connection with transportation. He may be a very excellent man and fit for the position. But the man whose name sticks out, the man whom we at once recognized as acquainted with the subject is Sir William Van Horne. If he accepts a position on the commission where his interests would not conflict with the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway-for the Canadian Pacific Railway's interests come first in all he is bound to do-I would pay a great deal of attention to his report on the subject. But having been for so many of the best years of his life the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, his interest must lie in the furtherance of that enterprise.
Then, there are only two roads that can possibly receive assistance from the government. The Canadian Northern cannot, because, as I believe the right hon. Premier says, if assistance is given to any road it must be one running entirely through our own country, and the Canadian Northern passes in part through the United States. It could not get assistance unless it diverted its through line from the United States and built it altogether on Canadian territory. I strongly believe that any line that receives assistance from the government, no matter what development it may afford the country, must be one that goes through within our own borders. I agree with the right hon. gentleman in that. The lines then open are two. There is first, the Trans-Canada route. That is like a good many other roads-in the air. I do not know whether a mile of'it has been built. It is a road from Quebec I gather-for we get pamphlets about it every day-and is to run through to Manitoba and the North-west. I do not know who the promoters are or anything about it. But, if the Grand Trunk Railway propose to build a road into that section of country that is another matter. The Grand Trunk Railway has done a great deal towards the development of this country, and the stockholders of that concern have had but meagre return on the money they have invested. Anything the Canadian people can do in return for the great benefits that that company has yielded to this country ought to be done, other things being equal. If they propose to build a road which will open up a new territory in the North-west and make a connecting line with Quebec, I would rather see it assisted than

any other scheme I hear proposed, that is, if the government have determined on a policy of subsidies, and that is a policy which commends itself to the country- which X doubt very much, for I think there is a feeling in the country, voiced in a good many of the organs of public opinion that the day of subsidies is done, and that any railroad that proposes to build a line any where on our territory hereafter must build it as a commercial undertaking. The right hon. premier says that, they will receive no land grant. Well, that seems very likely, for I do not see where we have any land to give them in the North-west, unless we go some where in the neighbourhood of the Arctic ocean.


An hon. MEMBER.: Or the Klondike.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, or the Klondike, as my hon. friend suggests.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).: Who gave the lands away ?


John Graham Haggart: I suppose it was the late government. And friends of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston, Gape Breton) in Manitoba and the North-west were coming before the government every day insisting that the land of that country belonged to the people of that country, and urging that as the government would not give them sufficient money for the purpose of building railroads to develop that region, the lands should be given away for the purpose of building railroads. Who was it, for instance, who advertised in the newspaper press for offers to build the Canadian Pacific Railway for a sum of money per mile and nearly all the available lands in that country ? In those days the feeling, even amongst those who were resident in the North-west, was that the public lands should be given to enterprising companies and corporations for the purpose of building railroads into that country. It was in obedience to the wishes of the people that that was done, it was done at the dictation of the people in that section of the country.


John Charlton: I would ask the hon. gentleman how in that case the government could propose to retain the power to fix the price of those lands, to name a maximum price and keep in its own hands the control of the price of those lands for the protection of the public interest ?


John Graham Haggart: I never heard of that, certainly that was not the proposition. The land was offered to any company competing for the building of the road, and the company was told :	If you won't do it for
this, how much more land do you want, how much more money do you want to build the road ? I say therefore that no attack can be made upon the late government by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston), who asked who it was that parted with the land of the country. I say it was done at the request of the people themselves in that section of the country, it was done in order to afford facilities for them to communicate with the east and to get their grain to market. If that had not been done we would not now see that great country opened up as it is at present with railroads running in every direction. The development we see there now is due to the policy of the late government in granting both land and money for the purposes of railway building. However, enough upon that subject.
As I said before, we have a choice of deciding between two companies for the building of this road. My opinion is that if the government should decide to give syiy assistance for that purpose, the company which is entitled to the preference is the Grand Trunk Railway Company. That company has done a great deal to open up this country, they have spent a great deal of money, and have received very little return for it. It may be the fault of the management of the company, but the fact remains that for the vast sums of money which that company has invested and which have had the effect of developing this country more than any other railway except the Canadian Pacific Railway, it has received very little return in the way of profits. I think the policy of the government should be to have this road built as far north as possible, to pass as near as possible to the height of land in order to tap a region of country which has not been opened up at present.
Now with regard to the policy of the government with regard to waterways and terminals, I think they should have decided on a policy long ago, they should have known exactly what they wanted to do, they should have come to a decision whether to expend money on little harbours here and there throughout the country, or to devote it to the development of a broad Dominion policy. Let them build a harbour at Port Arthur which will accommodate ships drawing twenty feet of water, ships which will pass through the Sault Ste. Marie canal and come down through Lake Erie. As to the building of that harbour at Port Colborne, I do not see a great deal in favour of it, though the late Minister of Public Works, as well as many others, were in favour of building it to a depth of twenty feet, so that it would take in vessels which would lighter there and pass through the Welland canal. They could do the same thing at Buffalo, they could go to Buffalo andi tranship their cargoes into vessels that go through the Welland canal. I do not see what benefit there would be in that arrangement unless you intend to deepen the Welland canal to twenty feet. But there is no use deepening it to that depth, because in that case you would have to canalize the whole route of the St. Lawrence from Kingston to Montreal. The bed of the river is not deep enough, I and you could not raise the water by dams


John Graham Haggart: on account of the over-flowing of the farms on each side of the river. You would therefore have to deepen the whole river from Kingston down to Montreal. The plan which I proposed some time ago, and which I think is best in the interests of the country, and the one which X think must be ultimately adopted, is to build from Lake Superior down to Montreal, via Lake Nipis-sing and the/ Ottawa river, a canal with a depth of twenty feet which will take vessels drawing that depth of water down to Montreal. Such a route would give us the command not only of the carrying trade of our own country in our own territory, but it would draw from American sources the whole of the trade of the American Northwest which at present goes down the Erie canal and finds its way to New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore.
As Mr. Hays stated to the committee the other day, water finds its own level, transportation finds its own level. When a vessel Is loaded with grain it will inevitably go by the cheapest route, notwithstanding any legislation that you may put upon the statute-book to divert it into any other route. The right hou. gentleman is right, no legislation will prevent trade going by the cheapest route to the point of consumption. The cheapest possible route for grain grown in Manitoba and the North-west, and in Michigan, Minnesota and the neighbouring States adjoining our territory, is through our country via the St. Lawrence to the ocean. I am fully convinced on that point. Let the St. Lawrence be made navigable by the means that were mentioned the other day by the ex-Minister of Public Works and by the present Minister of Public Works, that is, by lighting the whole route in such a manner that the river can be made safe by night .or by day. There is no reason! why that should not be done from Montreal to Quebec, the same as it is on the River St. Mary, with a line of piers bearing electric lights, so that by night or day a vessel could navigate those waters quite as safely as any part of the ocean. The St. Lawrence, I believe, can be made navigable from Montreal to Quebec, and just as safe as any other river on the face of the globe. There are no tides, there are no heavy storms, there are no ocean waves to take away the piers upon which you plant your lights and fix your booms. You might have a boom all through Lake St. Peter, and in fact all the way down to Quebec, lighted night and day, which would make the St. Lawrence as safe for navigation as any other river in the world. I hope that our natural advantages will be utilized to their fullest extent by the government, and that a system of works will be carried out by which the traffic of the country may be taken through a twenty foot channel from the Canadian shores of the great lakes down to the waters of the sea. It is a cheaper way of carrying grain. It is
the cheapest form of transportation. No railways that you can construct with the least possible gradients can ever compete in cheapness with that form of transportation. What grain does the Canadian Pacific Railway carry north of Lake Superior and down to Ontario and that section of the country ? It is carrying less than it does from Port Arthur down. It is just a moiety of what is raised in the western section of the country. The great bulk of it goes by way of Port Arthur, and it is being carried from there to the ocean. Part of it goes to Duluth and part is carried by the Canadian Northern to Port William, but the cheapest possible way to get it down to the point of consumption Is to get it to Lake Superior and have it carried down from there to the maritime provinces and from the maritime provinces to the point of consumption. That is all you can find out from any commission which you may appoint to make an inquiry. The question of transportation has been answered as far as railways are concerned. When you have ascertained the quickest possible way to reach water transportation, you have solved the problem. When you have reached that point, you must furnish means by which produce may be carried as cheaply through our waterways as it can be carried on the American side of the line. We have natural advantages. Make use of these natural advantages, and the carrying trade will be done in our country. I am sorry to say that the question is virtually put off until another session. If I understood the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) rightly, he said that the policy of the government when formulated would be brought down in the form of an Order in Council for the full consideration of the House. If the right hon. gentleman is going to consult this proposed comtiiission on transportation and' terminal facilities, it is not possible that this can be done this session, because, to get the report of the commission as to transportation and other facilities, it would require the remainder of the session and perhaps longer, and if the government are going to make a practical use of the advice that is to be given to the commission, it cannot possibly be done this session. I do not think there is any necessity for a commission. If there be any necessity, the only necessity for a commission is to determine which is our best waterway. The work of the commission should be confined to the question of terminals. There is no necessity for a commission as to railways. That commission might have been appointed before this session and the government might have formulated some policy, because now is the time to formulate a policy and to build the works that are necessary. The day of depression may come within a year or two, because this country cannot always be in the position which it is at present, and it should take advantage of the tide. A

few years is a great deal in tlie history of a countoy, as it is in the history of a manufacturing enterprise. We should take advantage of the opportunity at the present time to divert the traffic into this section of the country while the routes are being formed, because once you have traffic going in a certain direction it is almost impossible to turn It into another channel. Take advantage of the present tide in our favour. Canada is in a better position now than she will be for a number of years to come to adopt a definite transportation policy, because this is a state of affairs that cannot continue for a number of years. Take advantage of the present, formulate some policy which is destined to build up this country, take advantage of the opportunity which nature has afforded us, because we are now in the best possible position to secure for ourselves a place amongst the foremost peoples on the face of the globe.


Hon. J. ISRAEL TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has made to-day three statements of importance. He has informed us, first, that the government has not yet come to any arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and, second, that next week, or in a few days at any rate, the government will place on the Table of the House resolutions concerning help to another railway company. The right hon. gentleman has not told us what that company is. I apprehend it is the Canadian Northern Railway Company. The last statement he has made is, that the government have not succeeded as yet in convincing some gentlemen to whom they had applied to accept positions as commissioners on the board that was announced in the Speech from the Throne. Sir William Van Horne is too busy, Mr. Harold Kennedy has not the time, and two other gentlemen will replace them. However, the government have fully made up their minds, as the right hon. gentleman has told us, not to spend any more money on the waterways before the commission, which is not yet appointed, reports. If my right hon. friend would allow me, I will say that it will be sad news to the country to hear that. The right hon. gentleman and the government have led us to believe that the commission to be appointed will cover the whole ground, not only in regard to waterways, but the whole ground. Now, we are informed that the government have resolved, without waiting for any report, to grant help to a railway company in the North-west. Well, we are all glad, indeed, that there is a North-west, and we are all very ready to help the North-west, but at the same time we believe there are other parts of the country which deserve consideration, and they are those parts of the country in which the waterways are located. The North-west is very mucli interest-Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
ed in the development of our waterways ; if not more interested, at least as much interested as the older provinces are. The older provinces are deeply interested, the North-west is deeply interested also, and the whole country is interested. I fully share the view which is expressed by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) when he says it is not necessary to appoint a commission to know that certain works have to be done. We are all aware that our great national waterways have to be equipped. If we are to handle the trade we must equip our harbours, we must deepen, light and prepare our waterways. Now, there is a port which is called Montreal, and which is, I believe, known to this country. Montreal is quite a village, and I have no doubt is known throughout the land. Montreal is located at the head of ocean navigation and at the foot of the lakes. It is one of the great centres of exchange between the west and the east. That port has to be equipped and equipped now. We have started too late. There is no public man who knows what the transportation question is, and who knows our geographical position, who will not freely admit that we have not constructed in the port of Montreal in past years the works of importance that should have been constructed. We have started ; we have started by borrowing money, and borrowing money means dues on every pound of goods and every bushel of grain that goes through Canadian ports ; whereas, in my humble opinion, they should be as free from dues as it is possible to make them.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I believe that the government have done right in making the canals free this year, but that is only a small matter after all. The port of Montreal, the port of Quebec, the port of St. John and the port of Halifax should be free ports. What is the use of doing work by piecemeal as we are doing now. The result of the consideration I have been able to gi've to this important question-and it was not difficult to come to the conclusion- leads me to believe that to complete for the time being the improvements on the port of Montreal it will be necessary to spend at least $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 additional, and that is a small sum compared with the large amounts which are spent on the American ports. The harbour of Quebec has to be equipped also. The works carried on there in past years are scarcely of any value because they have been wrongly planned. The government is doing something there this year ; not as much as in my opinion they should do, but they are doing something. Three Rivers has to be equipped also ; St. John has to be equipped.


William Ross: And Halifax.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Halifax is a natural harbour and it is fairly equipped. Halifax will be an important port for passenger traffic, but so far as the western freight is concerned, St. John will be the port. The people of St. John have taken great risks upon themselves. They have spent about $1,000,000 of their own money and as they have to pay interest on that it means that they have to exact dues. X say without hesitation that it is the duty of the government to take over that debt and to make that port free just as it is the duty of the government to make the port of Montreal a free port. The port of Quebec is practically free now because the Quebec Harbour Commissioners have borrowed money and they have been wise enough not to pay interest on it.
Some bon. MEMBERS. Oh.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not ask them to pay the interest ; far from it. They cannot pay interest ; the trade is not there and they cannot afford to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not a Montreal question ; it is a Dominion question. From one end of the country to the other we have the same interests at heart. Let us develop our waterways. Will the right hon. the Prime Minister permit me to ask him that we should not take as filial what he said a moment ago. There are works for which no commission is necessary. The equipment of the ports of Montreal, Quebec and St. John, and the completion of the deepening and widening of the river St. Lawrence are works for which there is no necessity for any commissioli. The raw material is there ; the work is under our eyes and let us do it. I do not object to giving a few additional millions for the development of the west.


Sir. McCREARY.: How much have you spent on Montreal in the last twenty-five years ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: We have spent very little money on Montreal. Unfortunately we have not spent enough money there, and unfortunately too that money has been borrowed. The trade of the country has to pay interest on that borrowed money which is a bad thing, because every poun<1 of merchandise and every bushel of grain has to pay dues to meet that interest. These ports should be free unless of course we make up our minds to ship through American harbours. The whole question is between the St. Lawrence route which is our national route, and the American route. That is the question just as clear as the sun at noonday. There is no use recriminating now. We have been doing for the best in the past but we did not expect such a rapid development of our country and so we did not understand the position. This is not a party question. Both parties are responsible for what has been done in the past and now let bygones be bygones once for all, and let us look to the future. What are we
going to do. The right hon. gentleman has told us that the government have resolved to give a few millions additional to the Canadian Northern, because that is the meaning of what he said. Well, the Canadian Northern has been subsidized by us in the past. I repeat that this is not a party question, but as my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has said, the Canadian Northern goes through a hundred miles of American territory in Minnesota and it will be the easiest possible thing in the world to have a little tapping line to Mr. Hill's railways which will divert that trade of the Northwest through American channels. The best way and the only way to keep our own trade and to divert American trade through Canadian channels is to improve our waterways. If my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works would within the next fortnight give his personal attention to the reports that are available in his department, he will find that the plans d'ensemble for that portion of the work at Port Arthur and Fort William is a very easy matter. It is only a question of money, and not very much money at that, to make these two harbours safe and cheap harbours for some years to come. As every one knows, there are a certain number of harbours on the lakes and are terminals for the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, but properly speaking the Canadian Pacific Railway has no terminal ports on the lakes for through traffic. Up to the present time Owen Sound has not been looked upon as a port for export trade because the grades are too steep, and so to-day the fact is that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway are the lines which have terminal facilities on the lakes for the transportation of grain. The Canada Atlantic Railway has done a great work in the past but it is not sufficiently equipped on the lakes because they have not sufficient plant to carry the traffic between American and Canadian ports. Mr. Hays agreed last year to settle in Montreal-to settle additionally in Montreal if I may say so. However, the most important thing to be done now is the equipment of the ports of Montreal and Quebec, but Montreal especially. In the port of Montreal to-day there are fifty large steamers and at least for forty of these there is no accommodation. I again say that the right hon. gentleman should not ask us to take the statement which he made to-day as final. The government should make up its mind before the session is much more advanced to strengthen and equip the port of Montreal, because it is essentially our national port. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has alluded to the canalization of the Ottawa river. Well, it would be a good tiling but it will take years to accomplish it. There is one thing that should not be lost sight of. The conditions to-day require that we should get along as quickly as it is possible to get along, and although the

canalization of the Ottawa and the French rivers is a good scheme, it will be a pretty slow process. Let us put the port of Montreal in the same position as the port of New York is in. Let us have some harbours on the lakes like Buffalo, to be reservoirs of freight. Midland is about 365 miles from Montreal, North Bay is about the same distance and Depot Harbour about the same distance. These three ports are the ports to which we must give our very best attention. There are other ports which are used today for the grain trade ; but these are the ports best located for the trade between the St. Lawrence and the west.


Mr. WRIGHT.: Will my hou. friend allow me to inform him that Mr. J. R. Booth a short time ago told me that he could have taken 5,000,000 bushels more grain to Montreal in the season than he did if we had proper harbour facilities there.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is no doubt that if we had proper harbour facilities at Montreal, all the railways would take more trade than they do. Yet I cannot forget that when I began talking about improving the port of Montreal, there were business men who called me a little notary from St. Lin. But the little notary had travelled a good deal, while the business men who spoke in this way had not travelled with that subject in view, which proved that notaries and lawyers may be good for something. I fully agree with the lion. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals as to the importance of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence river. Let us have it lighted in the best possible way. The American waterways from Duluth down are lighted in such a manner that it is possible to travel through them in the darkest nights and meet the largest ships without any danger. There are also good captains and seamen on these routes. Many of the accidents on the St. Lawrence route are due to the negligence and incapacity of the commanders of ships. The steamship companies have their duty, and the government have their duty in this matter. Let me ask the government not to direct their attention to one part of the country exclusively. In so doing, they would carry out an anti-national policy. If they do not improve the navigation at the outlets of the trade, vainly we shall develop the trade of the west, that trade will become Americanized, and we cannot help it. Let us develop the trade of the west, but for God's sake, let us develop the trade of the east as well if we want to be a nation. For that reason I would regret exceedingly if the government would not during the present session bring down to the House all the appropriations necessary to carry out the improvements required in our waterways, at the same time that they carry out the projects for the development of the west. For this parliament there is no west and no east, but there is a great country which is all Canada.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, this question as presented to the House, divides itself into three parts- the central, the west and the east. The great object before the country is to secure additional means of getting the products of the prairies of the west to the seaboard. The proposition is made that the Grand Trunk Pacific should be the only transcontinental route, and the one selected by the government and the people of Canada for assistance. I am prepared to endorse any proper scheme of assistance, that does not involve the country to too great an extent, to enable the Grand Trunk to reach the prairies of the west from North Bay ; but to suppose that the Grand Trunk Railway will abandon all their $40,000,000 or $50.000,000 worth of property between North Bay and Portland, and the $20,000,000 or $30,000,000 of improvements which they have made in Portland, and let all that property go to waste in order to have an allCanadian route to the seaboard, is, to put it mildly, perfect nonsense. The Grand Trunk are not going to abandon, and no sensible man would ask them to abandon, their great system from North Bay to Portland. We find in this country many people advocating the admission of the Great Northern of the United States and the Northern Pacific into our Canadian North-west : and the farmers there will not hesitate to tell you that it matters not to them whether their grain is delivered to the Canadian or the American seaboard, so long as they get a better price for it. What they want is the service, and if we can give to the farmers a better service by extending the Grand Trunk system to the prairies of the west, I am prepared to assist that scheme. But there is another aspect of the case. We are in danger of losing sight of a very important part of the Dominion of Canada. If you consult the reports of the officers of any of the departments who are familiar with the vast region north of the height of land to the north of Lake Superior-and these reports are undoubtedly as accurate as it is possible for any reports to he-you will find that there are vast areas of valuable farm lands in that region. Those of us who have travelled on the Canadian Pacific Railway north of Lake Superior cannot fail to have been struck with the barrenness of the region traversed by that railway. But, forty or fifty miles to the north of that line you strike a fertile belt like the country around Lake Temiscamin-gue, which is to-day being rapidly settled up. Then, why should we not build a line or half a dozen lines through that country if the needs of the country demand it ? My own notion is that the government should be prepared to guarantee the bonds of. or endorse, to a reasonable extent, any legitimate scheme for building one. two, three or more lines across the country from our Canadian seaports or the eastern parts of Canada to open up the great west. If

the people of Canada thirty or thirty-five years ago had had the same confidence in the country that they have to-day, that country would have been opened up long ago ; but unfortunately the people of Canada had then very little confidence in their own country. Those times have all changed, however, and we should not now go in for half-hearted measures. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) in dealing with the question what road should be assisted, has wiped the Trans-Canada out of existence altogether. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that that road is partly in existence now. The Lake St. John Railway really forms part of the Trans-Canada system, and the surveys are made from that railway westward.
Be that as it may, I am not an advocate of one route more than another, but will take the liberty of pointing out to the right hon. the first minister that when he says that the people of Canada owe an immense debt to the Grand Trunk Railway, he is not exactly speaking by the book. I am quite prepared to support the Grand Trunk Railway, but when an appeal for support is made on the basis of sympathy, X would point out that the people of my county are made to pay higher rates of freight to the Grand Trunk Railway than are charged on freight to Chicago. There is no use saying that the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Northern Railway or any other railway company are actuated by patriotic motives, and that we should assist them because of these motives, and because forsooth they charge cheap rates. Why, Sir, there is not a railway company in existence which will not grind the last dollar it can out of its customers and look for more. The eastern portion of the transcontinental business, I regard as by all odds the most important. You cannot expect the Grand Trunk Railway to abandon their road from North Bay to the east. No amount of prohibition can force them to travel over certain routes any more than prohibition can force people to be temperate in the use of intoxicating liquors or cigarettes. Freight will travel along the routes that people ship it by, and if the Grand Trunk Railway wants to bring freight over its route to Portland, the Canadian government cannot stop it.
The PRIME MINISTER, Unless the company have a shorter route to the ocean.


Samuel Hughes: If the government should make the company a present of another route to the seaport, no doubt the company would be glad to accept and use it. I submit that there is room at Lake Superior for at least three transcontinental roads, and these roads should be forced to take the Quebec and maritime provinces route. Then in summer these new railways would develop our ports of Montreal, Three Rivers, and certainly Quebec, and in the 109
winter they would develop St. John, Halifax, Louisburg and Canso and the other magnificent ports of the eastern sea board.
There is another aspect of the case which does not seem to strike the House at all. Any one who has visited the Pacific slope will know that the people out there are not so interested in the eastern as in the western route. The people of the Canadian North-west are awake to the value of the Pacific ocean trade, just as Mr. .T. ,T. Hill of the Great Northern realizes its importance.
They realize that all the grain grown in the North-west is not going to find a market over eastern routes, but that as soon as routes are constructed west, the products of the North-west will find markets in China and Japan as well as in our Pacific ports. The question of a transcontinental route involves the eastern as well as the western part. As regards the question of profit in carrying grain by rail, which was raised by my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) let me point out that grain is now hauled from the foot of the Rocky Mountains in the United States to New York harbour by rail in competition with water.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What charge ?


Samuel Hughes: The same by rail as by water. Owing to the reduction of grades, the improvement in rolling stock and road beds, &e., it is to-day possible-it is being done throughout the length and breadth of the United States-to haul grain by rail to the seaboard as cheaply as by water. When we are told it is impossible for the Canadian Pacific Railway to haul grain to the seaboard from Port Arthur and Fort William, I would point out that if the curves on the Canadian Pacific Railway north of Lake Superior were straightened out, that would mean a shortening of thirty-five miles in the northern section alone. The grades are heavy and there are many curves. Reduce your grades and curves, and you can haul grain at a profit. Two years ago, in conversation with Mr. McGuigan, whom I regard as in many respects the ablest railway man on this continent, he pointed out to a number of gentlemen that an engine on the Vanderbilt system was capable of hauling 2,000 tons to New York, the road was so perfect. But that same engine could only haul about 700 over the Grand Trunk Railway system. The same engine, which could haul" 2,000 tons over the American system, could only haul one-third that quantity to Canadian ports. I believe that the government should give liberal assistance to railway companies, but not in cash or land. We have been told that there is not much land available, but although a great deal has been given to railway companies, there are still millions of acres of excellent farm land in the Peace river valley, which will yet be filled with prosperous sturdy settlers, and where the



soil and climate will be found more productive and genial than in Manitoba to-day. I would suggest that the government should, either by guaranteeing the bonds or by loans repayable in a certain period, give legitimate assistance to two or three roads. This country is young, and our people, in the near future, will be able to pay. The government should give assistance to the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, if necessary, to improve their roads to the east of Port Arthur, so that these roads may be able to haul the grain to the east in winter, and I am satisfied that, in ten or fifteen years, the government would be amply recouped for its expenditure.


John Charlton: This debate, Mr. Speaker, which has been sprung on the House somewhat unexpectedly, certainly opens up a question of great importance. Views have been expressed which will be of great service indeed in instructing the public as to the extent and character of the problem which now confronts the government-the problem of affording an outlet to the great and rapidly settling regions of the North-west Territories for the productions of that country. The hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) in the course of his speech, made reference to matters which, though not exactly ancient history, yet occurred some time ago. I might crave the indulgence of the House while I refer for a few moments to what was said by that lion, gentleman as to the scheme at first propounded by the Mackenzie administration for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the comparison made by him between that scheme and the one adopted in 1881, by the then government of Canada. The scheme of Mr. Mackenzie, broadly stated, contemplated the construction of a line from some point south of Lake Nipissing to the Pacific ocean. It provided that:
-the road, with its branches or sections, bridges, stations, engines, freight and passenger cars and rolling stock shall be constructed under the general superintendence of the Department of Public Works.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What Is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) quoting from ?


John Charlton: I am quoting from chapter fourteen, thirty-seven Victoria, section seven. The Act went on to provide, in subsection three of section eight, that the company formed under this Act should receive aid to the extent of $10,000 per mile, and it went on to provide that aid should be provided on progress estimates. In subsection four of section eight the Act provided that the company should receive 20,000 acres of land per mile in separate blocks of 20,000 acres each, with a frontage of from three to six miles upon the railway, these blocks to be alternate blocks. Two-thirds of this land was to be sold-but I may as Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
well quote the language of the Act with regard to that
Two-thirds of the quantity of land so appropriated shall be sold by the government at such prices as may be from time to time agreed upon between the Governor in Council and the contractors, and the proceeds therefrom accounted for and paid half-yearly to the contractors free from any charge of administration or management. The remaining one-third to be conveyed to the contractors.
Here are the broad features of the Act-810,000 per mile cash subsidy; the road to be built in all respects under the supervision of the government; the government to control-of course with the consent of the contractors-the sale of two-thirds of the land grant; the land grant to be given in alternate blocks of 20,000 acres-which was superior to the practice subsequently adopted of making the land grants in alternate sections of 640 acres, for then the company would be required to make the improvements necessary to make the land valuable, while under the subsequent arrangement, the company would only have to leave the homesteaders and purchasers of other portions of the township to develop the township, the company reaping the benefit. Now the scheme ultimately adopted in 1881 involved a grant of $25,000,000 in cash, 25,000,000 acres of selected lands in the fertile belt of the North-west-the land grant under the Mackenzie scheme was to stretch along the entire line-and, in addition, the government built sections of the road at a cost of $32,000,000 which it handed over to the company, and it also subsequently loaned to the company $20,000,000 and took back land to pay $10,000,COO at $1.50 per acre. Thus the company received cash and other resources sufficient to build the main line; they received 706 miles of the most difficult portion of the line completed, and they received $20,000,000, only one-lialf of which they required to pay. They also received privileges and exemptions of the most important character-freedom from taxation for all time to come upon their main line and equipment; freedom from taxation on their lands for twenty years-(and it seems that twenty years under their interpretation of the law is almost an indefinite period)-and a monopoly of the transportation of the North-west by a prohibition against the making of connections between that country and lines to the south of the American border, in fact, a prohibition of the construction of any railway further south than within fifteen miles of the American boundary; the free admission of material, a privilege under which they imported for many years after the construction of the line material for renewing bridges and various other purposes. Now, I think a fair comparison of conditions and character of the two schemes would result in the exoneration of the Mackenzie administration from the charge of having proposed a

scheme not in the country's interests as compared with the scheme actually adopted. I will say no more upon this point, but I felt that, out of regard for the memory of my old leader, the late Alexander Mackenzie, it was as well to place the facts before the House. I am sure that my hon. friend from South Lanark had no intention of placing Mr. Mackenzie in a more unfavourable light before this generation than the facts of the case would warrant.


John Graham Haggart: What is the amount of cash bonus and what the extent of the land grant under the two schemes, leaving aside all the rest ?


John Charlton: If the hon. gentleman <Hon. Mr. Haggart) will give me the exact length of the line from Lake Nipissing to the Pacific coast, I can give him the land grant by multiplying the number of miles by 20,000 acres, and the amount of cash subsidy by multiplying by $10,000. I have not the exact length of the line, but it was about 2,600 miles, I imagine.


John Graham Haggart: Was that the last proposition made by the Mackenzie government ?


John Charlton: I think it was. That was the offer placed upon the statute-book which the Mackenzie government


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) is not aware of any other ?


John Charlton: No, and I have not the time, at the moment, to examine the statutes and see. Now, in the position taken by the hon. member for South Lanark as to the futility of attempting to force trade against natural conditions, I fully concur. Of course, it is necessary, in our own interest, to have railway lines through from one of our own seaports on the Atlantic to one of our own seaports on the Pacific. That line, in my opinion, should run from Quebec, which is our natural seaport, in summer at all events-much superior in many ways to Montreal and certainly more accessible. I believe that our effort should have been to concentrate trade at Quebec and make that our great national seaport instead of dredging a channel through Lake St. Peter to bring sea-going vessels up to Montreal in spite of the obstacles that nature has imposed. A railway from Quebec to the Pacific is a scheme which commends itself to us and that should be carried into effect. The only questions to be considered are the questions now before the government-whether there shall be a cash subsidy, a land subsidy, or a guarantee of bonds, or whether government itself shall undertake the construction of that line. It has always seemed to me that we had in our North-west one of the most magnificent fields for embarking in the business of government ownership 109J
of railways and government transportation that has ever been open to a government. It has seemed to me that it would be a wise policy for the government to build that road from Quebec to Port Simpson, from ocean to ocean; that such a road would be an asset worth very much more than its cost, and that we should not have to consider its cost, because it would pay interest upon that cost and pay, in addition, large sums of money toward other expenses of government, and so give to the government control, to a large extent, of freight rates through that whole country.
There has been, however, and is now, a question as to whether this business could be undertaken by the government of Canada, whether it is not a line of business foreign to the genius of our government, one that our government is not capable of grappling with upon business conditions. It rfiust be admitted that if this road cannot be built honestly, if it cannot be built in conformity with sound business principles, and unless it can be run in the same way, placed in the hands of railway men who will run it upon railway principles and not allow it to be made a political engine for furnishing places for camp followers and so forth-unless these things can be avoided, it is useless to talk about the construction of the road by the government. The experiment would be a very hazardous one. I am free to confess that I have to some extent been forced to forego the strong bias that I had in favour of building a government road, and the bias I have now, believing it almost impossible to secure the condition that I mention regarding the construction and operation of that line. Be this as it may, however, the line is necessary, the line must be constructed, Canada demands it. The line should be pointed towards Quebec, with a winter outlet at Halifax or St. John, preferably, I think, at Halifax, so that the trade of the North-west could be accommodated, and an ocean port reached over our own railway lines, passing the entire distance across the continent upon our own territory. That should be done, we should be able to offer facilities, and the best conditions that can be attained, to the business of the west.
But after having done this we will find, as my hon. friend from South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) points out, that actual conditions will in all probability divert the greater portion of that trade to another route. That trade will seek the waters of the great chain of lakes; inevitably, during the season of navigation, that grain will be carried to Lake Superior, and improvements have been made in the construction of lake vessels and the deepening of channels between the head of Lake Superior and Buffalo, which enable forwarders to secure the shipment of wheat from Duluth or from Port Arthur to Buffalo at a ridiculously low rate as compared with rates prevalent a

few years ago. For a cent and a quarter or accent and a half per bushel, you can transport your wheat from Duluth or Port Arthur, and put it in an elevator at Buffalo.


Mr. OSLER.: That is only occasionally.
Mr. -CHARLTON. Well, you may count two cents as more than an average rate. Now when you reach Buffalo, there is a canal from that port to New York, which for years past has not been a factor in the transportation problem at all. It is a canal with seven feet of water, which served a good purpose years ago in regulating railway freights, but I doubt whether it has much influence in that direction at the present time. So when you reach Buffalo, if the competition is keen, if the American railway lines find it necessary, in order to secure the control of the business of carrying wheat from Buffalo to New York at a price which would leave them a bare profit, it can be done, I am told, on the New York Central Railway at fifty cents a ton, or one cent and six mills per bushel. So you have the possibility of carrying wheat from Port Arthur to New York for three cents a bushel, or at most four cents a bushel. Now there are conditions which render it, in my opinion, impossible at present to compete with that route. It is useless to think of hauling wheat from a point as far west as Port Arthur by an all-rail route to Quebec or to Halifax at prices such as those I quoted with regard to the American lines. Of course in the winter we should control, to a large extent, the transportation of that country. We should certainly, and under all conditions, control the transportation of all the products of the soil and of the forest north of the height of land, and between Lake Winnipeg and Quebec.
With regard to the appointment of a commission, some of my hon. friends have said that we have gone on and spent enormous sums of money in Canada on a system of waterways, and we find ourselves now in the position, after expending more than fifty million of dollars, of having a system of waterways and improvements of a character that are worthless. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not quite agree with that statement. We have a canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario with fourteen feet of water, and locks of a large size, not large enough of course to accommodate the large vessels of the upper lakes. We have the St. Lawrence canals deepened to fourteen feet. Now this is the system which we have created. The American system is a system of canals, one from Buffalo to Albany on the Hudson river of seven feet of water, one from Whitehall, on Lake Champlain to the Hudson river with seven feet of water, canals which are so inconsiderable in their capacity, so ridiculously inadequate for the immense amount of business they would be called upon to perform, that our own system of waterways, I think, is a credit to us. I think for the
money expended, we have a system of waterways that have done us good service, and will do us good service still.
I do not believe that we are in a condition to-day, even if we decided to improve the Ottawa River Valley route, to decide what are the proper conditions upon which to proceed. For this reason I think the appointment of a commission to take this whole question under consideration is in the highest degree desirable, is not only desirable but is necessary. We are now confronting conditions that require careful consideration. We are called upon to inaugurate a policy and to proceed in a direction that has for its purpose the affording to the great North-west of transportation facilities. It is beyond all things necessary that we should make no false step, that we should proceed upon no false hypothesis or basis; and for that reason it !s a wise thing to appoint a commission, composed of men who are capable of examining this question and arriving at correct conclusions. We cannot do it here in an expert and scientific manner, we must rely upon the service of men of the character of those who are to be appointed upon this commission. Let us wait untill we have the decision of these men as to the proper course to pursue.
Now with regard to the Ottawa Valley canal, if we decide that we must have that canal constructed to afford competition with the railway companies and afford another outlet for the North-west, for myself-and I have given a good deal -of thought to the matter-1 would be at a loss to say) to-day whether I would favour the construction of a ship canal with twenty-one or twenty-two feet of water, or whether I would favour the construction of a barge caual for the transmission of grain to the mouth of the French river, thence carrying it in barges to Quebec, there to be elevated into vessels. I say I would not be able to decide at present which is the proper course to pursue. True, 1 would have before me the evidence takeu by the commission in the state of New York, I would have the outcome of this investigation; I would have the fact that after the consideration for several years of the question of a ship caual versus a barge canal, the authorities of the state of New York have arrived at the decision to construct a barge canal with a draft of twelve feet of water, with large locks, and -with barges of a capacity of 1,500 tons, these barges to be hauled in tows.


John Graham Haggart: Can they build a through one to a depth of twenty feet ?


John Charlton: Yes, they are quite competent to build a through one. They have the alternative of building a ship canal from the Niagara river to Lake Ontario and of leaving Lake Ontario at Oswego and going by way of Albany or by taking the old Erie canal route. All these things have been considered and the state of New York, under the advice of competent men,


John Charlton: and especially of Major Symons, who has made a life-long study of this question, has decided that a barge canal has advantages over a ship canal. Among the reasons they assign for this conclusion is that when a vessel fitted for the navigation of 4he lakes, or of the ocean, enters a ship canal she retains the whole of her crew, she retains all of her outfit and goes plodding through that canal at the rate of three or four miles an hour, when her normal rate of speed upon the sea would be fifteen or sixteen miles an hour. This is a consideration which has very much weight in determining the cost of the transmission of grain, and it is a question as to whether that grain had not better be transhipped into barges and sent through the canal and transhipped again into vessels at New York. There is an advantage in transhipping it. Elevating the grain at Buffalo cools it and improves its condition. It is put into these barges and goes through the canal, handled again and exposed to the air when it goes into the hold of the vessel. It is claimed that it is absolutely cheaper to transport it in that way and that the condition of the grain under this method is very much better. Here is a question that would confront us if we were proceeding with due caution, in determining the nature of our premises at the outset; here is a question that we have to decide, a question that may most properly be referred to a commission of experts, to collate information and statistics that will enable us to decide among other questions that we want to decide not from a party standpoint, not for the purpose of making party capital, but on a sound economic baisis for the purpose of commencing the prosecution of a system of works upon proper principles that will be found to be the best under the circumstances. If, after having given to our seaports connections in the form of a railway to Quebec right through the country, and a railway from Quebec for winter communication with Halifax and St. John, we attempt in addition to affording facilities and the best facilities that can be given, roads with low grades and great capacity for hauling heavy loads-such as the loads that can be hauled over the New York Central and Lake Shore of 2,000 tons to a train-to force trade over these roads we will make a mistake, because we have to allow this trade to find a natural outlet. We cannot prevent the diverting of grain to American channels unless we do it in an artificial manner. We might do it by export duties and customhouse restrictions which would provoke the resentment of the North-west, and we must remember in addition to this, that the time is not far distant when the North-west will be the master of the situation. That country is filling up rapidly, that country will demand that it must have access to the best markets it can obtain. The wheat growers of the North-west will not be particular whether they sell to the Minneapolis millers, or the millers at Rat Portage, or the millers in Ontario, or the millers in the eastern states, or the millers in England. What they want is the best market. They want access to that market, they will demand it and they will be entitled to have it. We must simply make with care and make efficiently, provision for securing this trade in our own seaports under circumstances which are possible, having regard to our natural facilities and natural advantages. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says that the question resolves itself into a mere question as to whether there shall be American trade or Canadian trade. Of course, there will be competition between American channels and Canadian channels which will have a salutary effect upon the business of the country that furnishes that trade, which perhaps will lower rates, which will keep down the rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway and of the Canadian Northern, and which will keep down the rates of the transCanadian line if it is ever built. In so far as the diverting of trade from the Canadian Northern, south of the Lake of the Woods to .the Jim Hill line is concerned, 1 have no fear of that. Let them divert the trade to the Jim Hill line if the farmers of the North-west are to be benefited, if their freight rates are to be reduced or if their facilities for reaching the markets are to be increased. The trade will reach its natural level and it will go by the best and quickest route notwithstanding any efforts we may make. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's demands that we should put the port of Montreal in the same position as that of New York. We cannot. It is impossible. New York is perhaps the finest harbour on the Atlantic coast. Montreal is away up the St. Lawrence, where you have to keep digging a channel through Lake St. Peter to maintain the thirty foot depth of water, when under natural conditions there is only a depth of fifteen feet.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is one of the most beautiful rivers in the world.


John Charlton: Yes, it is a magnificent river and the outlet of a great chain of lakes, and down at the point where the river meets the sea, is found the proper national harbour, and it is the harbour of Quebec.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We have no objection to that.


John Charlton: Montreal has great advantages and displays great enterprise and the hon. member does well to stand up for his native city. I admire him for that, but it is impossible to make the port of Montreal the same as the port of New York, because nature has said you cannot. You have to spend large sums of money to secure an entrance to this harbour. The port is closed for several months in the year,

insurance rates are against it, many things are against it, and so it is impossible to place the port of Montreal on exactly the same footing as to natural advantages, because the natural advantages do not exist. For that reason I may say again, that I have always been In favour of attempting to make Quebec the seaport of the Dominion. I have always thought that it was the natural seaport. I believe we would find, if we went into the business of maintaining access to the port of Quebec as long as possible, that we would have a season of navigation six weeks longer in the year at the port of Quebec than at the port of Montreal, and I think that we have been acting on false premises and that we have been expending money injudiciously in overlooking the natural advantages of Quebec, in overlooking the fact that this is actually and positively a seaport at the head of deep water navigation where vessels of the size that navigate the high seas can come in without dredging or artificial aid.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Of course, we do not object to Quebec having as much done for it as it is possible to do, but how can the hon. gentleman explain that with its deep harbour and its natural advantages there are fifty large ships in Montreal to-day although the channel has not yet been completed, and this has been going on for fifty years past ? How is it ?


John Charlton: I give the hon. gentleman and his fellow citizens of Montreal credit, and they do deserve great credit for showing greater enterprise than the citizens of Quebec. I give them credit for having had these natural difficulties overcome. 1 give them great credit for concentrating business in Montreal, and for securing the apropriation of money for overcoming the natural disadvantages, and for making Montreal a great port, but notwithstanding that, I hold that Quebec is the better port, that it is more accessible, that it will answer the purposes of the Dominion much better than the port of Montreal, and that we should at least give Quebec a fair show by the construction of this railway line from Quebec right through the interior, by the construction of wharfs and elevators at Quebec, and by-if we ever construct the Ottawa valley canal-having transhipment take place at Quebec. Thus, we will give the ancient capital and the historic city of Quebec the position which nature destined she would occupy in this Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) knows as well as I do that neither Montreal nor Quebec, nor any one port, can possibly in summer time handle the whole trade of this country. On the American side we have New York, Philadelphia, Boston. Portland. Let Quebec have all the trade we can give her ; let the biggest Mr. CHARLTON.
ships come to Quebec ; but surely my hon. friend does not mean to insinuate that the port of Montreal should be closed up.


John Charlton: Oh no.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Or that the St. Lawrence should not be improved as much as money can improve it. Both ports combined will not be able to handle all our trade in the future.


John Charlton: All right Mr. Speaker ; we will give Montreal all the show my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) asks for it, and we will concede that we want more ports than one, and we will hope that Montreal will maintain its position and continue to grow. But all these things do not detract from what X have said, that Quebec has natural advantages and is the point where our natural seaport is situated. We must give to each fair play, and in view of the vast development of the trade of this Dominion and especially of the Canadian North-west, as the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Tarte) says, one port or two ports, or three, or four ports are not going to handle that business and the business of the American west. There will be Quebec ; there will be Montreal


Joseph Israël Tarte: Three Rivers.


John Charlton: There will be Three Rivers perhaps ; there will be Halifax ; there will be St. John, and Portland' and Boston, and New York and Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and perhaps ultimately a great city may grow up at Newport News near Chesapeake Bay. All these will claim western trade, and we have to confront conditions here and not attempt to force trade in any direction, but to give to each place the benefit of its natural advantages, to develop its natural advantages as well as it may, and to secure for our own route and our own seaports all the trade of our Canadian North-west that can possibly be attracted. But we must not allow ourselves to suppose that we can divert the whole of the trade or that we can overcome the natural advantages X have referred to with regard to some of the American lines.
Noyv, Sir, this debate sprung up upon the presentation of certain matters by the leader of the opposition who called the government to task for its failure to announce its policy with regard to transportation routes ; for its failure to announce the names of the transportation commission ; for its failure to deal exhaustively and finally with all these great questions. Why, we could not deal with these questions at once. We must take time. If we acted precipitately and hastily we might make very grave mistakes. The transportation commission, even if named at an earlier date in this session would not have been in a position to make a report before giving it a proper and intelligent consideration which would guide this House in its action. We must give them some time. The govern-

meat have had to deal with many propositions. The government have had to look over a vast field ; a field where great conflicting interests are contending for the mastery ; a field where they had to decide whether they would themselves enter upon that field as a competitor for business and afford an outlet under their own supervision for the products of the great west. We must have a little patience ; we must unite altogether in seeking to arrive at a decision and formulating and perfecting schemes for overcoming these difficulties and meeting these .problems that confront us in the interest of the country without reference specially to this party or that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: Let us look at this thing from patriotic motives, for it Is the biggest question that ever lias confronted us. We feel to-day the thrill of a new life in our veins ; the electric thrill of a new energy that is flowing through all classes of our population. We are confronted by new questions. We realize that we have the resources of an empire ; we realize that that country which we bought, supposing it to be a howling wilderness for $1,500,000 in 1871 ; we realize that it is an empire. We realize that it is the granary of the world with room for forty or fifty million people, and we wrant to look at these things candidly, carefully, and like business men. Let the opposition spur on the government if it does not do its duty or comprehend the issues, but let the opposition give to the government fair consideration, and fair play, and let us work together for the good of Canada and its development.


Mr. TALBOT.: Might I ask the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) a question. He spoke of the enormous sacrifices that the Grand Trunk Railway had made for the development of Canada, and X would like to ask him how much the Grand Trunk Railway has spent to improve their shipping terminal facilities on the St. I.awrence.


John Graham Haggart: They have very fine terminal facilities in Montreal.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: How much have they spent ?


John Graham Haggart: They have as fine terminal facilities as any railroad in the country. I am not an advocate of the Grand Trunk Railway


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You are speaking of their railway facilities, but my question was directed as to their shipping terminal.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose no railroad makes a port a shipping terminal or improves the shipping facilities. What the railroad does is to bring its freight to where there is shipping facilities, and these facilities are afforded them in the shape of docks and wharfs and depth of harbour.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: What about Portland ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not know, I never was in Portland in my life.


Mr. KEMP.: Might I ask the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) a question ? When the hon. gentleman was speaking I was not quite clear where he intended the railway to which he referred, to run from west of Quebec, and whether he intended that it would be a private enterprise ; an enterprise encouraged by government aid, or a government built and controlled railway.


John Charlton: I do not profess to be in a position to lay down absolutely or accurately what the route of that road would be. I have a general idea that it should strike from Quebec pretty well north. As my hon. friend from Victoria (air. Hughes) said, it should go through the valley of the Notaway river and the aioose river, north of the height of land, and I would imagine that if it were a government road and was aiming for the Pacific Ocean, that it had better go north of Lake Winnipeg and skirt the Peace River Valley, having in view ultimately the construction of a branch from its main line to Fort Churchill for the purpose of utilizing, if it,is capable of being utilized, the navigation of the Hudson's Bay. If I was outlining it, it would be a pretty broad and comprehensive scheme of national character and national importance. With regard to the question as to the method of the construction of this road, I do not think I expressed any special preference. I did descant in a general way upon the advantages I supposed would result from the construction of a government railway, always supposing that we could get ourselves into a position to keep ourselves free from the ordinary debasing influence of politics, so as to have that road built upon business principles and managed upon business principles by competent railway men who would have no connection with politics, who would not be influenced by politics at all, and would not be hauling coal at a loss of three or four mills per ton, or doing any business on that line for the accommodation of localities and to meet the demands of politicians. All these things would have to be secured to us, or I would at once condemn that proposal and say it was not a good one.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Since we are discussing this matter in a friendly way, would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Macdonald).: This discussion is irregular. Hon. gentlemen cannot put questions from one side of the House to the other after they have made their speeches. An hon. gentleman can make a speech and include in it any subject he wishes, but this is not an interrogatory discussion.


Mr. T. C. CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: I do not rise to put a question Sir, but to make a few remarks upon this very important matter. I cannot join with my hon. friend (Mr. Charlton) in congratulating the government on not announcing their policy to the House at this late date of the session. This question has so long occupied the attention of the country, that long before this, the government should have made a definite announcement to the country on its transportation policy. Not only during the present session but in the last year of the last parliament, this question was under discussion, and the very idea of this transportation commission was suggested to the government in 1899 by my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). In a speech which I see in ' Hansard ' of 1899, the hon. gentleman suggested what I thought at that time and still think should have been the policy of the government. In a very exhaustive examination of the question, after going fully into all the intricacies of it, the hon. gentleman expressed himself thus.
For this reason I for one would be very glad to see the government hold its hand for a year, and in the meantime appoint a commission of engineers from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Railways and Canals to inquire, not only into the feasibility of the Ottawa, Lake Nipissing and Georgian Bay route, but also into the feasibility of the Toronto and Collingwood route. I am sure that no factious opposition will be offered by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, if they are satisfied that the government have selected the best route under all the circumstances ; and it is because I believe we have not yet the necessary information before us to justify us in endorsing the expenditure of $150,000 as an initial expenditure on the very vast work at Port Colborne that I have risen to make these remarks.
These remarks were made to the House as far back as August 2, 1S99, by my hon. friend from West Toronto. What have the government been doing ever since ? The question has been discussed in this House. I remember the late member for Quebec West, the Hon. Mr. Dobell, who was a great believer in the possibilities of the west and also of the east, and especially of our seaport towns, getting up year after year as a minister of the Crown and calling the attention of the House to this very question. It seems to me that having had the valuable suggestion of my bon. friend from West Toronto, it was the boundeu duty of the government-if it was necessary for them to appoint a commission, to obtain information which they could not supply themselves -to have done so, long before this. What have they been doing since that time 1


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Marking time.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: It seems to me they have been doing to a great extent what my hon. friend says-marking time. They have had no definite policy. We have spent large sums of money in improving harbours on the Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
lakes and improving the navigation on the St. Lawrence river ; but there has been no general plan, and to-day we are face to face with this position. In the North-west we have, or are going to have in a short time, a great many roads-the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern, and probably the Trans-Canada and the Grand Trunk Pacific-all supplying the needs of that vast territory and bringing to the seaports of the east the crops which grow there. In the face of this state of tilings, is it not a patriotic duty laid on the shoulders of the government and also upon the members of this House to see, as far as possible, that we have every benefit we can get from the hauling of the grain from the North-west down through the eastern portion of the Dominion of Canada ? I am a strong believer in a policy which would force, as much as nature would permit, every bit of the grain produced in the western xirovinces to come down through Canadian territory and help to build up our seaboard towns on the Atlantic and on the St. Lawrence river. My right hon. friend who leads the House says the government are about to appoint this commission. They are not yet appointed. Hon. gentlemen do not seem even to be quite decided on the names of file gentlemen who will form this commission. We all regret, I have no doubt, that it is impossible for Sir William Van Horne, as we are informed to-day, to be the head of this commission, because there is no man so well qualified to be the president of this important body, which will, to a certain extent, decide on the future transportation policy of the government of Canada. The names of other gentlemen have been suggested. I have the pleasure of the acquaintance of Mr. Harold Kennedy, and if that gentleman had been able to accept the position, I am sure ail who know him would have been most pleased, and would have felt that the interests of Canada could not have been placed in better hands. As to Mr. Bertram, I know nothing. I am told that he is a ship-builder ; but whether lie has sufficient knowledge for the position, I am not at present well enough informed to be able to say. With regard to Mr. Fry, I may say to the right hon. gentleman that there are ten or twenty men in the city of Quebec who would be superior to liim in occupation to be a member of this commission in the place of Mr. Harold Kennedy. I have nothing to say against Mr. Fry ; he is an estimable citizen of Quebec, but nobody heard of him outside of his having been agent for Lloyds in Quebec for a number of years. It seems to me that if this commission is to be appointed, the government should first of all endeavour to obtain, irrespective of politics, the very best possible talent in the land, no matter what it would cost; as all hon. gentlemen agree that this is probably the most important question that has been brought to the notice of this

parliament. I may say that I for one do not believe in government by commission. I believe it is the duty of the government to handle these questions themselves. When this government came into existence in 189G It was heralded all through this continent and through the continent of Europe as the greatest conglomeration of business men that was ever called into being ; and it seems to me that such distinguished lights as those I see before me-as my right hou. friend who leads the government, the Minister of Railways and Canals, and my hon. and learned friend the Minister of Justice, who has studied this question-should have formed a commission to deal with this question, and obtain the information necessary to enable the government to come before the House with a definite policy. When I said a moment ago that I did not believe in government by commission, my right hon. friend smiled ; the sunny smile with which we are all so familiar beamed on his face. But my hon. friend from West Toronto in XS99 probably did not believe that the government was such a great conglomeration of business men, and he thought it was necessary to harm a commission to find out and report what policy the government should adopt.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend has a better opinion of us now.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: I have not. I am not yet converted; but it seems to me that, with the time they have had since my hon. friend from West Toronto gave them the cue in that speech which was so replete with information, and after all the discussions which have taken place in this House since that time, the government should themselves be in a position to state their policy to the House. I do not believe in government by commission. I really do not believe that it is constitutional for the government not to shoulder the responsibility of a great question like this, but to put it on the shoulders of men who are not responsible to this parliament. Here we are face to face with this great transportation problem, as to how we are to get the products of the wheat fields of the west down through Canadian territory and to Canadian ports. We have not decided that question yet. We are now going to appoint a commission; but before that commission will have time to report, the end of the session will have gone by, even should the session last until August or September. No doubt the commissioners will have to take their information in all parts of the country in order to become thoroughly acquainted with the transportation facilities, but in the meantime the traffic of the west which we desire to send through our Canadian ports will have taken another direction. Hon. gentlemen opposite, I am convinced, desire as strongly as we to see our own ports built up, but, judging by the experience of the past, if our western traffic
should become diverted to American ports, it will be exceedingly difficult to bring it back into Canadian channels and Canadian ports, either on the Atlantic or the St. Lawrence river. Some time ago we were told by a gentleman of undoubted authority in railway matters that our spouts were too small for our hopper. Well, now is the time, Mr. Speaker, when we should enlarge our ports on the St. Lawrence and Atlantic coast. Now is the time when we should make our spouts sufficiently large to receive and to distribute everything that comes from the west. Now is the time to provide means for bringing the enormous products of the west to our own ports. In my opinion, the ports of Montreal and Quebec and the other important ports on the St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic coast should be made free. The government boasts of an enormous surplus, amounting, they say, to $13,000,000. They boast of having had the largest surpluses this country has ever seen. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the time to use this enormous amount of money in equipping Canadian ports on the St. Lawrence and the Atlantic ocean with all the facilities required to receive the enormous traffic of the North-west. I have every desire, and have always had, to do everything possible for the advancement of our North-west. The very earliest political speeches I ever made were in defence of the acquisition of the North-west. I was then convinced that the acquisition of that country would be of the greatest advantage to Canada as a whole. The Conservative government of that day was condemned by the Liberal party for their policy with regard to the North-west, but to-day the statesmanship of the Conservative party is fairly vindicated, and we have hon. gentlemen opposite compelled to admit that the prosperity of Canada depends in a great measure on the enormous wealth which flows frorni the North-west. We must not forget however that the people of the Northwest owe something to the eastern portion of this country. We find in some newspapers the opinion expressed that the people of our North-west do not care at all about the east, that all they want is to sell their grain, and they care not whether it is exported through Canada or the United States. I feel convinced that such statements do not reflect the real opinion of our western friends, and I have no doubt that they are prepared to back as much as possible the patriotic policy of sending Canadian grain through Canadian territory to Canadian ports. I am" not one of those who think that the improvements I have mentioned would cost too much. We can deepen our St. Lawrence, we can deepen the channels we now have sufficiently to allow us to ship the grain from Quebec or Montreal. Just see what the Americans have done to build their ports and waterways and other means of transportation from the west to the east. We have in this country a population every whit

as patriotic as tlie population of the United States. If we want to build up this country as the United States has been, we must not shirk our opportunities. We ought to be able to accomplish everything, which can be accomplished with the aid of money and patriotism.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, when you rose at six o'clock I was adverting to the acquisition of the North-west. I am certainly not one who would not grudge a cent of the money that Canada has paid very lavishly for the acquisition of the the North-west Territory. If it were to be done again, I would be glad to support any measure which would bring into the country this large territory which has proved to be of such advantage to Canada as a whole. But what I say is that Canada to-day must reap the benefit of the large expenditure which it made at that time. It is said that grain cannot be hauled at a profit-a profit either to the railways or to the farmers of the North-west-if it passes around the north shore of Lake Superior. But it is admitted on all hands, I take it, that grain can be brought down to Port Arthur or Fort William and there transferred to barges and brought down to our ports ou the St. Lawrence or transferred to other parts of our railway system and taken down to the port of Halifax or St. John. What, then, is our manifest duty ? It is to so improve our waterways as to give the cheapest and most direct route to Europe. It is said that this will cost a great deal of money. Well, what if it does 1 We have the money. As I said this afternoon we pride ourselves on having immense surpluses. It seems to me that in no better way can the surpluses and immense amounts of money the government is deriving from the country be put to use than by building up our seaports. What I advocate is a bold policy at this very moment. It seems to me it is the duty of the government and of this House to have a bold policy. When, many years ago, it was decided to build the Canadian Pacific Railway, people said that this was a bold policy and our lion, friends on the other side of the House said, many and many a time, that this railway would never pay, even for the grease for the wheels. Of course, since then, we have changed, and, to-day, we know that there is no greater factor in the prosperity of Canada than this very Canadian Pacific Railway. It was a bold policy which animated our predecessors on the Conservative side when they made an agreement with a syndicate to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was a bold policy when, in 1882, I believe, they loaned $20,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway. At that time, the agree-Mr. CASGRAIN.
meat was that the Canadian Pacific Railway was to be completed not later than 1891. But, Sir, in 1886, the Canadian Pacific Railway was built from end to end and the traffic came pouring into the eastern ports of Canada. To-day, we want a return for the sacrifices Canada made at that time, and the best return that can be made is to build up ports on the St. Lawrence and on the seaboard. My hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) seemed to advocate the claims of Quebec as against the claims of Montreal. There need be, and there is, no jealousy between these two ports; each port lias its advantages and each should receive from this country and from the government the liberal encouragement that it deserves. Of course, Montreal is situated nearer the heart-centre of the wheat growing Northwest. Situated, as it is, as the commercial centre of one of the principal provinces of the Dominion, of course, it will always be a great shipping port. I am not here to advocate the claims of Quebec as against the claims of Montreal or the claims of Montreal as against those of Quebec. But I say, as I said this afternoon, that what should be done, what should be the policy of the government, is to make the port of Montreal and the other principal ports iu Canada free ports. And not only that, but, if it is true that we can secure the traffic at least during the summer months through the St. Lawrence route, we should deepen the channel between Quebec and Montreal, we should so light it and buoy it that it shall be as easy to navigate the St. Lawrence by day or night as it is to navigate the ocean itself. Of course, in the natural course of events, the larger ships, the ships that are building to-day, ships of great tonnage, will probably not be able to go so far as Montreal. These will go to Quebec. And here is the fault I find with the government in this matter-they are certainly not doing their duty towards Quebec; they are certainly not doing towards Quebec what they should do in view of its natural position and in view of the faithful support that they themselves have received from Quebec and the district of Quebec. Consider what has happened. Sir, last year, when this question came up, my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) speaking then as Minister of Public Works, brought down a project by which it was said that at least a million dollars wmuld be spent to improve the harbour of Quebec. What is the condition of things in Quebec to-day ? How many berths are there for ocean going steamships ? How many elevators are there ? What accommodation have oceangoing steamships in Quebec ? I know very well that my hon. friends opposite may say, with some degree of certainty, that a mistake was made when large sums of money were spent in the port of Quebec. But we must take the facts as they are to-day. Conditions are not now as they used to be. We

certainly have the prospect in view that, if the port of Quebec were properly equipped we should be able to load large steamers there, and the fact is that every day almost, large steamers tvould go to Quebec to be loaded if proper accommodation were given.
I read in the papers the other day that there was one berth for a large steamer In Quebec, and that when a second large steamer came in, she had to stop out in the tide until the first steamer was unloaded. There is a state of things which the government certainly should have seen to before*lo-day. And, if this commission which they have promised is given, that is one of the first questions that should occupy its attention. The other day, again, I heard that the ' Mont-eagle ' came to Quebec to unload, but there was so little accommodation in the warehouses on the docks, they were so overloaded that they could not take any more goods into it. That is a state of things that it seems to me should prove to the government that they have not done their duty toward the city of Quebec. I remember very well when this plan of the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was brought down to the House, ' Le Soleil,' the government organ in Quebec, had articles with great headlines on the subject. For instance, on the 20th July, 1002, it had an article with headlines which I have translated as follows :-
Hurrah for Quebec.
Construction of piers from Comner's Wharf to Beauport.
Work to he begun by the Department of Public Works.
And there followed an article which expatiated on the benefits that the city of Quebec would reap from these plans. Then, on the 8th of August, appeared an article with these headlines :-
Great news for Quebec.
Advertisement calling for tenders.
Cheques accepted.
-and the article said that these piers or wharfs were to be built from the St. Louise Basin as far as Beauport. Referring now to ' Hansard ' of the same day, what do I find ? I find this plan exposed to the House by the Minister of Public Works of that day, who said :
However, Quebec has practically no harbour equipment. There is only one berth for large ships in the whole harbour of Quebec. A ship loading or unloading there has either to anchor in the middle of the river, or to be loaded and unloaded with lighters. Now, we think the time has come when the port of Quebec will have to be equipped. I have here a plan of the improvement, which I invite hon. gentlemen to examine with me.
I remember the bon. gentleman unfolded the plan on the Table of the House.
It shows the famous Louise Basin, of which we heard so much years ago. W6 propose to
construct four berths for the largest ships. They will have 40 feet of water at high tide. Of course, we will build the cribs deeper than the existing walls of the old cribs, so as to give them greater solidity. These works that I intend to carry out gradually will cost about $1,000,000.
Sir, if I understand it aright, the policy of the government to-day is to build one berth in Quebec, not four berths as was then decided upon. It is decided now to spend $200,000 on the port of Quebec, and not $1,000,000 as was the policy of the government at that time. I say that that is not only unfair to Quebec but it is unfair to the country at large. And, if we are to carry out the policy which is based upon the saying that ' the spout should not be too small for the hopper,' we should see to it that, as soon as time will permit us to do it that the port of Quebec is so equipped that, when the grain comes down from the west, we in Quebec and Montreal may be prepared to receive it and ship it on board vessels which will take it to European ports. I cannot understand why the government has changed its plans upon this subject; I cannot understand why the government is not carrying out the policy which it propounded to this House last year; I cannot understand why this vast plan, which was heralded throughout the province of Quebec by the ' Le Soleil,' is not being carried out by the government this year.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, speaking this afternoon, mentioned several lines of railway which were in contemplation. He spoke of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Trans-Canada. I was glad to hear my right hon. friend say that the policy of the government is to encourage some of these lines by subsidies, but that not only one of them had yet been decided upon definitely by the government. I must say I was a little surprised to hear some hon. gentlemen say that they knew nothing of the Trans-Canada, that the Trans-Canada' was a line that nobody knew anything about; they did not know where it started from, they did not know where it went, and they did not know the country through which it would pass. Now iu speaking of this line I may be anticipating somewhat, because to-morrow, if I am correctly informed, a deputation from Quebec is going to appear before the Committee on Railways and Canals, and that deputation will give the committee all the information which it can desire upon the Trans-Canada. But let me say just now that the Trans-Canada is a line which goes in an almost straight direction from Quebec, or north of Quebec, to Port Simpson on the Pacific ocean. This line, from the information which we have now, goes through an undeveloped country, but a country which is perfectly susceptible of producing as much wheat as the country which lies to the south of it.

It is a line far removed from the international boundary; and if at any time, which God forbid, a war were to break out between the United States and Canada, when other lines of railway would probably become an easy prey to an invading force, the Trans-Canada line would be far removed from any such attack, and therefore would afford a safe and easy means of transportation for troops going from one end of Canada to the other. Then again the telegraph lines along this railway would be equally far removed from the international boundary, and communication could be kept up by" them from one end of Canada to the other. There is another consideration I may mention, and that is that the Trans-Canada line will develop an important part of the province of Quebec. Now I fail to see from what I know, or from the informat-ion which has been given to us, that the Grand Truuk Pacific will have any such effect. If I understand the plan which has been imposed upon the Grand Trunk Pacific, that railway is going to pass through a part of the province of Quebec which will derive no benefit from it, and the province as a whole will derive no benefit from it. It is a line which, if my information is correct, will be almost impracticable. It is a line which is proposed merely to blind the eyes of the people of Quebec to the real situation. As to the Trans-Canada Company itself, I may say that it is composed of some of the best men in Quebec, and hon. members of this House who are acquainted with the incorporators know very well that they are energetic, that they are pushing, and that they will be able, if the government give them any support, to command as much capital in England as the Grand Trunk Pacific itself.
Now, Sir, let me briefly recapitulate the facts of the situation as they appear to me. First, the government has come down too late with this plan of appointing a commission to get information as to the best means of transportation through Canada; secondly, after all the discussions which have taken place in this House the government should be to-day sufficiently informed to be able to decide upon a policy and to propound it to this House; thirdly, government by commission is not in the true spirit of the constitution under which we live, and the government itself should take upon its own shoulders the responsibility of propounding tot the House and to the couutry a policy upon a question so important as the one we are now discussing.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: It may seem out of place for a member representing a part of the_ country that is certainly the most deeply interested in the question of transportation, to take any part in this debate. The question of transportation has been up for discussion on a number of occasions ; but I must say, speaking for the


Thomas Chase Casgrain: western part of the country it seems to me that what the House considers transportation is quite a different thing from what we consider transportation. Canada extends from the Atlantic -to the Pacific, a distance of 3,000 miles; I would suppose that national transportation meant the carriage of supplies from one ocean to the other, or over a part of that distance. But as this question has been debated in the House on the present and on previous occasions, transportation does not mean the carriage of produce or supplies, but merely their transference from rail to boat or from boat to rail at a lake or ocean port in the North-west are interested in the transportation question as Canadians, we are interested in the equipment of our ocean ports, we are interested in seeing Canadian traffic go through Canadian channels; we are interested in these things, I say, as Canadians, but not as North-westers. As North-westers, speaking locally and sectionally-we have no special interest in the equipment of these ports. But we do not look at the matter in that light, we look at it as Canadians desiring to build up Canada, desiring to see Canada developed in the east as well as in the west. Therefore we are prepared to vote money to build up ocean ports at Montreal and Quebec ; but we do not want it understood that the	building up of
these ports is for the special interest and development of	the North-west.
The great question of transportation is : How shall produce and supplies be transported most cheaply, to the benefit of the producer and the consumer ? It seems to me that we are wandering far from the real essence of the question when we think of the question of transportation as merely a question as to the port at which our supplies shall be transferred from the warehouse to the steamer. Would hon. members look at it in this way ? Our wealth is derived from our crop, and the question of transportation is important to us just in proportion as it affects the value of the crop. Give the crop a cheapening of transportation to the extent of a cent a bushel, and you add a cent a bushel to the trade of Canada. It makes no difference whether the crop goes out of the country by one port or another, you have added that amount to the trade of Canada by cheapening transportation. Is it more important to Canada that a crop of 100,000,000 bushels of grain shall be advanced in value one cent a bushel or that that amount of grain shall pass out of the country by a particular port ? If you can increase the vaule of your crop by cheapening your transportation, you are thereby benefiting the country by adding to the trade of the country, but if you are merely taking a course to, as it were, compel the trade of the country to go this way or that way, there is no special addition to the trade of the country and there is no benefit. Everything ac-

cording to its value. We want to see Canadian trade go through Canadian ports. We are willing to vote money to help to put these ports into proper shape, but let me tell nay hon. friends that the difference between the value in our export of grain that will accrue from the expenditure of perhaps some 80,000,000 at the port of Montreal will not possibly amount to more than one cent per bushel, taking the extreme view of the case. That amount of one cent per bushel could be added to the value of the crop of the west by a reduction in the rates over the railways very much more easily than it could by equipping the port of Montreal. If it is transportation we are to talk, let us talk transportation and the cheapening of transportation, and if we want to talk ports, we will talk ports and the improvement in the means of transfer. It was said here to-day by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) that the New York Central carries wheat from Buffalo to New York at, I think he said, something less than two cents a bushel.


John Charlton: I did not say that, but I said that they could do so.


Frank Oliver: Could the hon. gentleman tell us at about what price they .do carry it?


John Charlton: About three to three and a-half cents per bushel.


Frank Oliver: We will say four cents a bushel. The distance is about 400 miles. The distance from Buffalo to New York is approximately the same as the distance from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay, and we pay twelve cents a bushel to carry grain from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay, when that same grain, after it gets to Buffalo, is carried from Buffalo to New York for four cents a bushel. Do you want to talk transportation ? Do you want to cheapen transportation ? Then cut the rate on grain between Winnipeg and Port Arthur, and add the difference to the trade of this country instead of to the dividends of the railway company. The cheapening of transportation will come by the improvement and increase in our railway facilities, and by the better arrangements we may make from time to time as to the control of rates over these railways ; that is as to getting the advantage of the facilities which we provide.
Let me say that in my own estimation, and I believe in the estimation of the greater part of the western country, we do not look for the cheapening of transportation by the improvement of our present canal system or by the addition of another canal system. We have a canal system of which as an engineering work, I presume we may be very proud. But as a means of drawing the trade of North America through our country, it has been a dismal failure. Then, we do not look to the duplicating of the system to accomplish what it has failed in doing. The day of canals has gone by. Canada has
practically lost the money it has put into canals, and I am one to say that Canada has no more money to put into a canal scheme, the Georgian bay or otherwise. In regard to the equipment of ports, I believe, and we all believe, that our trade should go through our own ports, and that these ports should be equipped properly for the carrying of that trade, but there is a limit, or there should be a limit, to all things, and as one who is not amenable to the local vote, perhaps I have the opportunity of saying certain things that may not be convenient to hon. members representing localities in this part of the country. The qualifications of any place to be a national port depend upon the ease with which it can be made a national port, and I say that when it is declared that after the vast expenditures which have been made it will yet require $6,000,000 to equip the port of Montreal as the national port of Canada, it is evidence that Montreal is not properly the national port of Canada, that the day that Montreal could be so considered has gone by, and that we have to select a port nearer deep water than Montreal ; that is to say, Quebec. If we had only one means of reaching the ocean, and that one the port of Montreal, then we certainly would have to spend these millions of money, but we are not so confined. We have all the length of the St. Lawrence river, and I am credibly informed that from Three Rivers to Quebec these impediments to navigation which cause the great difficulty in reaching Montreal do not exist, that we are not tied to Montreal, but that we have from Three Rivers to Quebec as a means of accommodating the deep water ocean traffic without these vast expenditures which are necessary to bring it up to the port of Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) permit me to tell him that this is the worst part of the St. Lawrence.


Frank Oliver: Where ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Between Quebec and Three Rivers. The Cap a la Roche is the most dangerous part of the St. Lawrence.


Frank Oliver: I will accept the correction, but I understand the large expenditures were made between Three Rivers and Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Oh no ; very far from it.


Frank Oliver: I accept the correction. I am not familiar with the circumstances, certainly not as familiar as is the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte). However, I repeat, that these expenditures are too vast for the good resulting ; and, that when we have a deep water ocean port at Quebec we cannot afford to spend so many millions of dollars to make Montreal that which nature did not intend her to be. This discussion, Mr. Speaker, has covered a great
848;

deal of ground ; lion, gentlemen who have spoken have gone pretty far afield, and I will take a similar liberty to a slight extent.
The question of a winter ocean port for the proposed Grand Trunk Railway line has been spoken of. I understand that our friends from the maritime provinces are making a stiff fight against the Grand Trunk Railway project, uriless there is connected with it a Canadian ocean port during the winter months. There is this difficulty about their position, if they will allow me to say so :	that they do not seem to
be decided as to which port is to be the Canadian winter port. To my mind there is only one port in the maritime provinces that is suitable as a Canadian winter port for freight traffic, and that is the port of St. John. If the maritime province people will unite in supporting the port of St. John I think I can promise them that many of our western friends will favour that port also. We want a winter ocean port in our own country, but we cannot have a perambulating ocean port.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: Neither can we have an ocean port that is too distant from the centre of production. I would like to say to my friends from the maritime provinces, that it is St. John or nothing. If they will unite on St. John, I will be, for one, ready to give them a lift. I believe we can make St. John our winter ocean port, and if we cannot unite on St. John, then we cannot put ourselves in a position to deal with the Grand Trunk Railway company on the basis of having a Canadian winter ocean-port.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: Did I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) to say that the government were going to spend $6,000,000 on the port of Montreal ?


Frank Oliver: No. I said it had been stated by the ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that it would require $6,000,000.


Robert Bickerdike: If the hon. gentleman said the government were going to spend $6,000,000 on the port of Montreal, I would have wired it down there.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is not such a large sum of money for such a purpose.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the projects of the Grand Trunk Railway Pacific and of the Canadian Northern Railway, let me ask what are really the transportation propositions that are before the House, and before the country. There is no doubt that the development of the west requires the construction of another trunk line of railroad by an independent company, if not by the government itself. The transcontinental trunk line of railway which we have now has answered a good purpose ; it has developed a part of the country, but it has Mr. OLIVER.
not developed the whole country. If we are to have the whole country developed, we must have other lines of railroad constructed. It strikes me that it is much better that these additional lines of railroad should be constructed by an independent company rather than that they should be constructed by that company which already has its transcontinental line. If we must have new lines we may as well have an independent company owning these lines, and have competition rather than have monopoly. Therefore, I say that we welcome the proposition of the Grand Trunk Railway and the proposition of the Canadian Northern Railway to open the western country by the construction of two railroads. There seems to be an idea that there is room for only one of those two roads. I am not prepared to say how it is from Winnipeg to Quebec, but I will say to the House that there is room and there is need for both the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway Pacific to develop the country from Manitoba west to the Rocky mountains through the fertile belt. There is need of a railroad at least every forty miles. I would say even every thirty miles in the fertile country. There is a country there every foot of which is fertile for a width of from 100 miles to 200 miles, all the way from the Manitoba boundary to the Rocky mountains. That country cannot be fully developed by one line of railroad. It must have two ; it must have more than two lines in order to be properly developed. Therefore, just as we need one line more than the Canadian Pacific Railway to develop the North-west, so we need more than one to develop that fertile belt. There is no danger of overcrowding in the fertile part of the North-west by two trunk lines of railroad. In the narrow strip of country between the international boundary and the lakes, a distance of 100 miles, there are five parallel lines of railroad and they were blocked with grain last fall. If 100 miles of fertile country in the province of Manitoba requires five parallel lines to do its work, surely the country further west equally fertile ; a strip from 100 to 200 and 300 miles wide will not be overcrowded with two lines of railroad.
Now, in regard to assistance to the building of a railroad through that country, I am sure that the people will hear with great satisfaction the announcement of the Prime Minister to-day that there will be no grant of land in aid of railroad construction in the North-west. There is the strongest feeling in the North-west against giving aid to railroads by grants of land. The country has been throttled by that system ; we do not want to_ repeat it. I was somewhat astonished to-'day to hear the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) say that these land grants to railroads in the North-west had been made at the request

of the people of the North-west. That certainly was news to me, and I have been very well acquainted with the North-west for a number of years. I wonder if the people he alluded to were the half-breeds who in 1885 expressed their opinion in regard to the land administration of that country, by taking up arms in defence of what they thought to be their rights in regard to these lands-and the half-breeds were the principal people of 'the country at that time. Those deputations who came to the government here and asked that the lands of the North-west be given away to railroads-I certainly never heard of them starting. I do not know who they were, but we are bound to take the word of the hon. member in parliament. However that may be, I do not think they came from the North-west. Speaking, if I may, on behalf of the North-west, I will say that the people of that country have been so ill-satis-fled and are so ill-served by our present railroad that they would welcome-in fact they look upon it as the only full relief-the construction of a government railway as a means of settling the transportation question in that country ; a railroad built and owned and controlled, even if not operated by the government. I presume, however, that that view will not find favour in the House, and that we will be required to make a bargain with one or the other company to build the railroad in consideration of certain assistance to be given. On that point I want to say very definitely that it is the absolute understanding of the case by the people of the North-west that any aid granted to a railroad company towards the construction of its line in that country shall be compensated by a corresponding control of the rates upon that railroad. Our view is : no control, no bonus.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: We would rather give a bonus and have control of rates than have the railroad built without a bonus and have no control of rates. The rates are everything. We can wait for the railroad for a year or two years, but if we have no control of rates, we are at the mercy of the railroad; the railroad is our master for all time, and we are its servants. Whatever bargain is made between the railroad company and this parliament or this government, our position is that for every dollar of assistance we give, either in guarantee or in money, we want a corresponding control of rates, which| control shall be actual and effective, and not visionary. We cannot afford, this country cannot afford, eastern Canada cannot afford, to load ourselves up with any more indebtedness for the construction of railroads, which railroads, after they are built, shall be run absolutely regardless of the interests of the people of Canada, either east or west. Do you people of eastern Canada know how you stand
in regard to this transportation question 1 Your market for your manufactures and for your wholesale dealings is in western Canada; it is there or it is not anywhere. Do you know that the manufacturing and wholesale centres of the United States are much nearer the Canadian North-west, than your manufacturing and wholesale centres are ? Do you know that the distance is much shorter from Minneapolis and St. Paul than it is from Toronto and Montreal ? Do you know that you have to get, not the same rates, but lower rates per mile on your supplies going from here to the North-west than United States dealers get on their supplies going from Minneapolis, St. Paul or Chicago ? But you say, we will put up the duty. You cannot put your -duty high enough, because just as you put up the duty the railroad puts its rates up to include the duty. You do not get the benefit of the duty; the duty is figured into the railroad rate every time, and do not make any mistake about it. Let my hon. friends look at the transportation question from this point of view; and when they are dealing with a railroad corporation to-morrow or on any other day, let them make up their minds that it is not the man growing grain in the North-west who needs control of the rates on his wheat going out, so much, as you need it on your merchandise going in. You need it more than he does, because if he does not send his wheat by the Canadian road, he cam send it by an American road; but you cannot send your merchandise in by any but the Canadian road. Make no mistake about it; eastern Canada is vitally interested in this question of the control of rates over any railroad that may be built between eastern and western Canada. There is no east or west in this matter. You want to trade with us, we want to trade with you, and it is for you as much as it is for us to see that our interests are protected according to the amount of money we pay or according to the amount of security we give.


Albert Edward Kemp: Mr. Speaker, the present discussion arose this afternoon through two questions which the hon. leader of the opposition asked of the government. One question referred to the commission which the government had promised to appoint, and the other referred to the much-talked-of transcontinental railroad project. I do not propose to discuss in a general way the transportation question, which has been so much discussed this afternoon and this evening; but I will just confine myself in a few words to the two questions which the hon. leader of the opposition asked. The hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) raised a very important question this afternoon in stating what it cost to transfer grain from the head of the great lakes to the seaboard. He claimed that the cheapest route from Duluth and Port Arthur was by way of Buffalo and New; York, and he made out a pretty good

34SS
case in favour of that route. But it seemed to me that he was a little inconsistent when he came to deal with this transcontinental question foil a line from Quebec westward, because, having demonstrated that the cheapest route was by way of Buffalo and New York, he proceeded to show the House that if the government could be trusted to manage honestly a government railroad, the government should build that road. As he had already argued that that road could not carry grain as cheaply as it could be carried in other directions, his reason for advocating the government undertaking the road was evidently because he felt that no private enterprise would do so. Then with reference to the commission, we were told by the Prime Minister that this commission was for the purpose of looking into the question of water routes and Canadian ports-Montreal, Sorel, Three Rivers, Quebec, St. John, and so forth. We were told that the commission was not to look into the question of railroad transportation. It seems to me this is a mistake. It seems to me that this commission, which was to have been appointed a week or two after the opening of parliament, should have power to look into the great transportation question in the broadest possible manner. If what the hon. member for North Norfolk has told us is a fact, that grain can never be carried as cheaply around the north of Lake Superior, through a country in which it is difficult to operate railroads, and if we have in view sentimental and patriotic motives in building up Canadian ports, what this commission should be in a position to tell us, after they have solved the problem to their satisfaction, is, how much more it will cost to carry the grain from the North-west by this northern route through Canada. For my part, I am prepared to support the sentimental Canadian idea, but I want to know when I come to vote what the extra cost is going to be. When we have the information we will be in a position to decide whether we ought to put our hands in our pockets and pay the amount required or not. We are informed however that it is very doubtful whether the gentleman mentioned as president will act. Possibly Sir William Yan Horne may refuse to act. He may plead that he himself does not require the advice or counsel of the other gentlemen whom the government have suggested to advise with him on this commission. Or he may say that he is quite competent to advise the government forthwith. Or for any other reason he may decline to act. If Sir William Van Horne should refuse the appointment, I would suggest that the government should avail itself of his great experience and invite him to come to Ottawa and discuss that matter with them. Whether discussion should take days or weeks, it will be time well spent, and the government will have received valuable advice and suggestions from one thoroughly competent to speak on Mr. KEMP.
the subject and thoroughly versed in all its details.
Another matter with which the government have been dealing, and with which the government have been exceedingly dilatory is the Canadian Northern Railway. We are told by the right hon. the First Minister that a measure dealing with what we understand to be this road would be laid on the Table in a week or so. We must presume that the right hon. gentleman intended to convey the impression that a money subsidy would be granted this company. But why have the government not dealt with this matter before ? Population has been flowing into the North-west far beyond our facilities for receiving and distributing it. There can be no possible excuse for the delay of the government. Last session they were not prepared to face this question, and they are in an equally helpless condition today. They knew last year that the tide of immigration was setting in, that greater facilities were needed to handle this immigration, still they had not the courage to deal with the question, and the Canadian Northern Railway people were asked to wait until this session. And here we are, beyond the middle of the session, and yet this measure is not before us. It is high time the government took some action. It is high time that we had a pronouncement and a definite policy submitted on this great transcontinental railway question in general. But leaving the question of the commission and the question of the Canadian Northern Railway and its subsidy, we come to another great question, we come to another proposition to build a transcontinental railway from a Canadian port on the Atlantic to a Canadian port on the Pacific. This is a matter which has been talked of for a year or more, and on which supporters of the government have been for a long time urging the government to take action. The granting of a charter to the Grand Trunk Pacific is now before the railway commission. Surely in a great national enterprise such as this, it is the duty of the government to announce its policy before the charter is granted. Members of the railway committee are called upon to discuss this charter, in complete ignorance of the policy of the government. We all realize that no railway will be built from one side of this continent to the other, through a country certain parts of which cannot furnish much freight or passenger traffic for many years to come, unless that railway receives a certain amount of subsidy or aid of some kind from the government. But when in the committee we seek to have the government declare its policy on the subsidy question, we are told that as the question of granting aid to the company is not before the committee, but solely that question of granting it a charter, we are debarred from discussing the subsidy ques-

tion at all, and thus we are all at sixes and sevens and nothing is done. In contrast with this, an lion, member has pointed to another transcontinental charter which went through the railway committee at the rate of about a thousand miles a minute. It was said it was put through in three minutes and the line was 3,000 miles long. But supposing we should grant the Grand Trunk Pacific a charter embracing all the privileges contained in the charter before the committee what may happen. That charter gives them the right to go in for coal and iron mining and a host of other things concerning the propriety, of which I am not raising any question, but am simply pointing out what broad privileges and important concessions the company are asking. But supposing, I say, this charter should ultimately be granted and that the government then should decide to build a railway themselves from the Atlantic to the Pacific or that another corporation should come along and offer better terms, the question of vested rights would then stand in the way. We would be told that the Grand Trunk Pacific had gone to a great deal of expense and had acquired certain vested rights.
I insist, Mr. Speaker, further that we should have a declaration from the government as to whether it is the policy of the government to build a road from the city of Quebec or from a port in the maritime provinces to Winnipeg, or whether it intends to subsidize a company for that purpose, or what is its policy ? One hon. member referred this afternoon to the obligations this country is under to the Grand Trunk Railway. Well, we all recognize that the Grand Trunk Railway was the pioneer railway of the country and has done a great deal for Canada, but if the shareholders of that company did not reap the benefit they might have expected, I am not aware that the Canadian people are in any way responsible. Can it be charged to the Canadian people that they did anything or interfered in anyway in the management of the railway, which rendered it impossible for the company to pay such dividends as the shareholders expected. This question of a transcontinental road must be dealt with from a business and not, in this respect, from a sentimental standpoint.
Mr. Speaker, had the government the ability as well as the desire to deal with this transportation question, they would have no need to appoint a commission. Why delegate the powers of the government to a commission ? Why ask Sir William Van Horne or anybody else to submit to the country their views on this matter. It is the government who are responsible, and we should have had from the government long ago their policy. This business of shifting the responsibility on to a commission is not in accord with our ideas of responsible constitutional government.
What we desire to know from the government is the following :	Is it the intention of the government at this session of parliament to grant aid either with money or land, or by the guarantee of bonds, principal or interest, or in any other way, to another transcontinental railway ? If so, has the government decided upon a route the terminals of which at the seaboard will be in Canada ? Does the government intend, if aid is granted, to make it a condition that the freight traffic originating on such railway and its branches and destined to the seaboard shall be shipped all the year round through Canadian seaports ? Does the government intend to prepare plans and formulate conditions relating to the building, or to the equipping, or to the operation of such railway ? If so, is it the intention to submit the same to the public for tender, with a view of ascertaining the most advantageous terms that may be secured from various parties, syndicates or corporations for the building of, or.for the equipping of, or for the operation of such railway ?
Now, as I said before, we are all at-sixes-and-sevens with regard to the government's railway policy. We are more than half through the session, and we are supposed, during the remaining weeks of the session to develop a great transcontinental railway scheme, to arrange for the granting of bonuses and so on, in a manner that will meet the views of the country. The right hon. the ITime Minister is reported, in a despatch to the Toronto ' Globe ' which is printed with very heavy headlines, as stating that, so far as he is concerned, he would favour guaranteeing the bonds Cor the railway. What bonds ? What route ? What terminals T What conditions ? The amount which the government are to guarantee is not stated. These are the headlines on the despatch which is dated, Ottawa, May 20th :
Bona interest guarantee for Grand Trunk Pacific.
Government policy not decided, but the Premier personally seems disposed to advise an interest guarantee-no land.
Now, Sir, is this as far as the government has got on this great question ? I say we should have some more definite answer from the government with regard to this question which involves one of the greatest projects that has come before this country since the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have had very little satisfaction, and I am very much disappointed with the attitude of the government at this date with regard to this matter.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The interest that has been displayed in this debate and that has been aroused on all questions of transportation, I think, should convince the government that the transportation problem is the most important that they have to deal with. Of course, when I



speak of interest displayed, 1 mean displayed by the House, not by the government-they have not shown much interest in the matter. This question has been before the House ever since I first had the honour of a seat in this chamber. It lias been talked of most earnestly, and, undoubtedly the speakers, and I think all lion, members on botli sides, are in earnest on the subject. This question of how we are to get the products of the North-west to the market, that market being for the most part in Great Britain, is the most important question before the people of Canada to-day. It behoves us, then, to look at this question in the broadest possible way and to grapple with it-not to refer and to defer it from day to day and from year to year. Personally I have expressed my views in this House before on the question of railway subsidies, I have not altered my opinion. I believe that it is vicious, absolutely and entirely, to grant railway bonuses. I would appeal to the lesson taught us by the experience of the United States. I think I am right in saying that for twenty-five years, neither by states nor by the central government, have the American people given any aid to railways ; and I can appeal to my friends from the west, and I think they will not contradict me when I say that there is no lack of railway building in the western states. If the government sees fit to grant aid to railways or to grant aid to public works, that aid should be granted in the general interest of the country and not in the interest of any one section. I contend, however, that the government, in the proposal which we feel is practically before the House, to grant aid to another transcontinental line, is going the wrong way ; as some lion, gentleman has said, it is putting the cart before the horse. By building another railway they will still more cougest our ports, will still more overwhelm our means of export and so will force, to a greater extent than now, export by way of foreign ports. I say that the first thing the government should do in this great question is to carefully look into the matter and make up their minds-if this government have minds that they can make up on any great question, which I very much doubt


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: On subsidies.


Edmund Boyd Osler: 
Mr. R. A. PRINGLE (Cornwall and Stormont).: This discussion has taken a very wide range, and I will only occupy the attention of the House for a moment. In the speech from the Throne, which was delivered on the 13th day of March, we had tills statement:
The great influx of population into our Northwestern Territories and the very large addi-110}
tional areas of fertile lands which are being brought under cultivation combined to further press upon us the need for increasing transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
We have now reached the 26th day of May, and the right hon. the Prime Minister tells us that the commission has not yet been appointed, although we were promised in the speech from the Throne that it would be appointed immediately. We are also told that the government have no settled policy in regard to this transcontinental line. Now, Sir, that is entirely at variance with the utterances of Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, at a meeting held in London on the 16th day of April. He then told his shareholders that this whole matter had been discussed with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Prime Minister of this country, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues had that matter under their consideration, and that there was very little doubt but that substantial assistance would be given to that transcontinental line. He said :
The Bill has been introduced, and the form and extent of the government assistance are under discussion with Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues.
Now, Sir, if, on the 16th day of April, the Bill had been introduced, and the form of the assistance was under discussion by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues, is it not time that we should hear something as to the policy of the government on this great question ? We are dealing with the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill in the Railway Committee, and we are told from time to time by members of the Liberal party in that committee that we should discuss that Bill as if there was to be no subsidy, as if there was to be no assistance from the government. Why, Sir, it would be idle to discuss that Bill on any such idea as that. Sir Charles Rivers Wilson told his people at that meeting in London distinctly that they would not have gone into this great scheme which might involve them in heavy loss unless they were to receive substantial assistance from the government. I am not quoting his exact language, although I have it here. So I say it would be idle for us as members of this House to discuss that Bill on any other basis than that the Grand Trunk Pacific are going to get substantial assistance from this government.
Now, I think before we go further in discussing this important Bill in the Railway Committee, we should know something of the policy of the government on this question. Nobody recognizes more than I do that the time is approaching when a greater Canada than we now know of will exist

west of Winnipeg. We all recognize that the North-west Territories are filling up at a tremendous rate. We all recognize that there may be a necessity for another transcontinental line, or at least a necessity for improved transportation from that country. But, Sir, when a Bill of the magnitude and importance of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill conies before this House, or comes before the Railway Committee, we certainly should have from some member of the government a statement as to the policy of the government in regard to that Bill. We have had no statement from the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) who sits in the committee day in and day out. This is probably one of the most important questions that has come before this parliament for many years, and it is a question of such great importance that the government evidently have not been able to grapple with it and to tell us what their policy is. The hon. member for Alberta (Mr Oliver) has made reference to the cities of Chicago, St. Paul, and other cities, as being the most convenient cities for the people of the North-west Territories to deal with. I would like to say to the hon. member that this is bringing up the old cry that was raised by the western farmers of the United States against that great national policy which was inaugurated in that country in the form of protection. It is the old cry that they had no manufacturing industries in the west and that the policy which was then advocated was only a policy which would benefit the eastern portion o( the United States. I would like to call his attention to the fact that to-day in the state of Nebraska there are 5.414 manufacturing establishments with $71,982,127 of capital, and an annual production of over $143,000,000 ; in Iowa there are over 14.000 establishments; in Missouri over 18,000; in Minnesota over 11,000; in Kansas over 7,000; and in South Dakota, 1,639 establishments. Nearly all of these western states have developed large manufacturing establishments and the day is coming in this country when Winnipeg will develop just as large industries as Chicago has developed. It is poor policy for our friends from the western country to take any narrow or provincial view of this matter. These hon. gentlemen have to take a national view of questions of this sort, because, what is in the interests of the nation certainly should be in the intei-ests of all the different provinces. The government having promised us that this matter would be dealt with immediately we are entitled to know now before this Bill goes any further in the Railway Committee what the policy of the government is going to be in rgerad to this transcontinental line. But, Sir, it is the old policy of delay, the policy of leaving things alone. ' We saw from the utterances of the hon. member from Montreal. St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) how these people acted in regard to


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: the great question of the tariff. Let me just refer to a few words of the speech of the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary s, in regard to the course they pursued in 18Ji. Now, I do not want to go into the question of the tariff, because that question does not form part of this debate, but only to refer to the speech of that hon. gentleman to show the course that these hon. gentlemen pursued. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's, said :
Of course, if the past utterances of some of mv hon. friends of the Liberal party had been carried out. the tariff which is in existence today would not be where it is. W<s would have simply wrecked and destroyed this country. It was out of the question for any government in 1897 to try to carry out the utterances which some public men had delivered in the past.
Canada owes a great deal to the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's, in preventing these hon. gentlemen from carrying out their anti-election pledges which would have destroyed the tariff of this country, and which, to use his own words, would have wrecked and destroyed this Dominion of Canada.


I.C.R.-WINDSOR JUNCTION ACCIDENT.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the attention of the hon. gentleman who is in charge of the House tonight-


An hon. MEMBER.: Wrho is it ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), or the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick).


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Minister of Customs to-night.


Edward Frederick Clarke: On the 19tli of May I asked the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) if he would find it convenient to lay the evidence taken in the inquiry in respect to the cause of the accident at Windsor Junction on the Table of the House. The hon. minister said that he had not intended to do so, but that if I desired, it would be laid on the Table. I did certainly desire to see the evidence and the finding of the commissioner, and on the following day-the 20th of May-I again drew the attention of the right lion. Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who was in his seat, to the matter.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What accident was it ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The accident at Windsor Junction, involving the loss of four lives. The government were so impressed with the importance of having an investigation that a special commissioner was appointed to inquire into the cause of the accident. I asked the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals if he would lay the evidence and the finding of the commissioner on the Table of
34:97

the House and lie promised to do so. On Wednesday last, nearly a week ago, I drew the attention of the right lion, leader of the government to the promise which the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals had made on the previous day. The right hon. gentleman was good enough to say that he would take note of the inquiry. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Customs to the fact that this finding and the evidence have not yet been laid on the Table of the House. I do not desire to take up the time of the House or of the Minister of Railways and Canals in discussing this matter the next time the House goes into Committee of Supply, but I think the hon. minister is in duty bound to implement his pledge by laying this information, which he promised to bring down, on the Table of the House.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: I will take care that the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) are conveyed to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, and I have no doubt that he will be anxious to carry out what he promised to do.


TRADE COMMISSIONER IN LONDON.
Albert Edward Kemp: I would like to make an inquiry of the members of the government. For some years it lias been said that the government intended to appoint a Canadian trade commissioner with an office in London, England. I would like to inquire whether the government have the matter under consideration and whether they are prepared to make any statement in regard to it ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is giving consideration to that question. A gentleman was appointed not long ago to fill a similar position in Birmingham. I think the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has not yet reached a decision as to the man who shall take the position in London. I will mention to him that the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) has asked the question, and he, perhaps, when he is in his place, will be able to give a more definite answer.


TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.
Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I would like to make a few remarks in connection with the subject of discussion which has gone on for the most part of the afternoon and evening. It seems to me that the position which the House finds itself at present, not only in its work here but in its work in another place, seems to indicate that it has not been put in possession of as much information on the subject which every one in the IIousp
seems to think is of very great importance as it must have been. We are constantly hearing that the transportation problem is the great problem before this country, but when we come to discuss this matter we find that apart from the information which individual members can gather, there is nobody of ascertained knowledge on this subject to enable us to determine, what ought be done for the solution of this problem. Judging from the remarks made by our friends from the North-west, this is the great question to them beyond all comparison, but it is a question in which we are all interested and in which the west is not peculiarly concerned. We certainly are interested in the outcome of any action that will be taken by the government as a government in constructing a railroad itself, or, in aiding as it may see fit any companies that are now or may hereafter be disposed to add to the existing railway facilities. Generally speaking we are all agreed that it is highly important that all the products of Canada so far as possible shall be turned in such direction as to be exported from this country through a Canadian port. In view of the light that has been thrown upon the subject to-day, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that arrived at by Sir William Van Horne in his celebrated expression ' that the hopper is too large for the spout.' Sir William Van Horne seems to be the gentleman whom the government is exceedingly anxious to secure as chairman of the Transportation Commission, and Sir William Van Horne has already given all the answer to the question that the commission would possibly give if it sat for months. His Idea is that the urgent tiling in connection with the transportation problem is to develop the facilities for exporting via the port of Montreal.


George Taylor: Enlarge the spout.


Adam Carr Bell: Yes, enlarge the spout. As I understand it, there is an elevator capacity of about 4,000,000 bushels of grain at the port of Montreal, and at the joint ports of Port Arthur and Port William there is now or shortly will be an elevator capacity of 11,000,000 bushels, so that a spout representing
4,000,000 bushels is expected to relieve this hopper of 11,000,000 bushels. It seems certain that what is urgently required now is that some action should be taken inutile direction indicated by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) namely, that for the immediate relief of the situation you do not need the construction of any further railroad in the west at present, but that you urgently need the enlargement of our facilities for export from Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: And on the lakes.


Adam Carr Bell: Yes. I think I saw it stated a few days ago that the Canadian Pacific Railway elevator at Montreal had no legs for discharging barges, so that it presumedly is not in a position to'liandle any traffic com-

ing through our expensive canal system. If that be so, it is remarkable that after Canada has spent over $60,000,000 upon the St. Lawrence canals, there are no facilities at Montreal to discharge the barges which this $00,000,000 of expenditure has enabled to reach the port of Montreal.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We use floating! elevators.


Adam Carr Bell: Yes, they have some floating elevators in Montreal, but on the whole it is perfectly clear that Montreal is not properly equipped at all. You will iind a proof of that in the report of the Montreal Board of Trade which says that in 1902, Montreal handled 15,000,000 bushels of wheat; iu 1901,
12.000.	000 bushels; in 1900, 9,000,000 bushels; and in 1899, 10,000,000 bushels of wheat. Our crops in the North-west have developed to something in the neighbourhood of 100,000,000 bushels last year, and yet we iind that the exports of wheat from the port of Montreal actually declined from 1899 to 1900 by 1,000,000 bushels; only increased the next year by 2,000,000, and in the next year by
3.000.	000 bushels. This refers to wheat alone. The whole trade of Montreal shows that while they exported of grain generally
31.000.	000 bushels in 1899, last year they only exported 19.000,000 bushels or a little more than half the grain that was handled at that port in 1S99. What is the use of all the expenditure made by Canada upon our canal system if the fact remains that the receipts at Montreal from that canal system are practically stationary, or, in view of the enormous increase of grain offering for export, the proportion being handled through the port of Montreal instead of increasing, is, in proportion to the great output of the North-west actually diminishing. In face of these facts, to build another line of railroad in the North-west in order to increase the exports of grain through Canadian ports is going entirely to the wrong place. We are undertaking by that to do something which instead of relieving the present situation will simply aggravate it. The remark was made in the Railway Committee the other day, by a gentleman who spoke for the Grand Trunk Railway, that he could till the port of Montreal to congestion; that lie could till the port of Quebec to congestion-


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman cannot refer to what took place in a committee until it has been reported to the House.
Mr. BELT,. I did not know that I referred to the committee. I thought I had said; in another place.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman mentioned the committee.


Adam Carr Bell: The fact is that one of the Canadian railroads which is now carrying to tile port of Montreal, could last year have sent 5,000,000 bushels more to that port if Montreal had facilities for handling that


Adam Carr Bell: amount of grain. In view of these statements which are undoubtedly correct, if we are going to develop the export trade of Canada so that our grain products can go out of this country through a national port, then the first thing for us to do is to equip that port in such a fashion that it can do the business. I understand that at present the debt represented by the Montreal harbour works is somewhere in the vicinity of $5,000,000. Although I presume the City of Montreal bears a portion of the burden, yet I believe they are not paying or have not paid the interest.
lion. Mr. TARTE. Every cent of interest lias been paid in Montreal.


Adam Carr Bell: I did not think so.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Oh, yes, they are not one cent behind in Montreal. Quebec does not pay the interest.


Adam Carr Bell: I believe that is so. There is an indebtedness of $5,000,000, in the port of Montreal. It is well enough that the city should bear its proportion, but if that port be of national importance as every speaker here assures us, then it is entirely worth the while of the government of Canada to supplement the efforts of the city of Montreal and to equip that port in such a manner that it shall become a great national port. We find that in the ports of the great nations of Europe, they do not hesitate to make very much larger expenditures. If I aui not mistaken, the equipment of the port of Hamburg, lias cost something in the neighbourhood of $75,000,000, and it was undertaken by the country of which that port is the outlet, and is looked upon, I have no doubt, as a good investment. It has been held to-night that it would be impossible to make Montreal the national port -that the very fact that we have spent so much money on it, and that it has not developed to a greater extent than it has. shows that it has not the advantages that it should have to become the national port of Canada.
Mr. BICIvERDIKE. Would the hon. gentleman say how much money the government has spent on the port of Montreal ?


Adam Carr Bell: I understand that the government has not spent anything, but it has advanced moneys to the harbour commissioners, which are looked on as their liabilities. It is held by some that because of what has been done for Montreal by the harbour commissioners without having effected more than it has, therefore the matter is settled, and we have proof that Montreal is really not a national port, and that it is impossible to make it such. This is not my argument ; I am merely repeating what has been stated in the course of this discussion. But when you compare the situation of Montreal with that of the other ports. I do not think you will find any reason for coming to the conclusion. The port

of Glasgow, the greatest port in north Britain, is situated 20 or 21 miles from what was originally the port of West Scotland. The trade instead of stopping at Greenock, tin? old port at the mouth of the river, has been by the expenditure of money carried 20 or 21 miles up the Clyde, and Glasgow, which has not the natural advantages of Montreal, has been developed into the great port of Scotland. In the same way you will find that the great port on the Thames is not at the mouth of the river, but at London, a long distance from the mouth, where the trade is carried only as the result of a large expenditure of money and of the enterprise of the merchants and business people of that city. It seems to me that you can lay it down as a proposition which is almost invariably true, that business will ascend a navigable stream as far as it possibly can ; and the natural feature which fixes the city of Montreal where it is, is the Lachine rapids, which make it impossible for trade to go further up the river. I feel convinced that Montreal is the natural port: and while some of the great ocean carriers drawing from 30 to 40 feet of water may stop at Quebec, nothing can take the trade away from Montreal except the construction of a' great railroad through the northern country, which could bring the trade as cheaply to the port of Quebec as it could be brought to the port of Montreal. If that project should be carried out, then Quebec would probably compete with Montreal ; but apart from that, I have no doubt that what has been the history of the country in the past will continue to be its history in the future. Quebec was not behind Montreal in the beginning ; but in the course of time business following its natural channels has made a selection of Montreal, so that Montreal has developed to be the greatest city of Canada, while Quebec lias remained where it lias been for a long time. An lion, member speaking to-night has expressed the view that if the railroad under contemplation is to be constructed in a manner to meet the wishes of the people of the maritime provinces, it is absolutely essential that they should agree in selecting a port. It does not seem to me that that is more incumbent on the people of the maritime provinces that it is incumbent on the people of the province of Quebec to make a choice between Quebec and Montreal. These ports may grow up side by side, and we hope to see tile ports of Halifax and St. .John developed side by side to a certain extent. St. John has advantages in the matter of distance, not very important, but so far sufficient to decide that all the heavy traffic carried to maritime province ports should go to St. John. But, I do not feel at all compelled to assent to the proposition that you must limit a country or any district of a country to one port. What we do find is that business, in seeking its outlet through this country is, to such an extent as to make its operations very plain, following
the line of least resistance. In the case of the maritime provinces, the fact that St. John is taking the export business rather than Halifax is simply because of the advantage of a few miles. If the port of St. John be the choice of the current traffic, because of the difference of a very limited number of miles indeed in comparison with transcontinental distances, then it seems that in dealing with this question of transcontinental transportation, we should have in view the shortest possible distance that can be obtained from the grain-growing districts of the west to some port on the Atlantic seaboard ; and apparently it is necessary to go as far north as possible, where the parallels are shortest, to obtain that shortened distance which is the determining factor in these matters. The greatest differences of opinion have been expressed in this House on important elements of this question. We had one lion, gentleman contend that the North-west country required not one new transcontinental line, but possibly two. We had the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals on the other hand say that the Canadian Pacific Railway could handle three times the trade it has now. The most diverse and contradictory opinions are expressed, and there is an absolute want of knowledge that must be had before this question can be satisfactorily dealt with. In reference to such a very important question all the information that can possibly be got should be obtained and laid on the Table of the House, and it seems to me that the mode in which the government proposes to get the information is not a very satisfactory or . efficient one. They propose to appoint a commission, and, judging from the names of the gentlemen mentioned in the House to-day, I do not believe their findings would carry a great deal of weight in the House or in the country. The only man who can be looked upon as the master of the subject, we are told, will not accept the position, and the other men whose names have been mentioned are not men of very great weignt.
The other gentlemen suggested are not, as far as I can understand, men whose opinions would carry a great deal of weight. I cannot see any great necessity for a commission to investigate this matter. There cannot be any great difficulty in arriving at certain facts. The government could very easily make the inquiries necessary, obtain the statistics required, and put the House in possession of all the facts necessary to determine what course should be followed. If grain can be carried, as was shown to-day by my hon. friend from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) from Duluth to New York at three cents to four cents per bushel, there is no reason why it should not be carried at a lower rate from Duluth or any other lake port through our canal system down to Montreal. Otherwise all the findings of the commission which investigated this question of the

I'elative cost of carriage by water and by rail, in the interests of the United States, are at fault. We have every reason to believe that we have in our lakes and canal system, a channel through which freight can be carried at cheaper rates to the seaboard than it can be by any other route in any part of the continent. If this be not the case, there can be no confidence at all in the opinion generally held as to the comparative cost of moving freight by rail and water. This opinion is confirmed by this fact that, as far as possible, freight seeks the water route. From the prairies it comes to the nearest lakeport, then it follows the water route until it arrives at Buffalo, where it reaches the end of lake navigation for large freight carriers. It only takes the railway when compelled to do so by accident or by necessity. We have in Canada a canal system of fourteen feet navigation, and we have the findings of the American commission recommending' that the Brie canal be deepened to fourteen feet. That commission decided against making waterways of greater depth and against using large vessels or ocean carriers in canal navigation. The cost of carrying these large and expensive vessels at the low rate of speed compulsory in passing through a canal system rendered the smaller boats much more economical. Well, Mr. Speaker, we are to-day in the possession of just such a system ns this American commission says is what the United States require. Yet we find the traffic of the port of Montreal is worse than stationary; we find that in three years it declined from 30,000,000 bushels of grain to 20,000,000. Why then go to great expense in building other railways ? Why do not the government use their intelligence to find out the fatal flaw which prevents the port of Montreal from realizing the advantages which, according to this American commission, would be realized by the port of New York if that port were equipped with a fourteen foot canal such as serves Montreal to-day. Montreal is in possession of the very canal system which the American commission say New York requires in order it may get back the trade which lias been diverted from it. Yet Montreal, which ought to be the great exporting point on the North American continent during the summer months, is practically, so far as the grain trade is concerned, not only stationery but a long way behind the position it occupied in 1899, and this, in spite of the fact that the grain exports of this country have doubled or trebled in the course of those three years. In view of these facts, which cannot be controverted, the idea of asking the people of Canada to submit to an expenditure or liability in the shape of endorsing or guaranteeing bonds for the purpose of building another railway to compete with those already existing-not to bring business to Montreal because there is no use of bringing business where it cannot be handled, but to Ontario, whence it must be diverted to the port of Portland, is absurd. It would mean asking the people of Canada to throw away their money on a piece of work which could not do this country a particle of good. If it is necessary to increase the facilities for moving freight from the western end of Lake Superior and the lakeports on the Georgian bay to Montreal, I am satisfied that it could be effected in a much cheaper way than by building a new and independent line. No one has yet pretended to show that any such line is required; no one has set up the contention that the Canadian Pacific Kailway is overburdened with traffic on that portion of its system extending from the western end of Lake Superior to Montreal or to any points in Ontario. There is no necessity for increasing the facilities for hauling freight by rail from Port Arthur to any Ontario point because no freight or very little comes in that direction at all. Our object is to gather into elevators on the lake front the grain of the west and they send it by steamers to Buffalo. Midland, Port Colborne, or some other point on the Georgian bay. There is nothing at all to show any necessity for increasing the capacity of the railway for carrying freight over that particular distance, and yet a great part of the expenditure this country would be called upon to make, if it were to subsidize or in any way assist the new transcontinental railway, would be applied to increasing the facilities over that portion of country, which, so far as we have reason to know, requires no further facilities. But if it were necessary to increase the railway capacity between the extreme west of Ontario and the Ontario Peninsula, then it seems to me that that might be done at a very much less cost than by building a new and independent railway, which would not only be very expensive, but would impair, to a certain extent, the efficiency of the railway system already in existence. It is a fundamental principle that we should not set up competition which would injure existing rights.
We know that it is a principle that we shall not parallel an existing line and induce a competition which will impair the efficiency of both the old road and the new. A work that would, to my mind, give increased haulage to that section-if it were required, which I maintain it is not-would be to assist the Canadian Pacific Railway to double track its system over that part. Generally speaking, while I think it is not hard to show that another transcontinental railway is not wanted and cannot be justified at present to the people of Canada who are to be asked to pay for it, I think that a large amount of influence ought to be exerted upon the government of Canada to make a positive declaration of their intentions in this regard. In the Railway Committee, which is to meet to discuss the questions which are before the House and the govern-


Adam Carr Bell: ment, as was very well pointed out by the hon. member for Cornwall and Stormont (Mr. Pringle), the knowledge of the course the government is prepared to take In regard to this matter is an essential feature. If you are asked whether you will grant a charter to another line of railway, that in itself is not a difficult matter to decide- you treat it as you would treat any other question, and consider whether it would be a disadvantage or an advantage to set up a competing line, or to open a line through new territory. But the really important question must be and ought to be settled before any reasonable result can be reached by the committee, and this involves a clear declaration on the part of the country as to whether or not they propose to give assistance by a money grant or extensive guarantee to the construction of any such public work. It is not enough-it is not enough by any means-for one gentleman or another to rise in this House and assert that the transportation problem is a great problem. That may be quite true. But the more important that problem becomes the more important it is that we should approach it intelligently, and that we should know every detail in connection with it ; that we should not blindly or ignorantly put our hand to the work of effecting what we think would be an amendment or improvement, where, perhaps, instead of effecting that amendment or improvement, we may be aggravating the situation and at the same time adding enormously to the burdens of the people of Canada.	.


Mr. GEORGE A. CLARE (South Waterloo).: It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the House, but I cannot let the motion pass without saying a few words. I was very much surprised by the remarks made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) this afternoon in reply to the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I was particularly surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman say it was unfair that he had not received notice of the subject brought up by the leader of the opposition. It has been stated by the Liberal press and by many of the Liberal members of this House that this government is a government of business men, who understand the affairs of the country. I have also understood from many hon. gentlemen on the other side that the question of transportation was one of the most important questions before the House. It was surprising to me, therefore, that the Prime Minister should feel that he was taken unaware when he was asked to lay before the House and the country his policy on the question of transportation. As usual, the hon. gentleman from North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), who is the apologist for this government on every occasion, cropped up, and delivered one of his usual interesting speeches. It was also very interesting to me, and, I think, to every member of this House, to hear him speak of the patriotism we should show on this question of transportation and how we should forget our party feelings and work to develop a transportation policy which would be for the benefit of the country at large. It seems to me the hon. gentleman has not always been the patriot that he asks us this afternoon to think he is. When we think of him preaching throughout this country commercial union and unrestricted reciprocity, I do not think we can regard him as acting patriotically towards this country. And, for eighteen long years, according to the confession he made to the House last year, that hon. gentleman preached the policy of free trade, although in 1876 and 1877 he had urged his leader to support a policy of protection as being more in the interest of the country. It appears to me quite plain that, before' the Railway Committee meets tomorrow to take up the question of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the government should take us into their confidence and tell us what assistance they intend to give to that company. We have not had the policy of the government laid before us, and have no means of judging what that assistance may be. But we do know that Sir Charles Rivers Wilson has stated to the directors and shareholders of the Grand Trunk Railway that it shall not cost the shareholders a cent, that with the assistance that is to be given by the government, and other means, they will be able to build the entire road from the Atlantic to the Pacific. If that is the case, I think it is fair that the Railway Committee should not pass a charter to that company. The business of the country would not be delayed if the government should take us into their confidence in this subject. I also think this House should adjourn now. We have had this transportation question discussed all this afternoon and evening, and only a few of the ministers have been present. The Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair) has not been in his seat this afternoon, nor has the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). These are the men who should tell us what the policy of the government is on this subject.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Law books and freight thereon, for the use of the bench and bar, and stationery and freight thereon for use of courts, $2,500.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of that item, law books for use of Bar ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are doing at Dawson as we did in the Northwest Territories. Up to two years ago, the law library was provided at the court house at Regina, and two years ago when a Bar Association was formed the library was handed over to the association and has been

kept up by them since. At Dawson we have adopted the same system of establishing a library for the use of the bench and the bar of the court-house, where both judges and the members of the bar have access to it. But as soon as a bar association Is formed at Dawson we shall hand the library over to them as we did at ltegina.


Robert Laird Borden: In all the eastern provinces I believe the law libraries are kept altogether by the bar associations. 1 do not know the size of the bar, so far as members are concerned, in the Yukon Territory, but assuming that there is any considerable bar there, one would suppose that they should contribute something to that purpose out of their own resources, possibly not all. Is the minister able to state whether any portion of the expenditure on the library is borne by the local bar ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 1 do not know what the local bar contributes. I know that the library up to the present time has not cost us a great deal of money. But with respect to the books in the library, I think they have all been purchased by the government and have been sent there for the common use of the judges and of the lawyers. My hon. friend will realize what an expensive luxury it is to get law books in there at all. It costs almost as much to pay the freight on them as it does to buy the books themselves. We paid $700 freight on one lot of law books which cost $1,700.
Miscellaneous expenses, including fees and expenses of Crown prosecutor, salary and living allowance of stenographer for police court, and other officials or employees connected with the administration of justice, coroners' inquests, &c., &c., $25,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I promised the other night to give information on several items of the estimates then under discussion, one with respect to contingencies of the Supreme Court. 1 promised the leader of the opposition that I would supply detailed information with respect to that item, and the information I now have before me. I find the details with respect to this item to be :	Sheriff and constables, $5 per
day during session, approximately, $500 to $000; registrar, as editor and publisher of reports, $000; usher, $100; books for judges, $300; salaries of messengers, about $400; reporting for newspapers, $100; total $2,100. The other items are the following :	Binding
for Supreme Court library, about $500; insurance on library last year, $2S5; postage, including that required for distribution of the Supreme Court reports, approximately, $000; printing for the office, including mailing lists for Supreme Court reports, $300; stationery for judges and office of Supreme Court, $750; telegrams for judges and office $250; rental of telephones and long distance messages, $250; cabs, used mainly in conveying books to and from the library to houses of judges, $250.


Charles Fitzpatrick: With respect to the leave of abseuce given to Sheriff Eilbeck, I lind that on the 3rd of July, 1901, he applied for leave of absence during the vacation of the Dawson bar, which commences October 1, and lasts to February 1. He complained of ill health, and informed the deputy Minister of Justice that the business of his office would be well looked after by his deputy, who is a thoroughly capable and reliable man. The Deputy Minister of Justice, on the 4th of September, 1901, informed the sheriff that in view of what lie had stated in regard to the business of the office being well looked after, there would be no objection to his having leave during the bar vacation. The leave of absence was subsequently extended for a month to 1st of March, 1902. Last year when my estimates were under consideration there was a discussion on this matter, which will be found in ' Hansard,' page 3580. Now with respect to the employment of Sheriff Eilbeck as auctioneer, this statement is furnished me :
Regarding the employment of Mr. R. J. Eilbeck, sheriff of the Yukon, as auctioneer to conduct sales under this department, I beg to say that during the years 1900 and 1901 the Department of the Interior decided upon disposing of all the fractional claims owned by the government in the Yukon by public auction, regarding which full notice was given. (Fractional claims are those portions which remainover after a survey has been made, and are really the difference between the lands as staked by the miner-which in nearly every case exceed the limit of a claim-and the area as afterwards found by survey. All these fractions then become the property of the government).
The arrangement in the first place for the employment of Mr. Eilbeck was made by the then assistant gold commissioner, Mr. J. Lan-glois Bell, and the commission paid at that time was three per cent. The department, however, later on decided that this commission was too much and on a later sale held in January reduced it to two per cent. The assistant gold commissioner in explanation of his engagement of Sheriff Eilbeck as auctioneer stated that he was afraid there would he some collusion with regard to the sale between other auctioneers and persons who might attend the sale, and that he had already heard a rumour to that effect. Consequently he undertook to engage the services of Sheriff Eilbeck.
It may be mentioned that the list of claims sold included a large number and the price realized did not average a very high figure.
Mr. Eilbeck was, of course, known to be well qualified, and perhaps was the best qualified of any of the persons whose services might have been had at the time to ma.ke the sale a satisfactory one. His fees for the various sales which he conducted amounted to $2,751.37.
The engagement of the sheriff was made by an official of the Department of the Interior, and we had nothing whatever to* do with his engagement. As a matter of fact, when the attention of the Department of Justice was drawn to the fact that he had received this large sum of money for services rendered as auctioneer, the assistant Gold Commissioner was notified by the De-

partment of Justice that his services were not available for any such purpose, and the Department of Justice was assured that the sheriff's services would thereafter be devoted exclusively to the performance of his duties as sheriff.


George Taylor: I wanted to show how much this sheriff is costing the country. 1 see in the statement the minister has furnished the lender of the opposition that it includes $5 a day out of the general expenses.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That statement furnished to the leader of the opposition has reference to the contingencies with respect to the Supreme Court here


George Taylor: I find that he drew from one department of this government, for fourteen days work, $2,751, acting os auctioneer, and at the same time he was paid as government official by another department for services the year round, a salary of $7,000, besides living expenses of $1,80(1 Over and above that he retains half the fees, amounting that year to $1,810. Altogether he drew $8,370. He is rather an expensive luxury. At the same time he was given leave of absence to come down and attend to the election in West Durham. He was there during the entire by-election, taking an active part, and was instrumental in returning a government supporter. Perhaps this may account for the very large sum he drew for fourteen days services just previously because as we know he received $2,751 from this government for fourteen days work. Did he receive this money for the purpose of spending it in West Durham V I think that should be condemned by every hon. member of this House whether he he a government supporter or a member of the opposition, and I hope, before the session is over, we will draw the attention of the House to that question and hsk the sense of the House as to whether the government is justified in paying to one of its officials who is in receipt oj a yearly salary $2,751 for fourteen days work. I think it ia an outrage upon this country.
lowance, putting an end to all perquisites. Then the question arose : How are we to fix the living allowance? I asked Mr. Cory, who is now and has been for many years connected with the Department of the Interior, to proceed to Dawson in connection with an investigation he was making into the affairs of the officials of the Department of the Interior, and to make an audit of the accounts of those who are connected witli the Department of Justice. The result of that was that he made a report recommending that certain salaries should be paid to these officials in lieu of the allowances they had been receiving theretofore and that they should be paid a certain amount in the way of living allowances. This report was based upon the information which he gathered in the country, but not content with that, I inquired of officials connected with the mounted police, and I asked them to give me some data upon which I might determine the amount of these living allowances. The information which I received from the commissioner of the Noi'th-west Mounted Police is to the effect that rent in the Yukon for a small house is $150 a month. That makes $l,SO0 a year. Wood, say fifty cords, which is a small allowance, as it runs up as high as seventy-five sometimes, $12 per cord, making $000; light, water, &c., $300; servants, say two, at from $100 to $150 a month, two of them would amount to about $1,800 a year. Now, I am told that all house furnishings and domestic necessaries, may be estimated at from three to four times the value of similar articles if purchased in the east. Fresli meat is from thirty to seventy-five cents per pound, according to the cut and the supply on hand. Butter from forty to sixty cents a pound; tomatoes retailing in Ottawa at ten cents a can are thirty-three cents a can in Dawson; peas, fifty cents a can; fresh potatoes, eight to ten cents per pound. The allowance of $5,000 which is paid to the judges barely covers the cost of house, wood, light and servants.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The stenographers come under a smaller scale ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. Minister of Justice was also kind enough to say that when we reached Supply he would advise us in regard to the principle of paying living allowances and why the telegraphers should be discriminated against. They seem to be the only paid government officials who have no living allowances made to them.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Stenographers get $1,800.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What about telegraphers ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am not concerned with them. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) must not get me beyond my depth.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When I took charge of the Department of Justice, it occurred to me that possibly it was an anomalous practice to allow gentlemen living at such a distance away to take any share of the fees paid into the government offices, and I thought it would be much safer for the administration of justice that these gentlemen should be paid a certain fixed salary and a certain amount by way of living al-


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understood the hon. minister to say that wages of servants were from $100 to $150 a month.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I find that telegraphers are paid from $90 to $100 a month, and there is no allowance made to them.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There may have been a change lately.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We can get that information probably later.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, I think that would be safer.
Dominion police, including one junior second-class clerk. A. J. Cawdron, at $700, notwithstanding anvthing in the Civil Service Act, $30,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is tlie same ns last year. In respect to the proviso ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act' my memorandum from the commissioner of police says that Cawdron Is a clerk there now and receives $500 a year. It was proposed to increase him to $700 a year. He acts as clerk and stenographer in the office of the commissioner, he has been in the public service for eleven years, during nine and a half of which he has held his present position. He has passed both the preliminary and qualifying examinations and discharges his duties in a satisfactory manner. I think that a man who acts as clerk and stenographer to the commissioner should get $700 a year, and I have decided to give it to him with the permission of the House.
Penitentiaries-general, $7,820.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is an increase of $1,500.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In respect to penitentiaries my hon. friend (Sir. Clarke) will find that in the general vote there has been a decrease of $17,570.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the cause of the increase of $1,500 in this vote ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The increase is caused by the removal from Kingston of Mr. Adams, the architect, whose salary hitherto has been charged to Kingston, notwithstanding that his services were available for all the penitentiaries in the Dominion. I have had him removed to Ottawa, where he can be more directly in contact with the inspector and other officials with the result that instead of charging $1,000 to Kingston we charge it now to the general penitentiary fund. Then there is an increase in office contingencies of $500. In the office here we have not only an architect, but we have also a general accountant, who passes on the accounts of all the penitentiaries. I have removed Mr. Creighton from Kingston so as to enable us to have direct control over all the penitentiaries in the central office. This has enabled us to make this large decrease that my hon. friend has noticed.
Kingston, $178,(100.
Mr. SPIiOULE. There is a decrease here.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a decrease of $8,900 in Kingston in part as a result of the reorganization of


Charles Fitzpatrick: the binder twine industry and generally of the system of keeping the accounts. Mr. Creighton was the accountant there at a salary of $1,200 a year and he has been brought here to Ottawa because he is a very efficient and capable young man and we thought he was entitled to promotion. Mr. Adams who acted as architect for all the work that was done at the penitentiaries has also been brought to Ottawa, and his salary was formerly charged to Kingston. Mr. Hughes the chief keeper and clerk of the cordage industry has also been promoted, and the others have been changed to other positions or allowed to go. The balance, $5,000 is a decrease in the working expenses.


George Taylor: On the first of May the warden of the Kingston penitentiary issued a circular which I presume was distributed to all the members of the House, stating the price at which the twine would be sold to the farmers this year and it quoted pure manilla 050 feet to the pound at 111 ceids. To-day I received the same circular of May the first, 'but stamped across it is ' the 050 feet twine all sold a few days after this circular was issued.' Can the minister tell me to whom all that 050 feet twine was sold and at what price.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot say to whom it was sold, but the price was the price mentioned in the circular. The price was estimated on this basis ; we took the estimated cost of manufacture per pound, the cost of the raw material, the expenditure for bags and paper and repairs and renewals ; we took the convict labour at the price of free labour ; the cost of salaries, advertising, &c.; depreciation of plant at five per cent and interest at three per cent, and having added all these items we were in a position to offer the twine at the price mentioned.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman get us the information as to who purchased that twine, and whether it was sold by tender or not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It was not sold by tender. A circular was issued to farmers fixing the price at which they could purchase the twine, and that was done under instructions from the House, as the House had determined the conditions under which the twine would be offered for sale, namely, first come first served.


George Taylor: This circular says ' for farmers only ' and leaves the impression that tlie twine was to be sold to the farmers of the country. We did not receive this circular until several days after the first of May, and now we receive another saying that this particular class of twine was all sold. I want to know to whom it was sold.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In July, August and September, 1902. we manfactur-

ed 110 tons. The mill was stopped until January because the price of inanilla was fo high that we did not think it profitable to carry on the industry. In January, February and March, 1903. we made (51 tons so that there was only 171 tons to be sold of all sorts. I understand that the hon. gentleman asks to whom the twine was sold, what quantity was sold to each, and the price. I will get that information.


George Taylor: I refer to the (550 feet quality.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A price list was sent out last year to the farmers and only a small portion of the twine was sold to farmers, but before the season was nearly over the balance of the twine was sold to one individual, and sold to him at about half the price the farmers were charged for it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend will remember that a resolution was passed by the House some years ago which restricted the sale of twine exclusively to farmers. Notices were sent out and farmers were asked to take the twine, but at the end of the fiscal year more than two thirds of the twine was on hand. What was done was done in conformity with the instructions of the House. There was nothing left for us to do then but to offer it for sale by auction, and Mr. Henderson Black, of St. John, bought the twine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At what price was it sold by auction.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At four and four-fifths cents, and five and one-tenth cents. When this matter was under discussion last year before the "Committee on Agriculture, the committee came to the conclusion that a mistake had been made and they cancelled the former resolution of the House, and reported in favour of the matter being dealt with by the Department of Justice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I complain of is that the price at which the twine was offered to the farmers was quite as high as they could buy it at almost any retail store in the country, and in the opinion of many it was more than the twine actually cost. Had it been sold to the farmers at anything like the price that it was sold for to this individual at auction, it would have been snapped up so quickly by them that there would have been none left before the season was half over. The farmers did not get an opportunity of buying it at a reduced price, but some favoured individual bought the balance at about one-third the price that the farmers could buy it. If the twine had to be sold at a reduction, surely the farmers ought to have had an opportunity to share in the advantage as well as some speculator.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend is not fair in making that statement.
The House, not the Department of Justice, decided in 1901 that the twine must be sold exclusively to the farmers of this country. Not only did they do that, but they fixed the price at which it should be sold to the farmers, that price being the cost of the raw material plus the actual cost of manufacture. So that the Department of Justice had no responsibility whatever in fixing the I>rice, we having simply conformed to the resolution adopted by the House. We found, however, that the farmers did not want it. and my hon. friend says that we then sold it to favoured individuals. After the expiration of the time during which it could be marketed, we advertised for tenders, and it was sold to the gentleman who made the highest bid for it; and if my hon. friend will ask the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) who knows Mr. Henderson Black, of St. John, he will tell him that that gentleman would not be likely to be much favoured by the present government if there was any politics in it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At what time was the twine sold ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Immediately after the first of July. That was the date fixed by the resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can tell the hon. gentleman one thing, that if the farmers of Canada had known that the binder twine was for sale at any such price, it would have been taken very readily and very rapidly by them. But the price at which the twine was calculated was about the same as the price at which you could buy the product of any other factory in any hardware in the country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But my hon. friend knows that the responsibility was not with us. He knows that we were acting in conformity with the resolution passed by the House. After the resolution had been in operation for a year, however, it was considered that we had made a mistake. I take my share of the responsibility for it, because the resolution was carried by a unanimous vote; but after it was in operation one year, it was found to be so unjust in its operation, that it was decided to withdraw the resolution and leave the Department of Justice to fix the price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister give us the calculation showing how the price was fixed ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We estimated the cost of manufacture based on the actual cost during the seasons of 1898-99, and 1899-1900. We took the number of pounds manufactured and added the cost of oil, bags, &c,; repairs and renewals; that convict labour; allow five per cent for depreciation of plant and three per cent for interest on the outlay; then add the actual 1 cost of the raw material, and I may say

that in the purchase of the raw material we enjoyed certain advantages, taking advantage of the lowest price, and of course having the cash to pay for the material. These are the items taken into account in fixing the price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do the number of pounds of raw materia] represent the number of pounds of binder twine you turn out ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The inspector tells me that by the Auditor General's Report it would appear that there were 137,000 pounds of raw material manufactured. That would produce about the same number of pounds of binder twine-1 speak subject to correction, because I do not know very much about this business-because the oil supplements what is lost in the way of waste.


Mr. BLAIN.: Do I understand the minister to state that the binder twine was sold last year on the terms of the resolution passed by the House ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, up to the first of July, 1902.


Richard Blain: That was altered by the resolution adopted by the committee.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The resolution of the committee was passed on May 9th, 1902, but I read the resolution as being applicable to the next season'^ out-Piit. It would not apply to that season's output, because we had issued circulars all over the country offering the twine to the farmers at a price which we had fixed in accordance with the resolution of the House. The resolution passed by the committee on August is applicable to the output of this year, but not to that of last year.


Richard Blain: I thought the complaint of the hon. minister to the committee was that the resolution called on the department to sell the twine on hand on the first of July by tender ; and when that matter was up for consideration in the comrqittee last year the committee passed a resolution setting aside that portion of the resolution of the House calling for tenders and the department were not called on to offer the twine for sale by public tender after July the first. That was my understanding of the matter when it was up in the committee.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think that was about what was done. Here are the words of the resolution reported by the select Committee on Agriculture :
The committee having heard and considered the evidence of the officers in charge of the manufacture and sale of binder twine at Kingston penitentiary, recommend that binder twine industry thereat be continued, and the product sold directly to the farmers of Canada; and that the responsibility of fixing the date up to which such sale should be made to the farmers be left with the Department of Justice.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Richard Blain: That being the case, it is hardly fair that such a large quantity should have been sold at such a low price. Last year the complaint was that a resolution compelling the department to sell binder twine on hand, July the first by public tender, was against the best interests of the department.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I find that I was entirely wrong. The selling of the stock on hand was made in July, 1901, and nob last year. The inspector tells me that the output of last year was sold entirely to farmers. The sale in 1901 was made to Henderson Black, of St. John.


Richard Blain: That is the item in the Auditor General's Report at five and one-tenth cents ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, at page M-47.


George Taylor: Are Henderson Black and John Connor, of Ottawa, one and the same person ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot tell you. My own impression, since I have had anything to do With the department, is that every sale of binder twine at auction or by tender or in any other form, has in some way been made to Mr. John Connor, and as a result of that, I have made a change in the binder twine factory at Kingston, and Mr. Connor's brother has ceased to be superintendent.


Richard Blain: All the twine made last year was sold direct to the farmers, and that system has proved a success ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: Here is a circular which was issued May the first, fixing the prices for the current year. It seems to me very strange tpat a second lot of circulars should be issued so soon saying the binder twine 650 feet to the pound was all sold. Surely all this twine was not sold direct to the farmers ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There was only manufactured in all last year SO.-000 pounds of twine 650 feet to the pound, of which we had less than a ton on hand at the beginning of the season. That was snapped up by the farmers immediately. There are 200,000 pounds still remaining of twine 600 feet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who was the lucky man got that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The man who came first.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Do you know his name ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will get it.


Richard Blain: There ought to be some dis-I eussion as to whether this system ought to

continue. I have no desire to unduly criticise the department for no doubt they are doing their best. I am personally a little interested because it was I who brought up the resolution turn years ago instructing the department to sell the twine direct to the farmers. That portion of the resolution calling for sale by tender on July the first, I am not responsible for, as I had nothing to do with it. Last year the committee struck out that portion of the resolution. With that portion set aside, the system of selling to the farmers at cost or about the cost has been successful ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, this year also. We cannot make the twine fast enough.


Richard Blain: I think it rather strange that in this circular issued May the first:, and the other circular issued May twenty-second, we are told that all the best twine is sold. It looks as if one or two put in an application and bought it at a fixed price. I think that the department should continue the manufacture of this twine in larger quantities and sell it direct to the farmers. The department are quite right when they say that they should not be bound down to offer a commodity by public tender, because I am sure that when the farmers understand that they can purchase their binder twine direct from the institution every year, they will purchase their full quantity of twine from the government. This being a business government, the department will, no doubt, be able to do what is right, and see that all this twine is sold direct to the farmers. And in such case, we should not find such large items ns these $18,000 sold to an individual, another $11,000 sold to another individual, neither being farmers.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That was a good while ago.


Richard Blain: It was some time ago. I accept that explanation. There should not be any disposition on the part of the government to abolish the manufacture of binding twine in that Kingston penitentiary, but rather to increase it, and put as much binder twine into the market as possible in order, in some measure, to keep down the prices.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This is an industry in which necessarily a great number of people are interested. It is one of which I can personally know but very little, but which I am anxious to see successful. 1 think it would be very useful if the Committee on Agriculture would fix a day for the purpose of discussing this question of binder twine. I would be on hand and have my officials present, and we would have the benefit of the experience of those in the House who are conversant with, the business.


Mr. FRASER.: If the government will take my advice they will sell the whole1
machinery or send it to the junk shop and save money.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Send $40,000 of machinery to the junk shop ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would do it immediately. Here we have a resolution at one time ordering the government to do a certain thing and at another session the House lays down another rule. The idea of parliament making rules for the sale of binding twine-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a statute governing that in the United States.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I would not care to follow that precedent. I believe that this was begun for political purposes-to try to make the farmers believe that the government was going to help them by reducing binder twine. And so it has been carried on. I think the wise thing to do is to let the farmers or the manufacturers produce the binder twine. A number of farmers have gone into this business, and I think there are seven or eight binder twine factories in Canada to-day. Why should the government, assuming the expense and doing little else, go into competition with them ? We are told that about 800 farmers have bought our binder twine. What is that number compared with all the farmers in Canada. I think the quicker we get rid of this as a business speculation the better. It will always be coming up in this same way ; no matter what party is in power, fault will always be found as to the method of carrying on the business. It is not a business for a government to go into, and I do not think that the results have proved beneficial either to the farmers or to the government.


Albert Edward Kemp: What other lines of merchandise are the government interested in coming under the management of the Department of Justice ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am happy to say I have only binder twine-besides the quarrying of stone at St. Vincent de Paul and making brick in British Columbia.


Albert Edward Kemp: I should think it would not be a very serious task for one of the minister's qualification to become an authority on one line of business. Since the question was brought up in the House, he tells us lie has paid great attention to the subject, and it seems to me he ought to have it down fine by this time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) overates my ability. I humbly confess it.


Haughton Lennox: I am greatly surprised by the attitude of the hon. member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser). However, I do not know that I ought to be surprised. Last year, I called the attention of the committee

to the fact-a more than ordinarily gratifying one-that one minister of the Crown was prepared to take the representatives of the people into his confidence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is that ?


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Justice. That lion, gentleman said he would be glad to have the advice of the opposition in his endeavour to make his industry more successful than it had been in the past. I think that is the proper way to approach such questions as this. I do not know whether that accounts for the warmth, the excitement, I may say, of the hon. member for Guysborough. I was afraid for a moment that we were going to have another of those family quarrels with which we have been so familiar in the past. I think however, that the Minister of Justice prevented this coming to a crisis. Now, 1 hope this industry will be continued. The hon. member for Guysborough asks us what arc seven or eight hundred farmers. I do not know that they are a large number compared with the entire population of the Dominion, or with the number of farmers of the Dominion. They are not a very large number in proportion to the amount of wealth that is invested in the farms of this country. But, if we can assist seven or eight hundred farmers, and if we can extend this industry in the way suggested by the hon. member for Peel-and particularly if the hon. minister continues to receive the able assistance of the opposition-this will be one of the most successful branches of the public service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) desires this manufacture of binder twine under the government to be done away with. That hon. gentleman is more interested in fishermen than in farming. But the whole number of those engaged in farming is far greater than the number engaged in fishing. I am sure he would raise very serious objections if any hon. member of this House proposed doing away with something that was in the interest of the fishermen, and I think we have equal ground for objecting to his observations. He said, in the first place, that this factory was started for political purposes. Whatever purpose it was started for, it had one beneficial result and that was keeping down the cost of binder twine to the farmer. That is a fact that cannot be successfully contradicted. From the time that the factory in Kingston penitentiary began to turn out and sell binder twine, until the present government came into office, the farmers got their binder twine at lower prices than they ever got it for in Canada before or since. And why was this ? Because the government that then controlled the factory provided that the person purchasing the binder twine should sell it to the farmers at not more than 10 per cent profit. So, if any farmer found


Haughton Lennox: that he was obliged to pay a higher figure for binder twine elsewhere he could apply to the Kingston penitentiary and purchase it at this low price, viz., 10 per cent above that for which it was sold wholesale. During the time that this factory was under the management of the predecessors of hon. gentlemen opposite who now control it, what were the farmers paying for binder twine ? They were paying from five and a half cents to seven and a half cents per liound. But when this government took control of it and began to sell it to speculators under their system-a very improper system as we contend-the manufacturers throughout the country were able to reach an understanding as to what they should sell it at. The same speculators bought up Die output of the Kingston penitentiary, and of the Central prison of Toronto, and controlling the output of these factories, they appear to have reached an agreement with other manufacturers of twine that all would sell at the same figure no matter where it was manufactured. Therefore, the farmer was obliged to pay a very much higher price than before. And, from that time to the present, binder twine has remained at a high figure. We say that binder twine has been at a high figure, because the output of the Kingston penitentiary has been improperly handled by the government. Why,, who got the output of the binder twine from that factory ? Mr. H. N. Bate, of Ottawa, the Hobbs Hardware Company, of London, and Mr. Connor, of St. John. When tenders were asked for the purchase of this twine, there appears to have been an understanding between them, so it did not matter who got the binder twine, they all shared in the profits.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Played Hobbs with the whole business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The result of it was that the government paid Hobbs with the whole industry, and the farmers suffered in consequence. We remember very well when tenders were asked for and were put in by H. N. Bate, of Ottawa, and by the Hobbs Hardware Company, of London, and one by Connors as well. The contract was given to a firm in London, and when they were called upon to put up their forfeit the reply was that the Connors Company would put it up here in Ottawa-showing conclusively that they were in collusion.
The same parties who had conti'ol of the output at the Central Prison controlled the output at Kingston as well and then they sold it as they saw fit. The farmers were obliged to pay from nine and a half to twelve and a half cents a pound for their Wilder twine, whereas the year before the highest price paid was about seven and a half cents a pound for the best twine. Now we claim that increased price was a consequence of the improper way in which it was sold by the government.


Hob. Hr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: What about the cost of the raw material ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The cost for three years was very much the same, averaging about four and a half cents a pound. It has been shown over and over again by the Auditor General's Report that during the three years when binder twine was' sold at the very highest price to the farmer, the cost of the raw material was practically about the same as when the twine was sold at the lowest price. That shows plainly that the difference was not due to the increased cost of the raw material, because the twine was sold at a price out of all proportion to the raw material. Now we are told to-night that no matter who sold It, it got into the hands of Mr. Connor. One time it got into the hands of Connor under one name, and another time it got into his hands under another name. It seems that the same practice has been going on from year to year. At the commencement of this season, on the 1st of May, a circular was issued, at a time when no farmer requires binder twine, for his crop ; but in a few days the quality which was made 650 feet to the pound was all bought up. The regulation was that this was to be sold to the farmers only. Have we any information it was sold to the farmers ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, if my word is worth anything. You have all the information you want.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the Minister of Justice to say he was not aware to whom it was sold.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, and I am going to have it investigated. I undertake to give the quantities sold, to whom sold, and the price paid by each party.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood it was all picked up by one party.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, never.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it was sold to a number of individuals, then can we not get the number of those who purchased it, with the quantities purchased ? We are entitled to know whether it was sold to the farmers, because the resolution required that it should be sold to the farmers only. But if it was sold to the speculators, it is not carrying out the spirit or the letter of the resolution.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I desire to say now, as I have said on previous occasions, that this is not a business that the government should go into at all. The statement made by the hon. member shows that it has not been a success.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since the present government took hold of it.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It has never been a success. We had trouble after trouble, and judgment after judgment against purchasers 111
of the twine when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that it was not managed on business principles ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: According to the evidence given against the late government and statements made by hon. gentlemen opposite that things are not just right now, I would say decidedly that it was not managed on business principles. I believe the business is done now as well as any government can do it. But my point is that it is not in the interest of the country that any government should engage ill that kind of work.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think this is a time for recrimination, nor for a discussion as to the way in which this was managed. If I wanted to go back to ancient history I might tell the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) that when we took charge of the business in 1896 there was $50,000 odd of the price of the output of 1894 that had not been paid. Now, I do not want to go into these details, they are unnecessary, and it would not be wise for me to do so if I want to get my estimates through. But this industry has been managed since 1896, perhaps not successfully, but at all events, so far as my knowledge has gone, honestly, and every pound of twine sold from that day to this has been sold on tender, after public tenders were called for, and the output has been given to the man who offered to pay the highest price for it. As I said a moment ago, Mr. John Connor has been connected with this industry since its inception; that is my firm belief, perhaps if I were asked to prove it I might be at a loss to do so. In 1894 and 1895 he was undoubtedly connected with it, and I believe since that time he has continued in connection with every tender that has been put in. I thought under the circumstances it would be wise to make a change with respect to the management of the industry where his brother was in control in Kingston. I do not say there was anything wrong between them, any common understanding between the brothers, because I have no knowledge of anything wrong; still I did not think that the gentleman who was getting the output of the industry should have charge of the industry. A change has been made in that respect, and since 1901 the twine has been sold to the farmers direct. The result was that in 1901 we had a large amount on hand at the end of the year which we sold by public tender, and since 1902, it is now being sold to the farmers. As far as last year is concerned, the hon. gentleman will find in the Auditor General's Report the names of the farmers to whom the twine was sold, the prices paid and the amount sold to each man. So far as this year is concerned, all that has been sold up to the present time I will account for, I will give the names of the persons to



whom it was sold, the prices paid, and the amount sold to each. Now, with respect to the industry itself, if it is to be regarded as a regulator of the price of twine, I suppose to some extent it has effected that purpose. The amount of binder twine, if I am correctly informed, used in Canada, is 10,000 tons, of which 2,250 tons are manufactured in Canada. At Kingston the extreme limit of our capacity is only 500 tons. So to some extent it seems to me this may be considered a regulator of the price of binder twine. But with respect to the other feature of the business, let us bear in mind that we must find some occupation for the inmates of the penitentiary. Bet me say what we have accomplished by the means of this industry. We have charged against this output which we have put on the market by convict labour, $6,598 for one year. We give them a useful occupation and we realize that amount of money. We charge, in addition to the $6,598, the salaries of the officials connected with the industry. Then, in addition to that, we have the plant which is there. We charge for depreciation of the plant, five per cent, and we charge for interest on capital invested in that industry, three per cent. I do not know if there is any industry connected with the government that shows anything like the same result. Take the Printing Bureau here. I had recently occasion to look into that in connection with the prices they charged. They make no charge for plant depreciation, building, or the like.


George Taylor: And they run in debt.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not know whether they do or not.


Haughton Lennox: Have you the amount of the salaries there ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Formerly there was a superintendent, Mr. Connor, to whom we paid $1,500 and an assistant superintendent to whom we paid $900. Now the superintendent and the assistant superintendent have disappeared and we have appointed one man named Dickenson as superintendent of cordage at $1,000 to do the work of them both. The $2,400 in salaries formerly paid to Messrs. Connor and Price are saved, and we now have a man at $1,000 a year as superintendent.
Mr.l CLARKE. Would the hon. minister give us again the total amount of the twine estimated to be used in Canada and the total amount manufactured in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is almost impossible to get a correct estimate, but I have had an inquiry made by the inspector, and according to the returns I find that the total amount used in the country was about 10,000 tons, and the total amount manufactured in Canada by the industries here 2,250 tons last year. The limit of our capacity is 500 tons, but as a matter of fact, we have not exceeded 400 tons.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: The fact is then that nearly three-fourths of the twine is made on the other side of the line 1


Albert Edward Kemp: What is the object of selling binder twine at a lower price than the farmer can buy it for from a retail merchant ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) is a business man and he will appreciate the reason which I am about to give. We pay for our raw material, manilla 8-42 cents per pound, which is a better price than the' ordinary manufacturer has been able to get it at because we happened to pick it up at a time when the market was favourable; New Zealand 6 90 cents per pound, and Mexican sisal 5-50 cents per pound. If you add together the items making up the cost of manufacturing including oil, bags and paper, repairs, renewals, convict labour, salaries, freight, depreciation in plant and interest you will find that it adds 1-813 cents to the cost. As a result of that we manufactured 16,000 pounds running 650 feet, 120,000 pounds of 600 feet, and 86,000 pounds of 500 feet and 4,000 pounds of 500 feet. Taking the cost of pure manilla at 8-42 cents a pound, and adding the cost of production amounting to 1-82 cents per pound it gives us 10-24 cents per pound as the cost.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When you speak of pure manilla you mean that there is not more than one-third of pure manilla in it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am discussing the question of cost.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question of cost will depend on what you put into the binder twine. When you speak of pure manilla you must understand that the twine does not contain pure manilla.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. member is a doctor and of course an expert. I am a lawyer and I am not an expert. The inspector tells me that pure manilla means pure manilla. Take the cost of pure manilla at 8-42 cents per pound and the cost of manufacture at 1-82 cents per pound, that gives us the cost at 10-24 ceuts per pound and we put it on the market at 10f cents a pound and in ton lots or to clubs of farmers at one-quarter of a cent less than that price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can tell the hon. Minister of Justice that there is not a pound of pure manilla twine made in Canada today. The fact was brought out in the report of the committee which looked into the question that pure manilla twine was not all made out of manilla but that it was a mixture.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Of course I defer to the better knowledge of my hon. friend, but I have to rely on the reports of the two inspectors who are both here and who both re-aflirm that pure manilla is pure manilla twine.


David Henderson: I do not know that it is necessary to discuss tlie question as to whether pure manilla means pure manilla or not. The Brantford Company which I believe for years has made as good twine as you will find anywhere in Ontario, or perhaps anywhere in Canada, I was positively informed by one of the directors, who, at the present time, has a seat in this House, make their best twine out of 60 per cent manilla and 40 per cent sisal. My own impression is that any twine that contains 60 per cent manilla and the balance of sisal is equally as good and is much better than twine that is made absolutely of manilla. In fact I do not think that the farmers care about twine made entirely of manilla fibre. That may be the reason why the Kingston twine is not as popular in the country as it ought to be. Go through western Ontario and you will find that the twine made at Kingston is not popular with the farmers. They will buy other twine in preference to the Kingston twine, and it may be for the reason that they put in more manilla than should be put in. The difference in cost is not so very material. I find by reference to the Auditor General's Report of last year that whilst manilla hemp cost 6 cents per pound, sisal cost 51 cents per pound, only a fraction of a cent difference. It may be that I am not sufficiently familiar with the mode of calculating to arrive at just what a pound of twine ought to cost, but I followed the hon. Minister of Justice very closely, and *1 confess that I am entirely unable to reach the high figure of 111 cents as the cost of a pound of twine.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I said 10-24 cents.


David Henderson: Well take the lower price of 10-24 cents. A pound of twine does not consist all of manilla or all of manilla and sisal. We know that there is about one-fifth part of what is called cordage oil, a coarse oil that goes into the manufacture of twine. My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) here says one-sixth, but there is not very much difference between one-fifth and one-sixth. I have always understood it to be one-fifth. Now, taking one-fifth as oil, 60 per cent of the balance as manilla and the remainder sisal, I make out the cost of a pound of twine in this way :	The actual cost of the material would be the one-half of six cents which is the cost per pound of the raw material.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Where does my hon. friend find the six cents ?


David Henderson: In the Auditor General's Report for 1902, page 27-M.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am figuring on the price paid to-day.


David Henderson: I am not aware that there has been any great disturbance in the market from which we buy this raw ma-' 111J
terial, and I have not access to any better guide than the Auditor General's Report. I will give the minister the calculation I have made. The manilla fibre in a pound of twine would cost three cents ; the sisal would cost two cents and the cordage oil one cent which would make six cents. Adding the cost of manufacture and the other incidentals the minister has referred to, we will say two cents, it would make the cost of a pound of twine eight cents which falls very far short of the ten and a quarter cents which is the price fixed. On this basis we would get it down to something like the cost that twine was manufactured at some years ago. I fail to see that the farmers are receiving justice at the hands of the minister, and I am afraid that in selling it at ten and one quarter cents he is demanding a large profit from the farmers. The late hon. David Mills when Minister of Justice stated that the cost of manufacture was three quarters of one cent per pound, and even allowing for the other things which the present Minister of Justice adds, it would seem that the price charged to the farmers is unreasonable when we consider that according to the Auditor General's Report he pays six cents for manilla, five and three-eights cents for sisal and nine cents a gallon for cordage oil. Eight cents a pound is a reasonable price to sell this twine to the farmers if it is intended that no profit should be made by the government. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser), who has now left the House, endeavoured to introduce the political element into this discussion. He said that the manufacture of twine was started in the prison for political reasons. I will give the hon. gentleman the credit for making one correct statement to-night. It was started by his friends in the central prison in Toronto no doubt to gain political advantages. That was however, years prior to the plant being installed in Kingston by the late Conservative government, They simply followed suit, and in order to offset what their political opponents were doing in Toronto. I shall not enter upon the larger question as to whether it is advisable to continue this industry in the Kingston penitentiary. The minister has told us that it is necessary to keep the prisoners employed, and they might as well be employed in making twine as anything else, but I do say that so long as twine is manufactured in Kingston it ought to be manufactured not for the purpose of making a profit but for the purpose of using it as a lever to maintain a fair level of price. As was said by the member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) three-fourths of the twine used in Canada to-day is imported from the United States. These large American trusts combine together, and I am sorry to say they have combined with some of the smail Canadian factories to raise the price unduly to the farmer. Twine is not worth ten cents or eleven cents a pound, much less fifteen or sixteen cents, and I have no

doubt that the farmers will be called upon to pay by retail fifteen cents a pound for this American twine this year. The Kingston penitentiary is only able to turn out out about one-fortieth part of the total consumption, but still that is a factor and it may be used as a lever to protect the farmers against the exorbitant charges made by importers and by the large manufacturers in the United States who practically control this industry in Canada. I hope the day is not far distant when the government will see its way clear to encourage this industry in more ways than one. There was a time when we had a respectable duty on twine and when the greater part of the twine used in Canada was made in this country. Under the protective system the competition among Canadian factories maintained a fair level of price, but an agitation was started in favour of removing the duty and it was gradually reduced from 25 per cent to 121 per cent and finally it was removed altogether. The lower you made the duty the higher you made the price of twine, just the same as in the case of coal oil and barb wire. That has been our experience all along. The Americans keep up a good stiff duty against us of two cents a pound, and if we had an industry in this country manufacturing twine it would have to pay that duty going into the United States while they send their twine in here free. I believe there is to lie a small duty now of about three-eighths of a cent per pound. I maintain, Mr. Chairman that we should continue this industry at Kingston and increase the output as much as possible. I would not advise the government to make any profit out of it, but use it for the purpose of breaking down the price of the American twine that comes into this country. I would not sell the Kingston twine in large quantities to any one man, but would scatter it throughout the country as much as possible amongst farmers or small dealers, and use it in every way possible to operate against the attempts on the part of importers or American manufacturers of twine to unduly enhance the price against our farmers. Even if we should lose thousands of dollars I would not allow any one man to get possession of 200 tons of it so that he can fix the price to suit bimself and charge the farmer what he likes. I hope that will be the policy that the government will pursue. For my part I would rather lose money by it than give up the industry altogether. I believe there is a benefit accruing from it, and so far as I am concerned I would not advocate the making of any profit out of the industry.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice in the calculation which the hon. Minister of Justice has given us, that the price per pound for the raw material, taking the thre different kinds together, that manilla at $8.42, the New-Zealand at $6.90, and the Mexican sisal at Mr. HENDERSON.
$5.50, you get the average price per pound of the three kinds. Then $1.81 will cover the cost of the manufacture, which makes the average cost of the three kinds eight and three-quarter cents per pound. But at the prices you quote in your circular the average price would come to ten and two-third cents.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are not dealing with averages.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it not fair to take the three different prices, and put them together and find the average price ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Certainly not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you take 100 pounds of each kind.
The ailNISTER OF JUSTICE. What object has the hon. gentleman in view ?
air. SPROULE. The object is to ascertain the actual cost.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, the hon. gentleman is trying to make a case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you take 100 pounds of each, you get what is the actual price.
The ailNISTER OF JUSTICE. Not at all.
air. SPROULE. Well, I do not know by wbat species of calculation the hon. gentleman can come to any other conclusion. You can only make 300 pounds of twine out of 300 pounds of raw material, except for the additional weight of the crude oil, which is about one-third or one-fourth of a cent a pound. But if you take the three qualities together, 100 pounds of each, you only make out of them 300 pounds. You sell these 300 pounds at the prices stated in this circular-manilla at eleven and a half cents, the other at ten and three-quarter cents, and the Kingston special at nine and a half cents a pound. You sell 100 pounds of each. You add the cost of the three together, you add the cost of manufacturing which the minister has given, and that represents the whole cost, does it not ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am afraid my arithmetic is out. I am lost, so far as the calculation of my hon. friend is concerned. You take a ball of manilla hemp containing 600 feet for which I paid $8.42 per 100 pounds. To that you must add ten per cent for waste, which is replaced by ten per cent of oil. When I make up my calculation as to what this has cost, for the purpose of ascertaining the price at which it should be sold, I take the cost of the raw material and the cost of the oil, but I have nothing to do with the average cost of New Zealand or Mexican sisal, which does not enter into the calculation at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What difference does that make if you take 100 pounds of each,

add them together, and divide by three. You have only so many pounds of twine, which costs you so much money. 100 pounds of one kind costs $8.42, 100 pounds of another $0.90, and 100 pounds of the third, $5.50. Add these together and divide by three, and you have the average price of the three. Then X take the average price at which the binder twine is sold, which is ten and two-thirds cents per pound, while according to the minister's calculations, the average cost was eight and three-quarter cents per pound.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I think we have carried this debate far enough. The subject has been stretched too long. The question is, shall we go on manufacturing binder twine at the Kingston penitentiary ? I think the sense of the House is that we should, and that the farmers of the country should get the benefit of it. My idea is that we should take means to increase the output at Kingston penitentiary, not only for the benefit of the farmers, but for the sake of the men in the penitentiary. At a certain time some of them may come out to earn their own living, and they may be trained to some useful employment. The Minister of Justice is glad to receive advice from the opposition as well as from the supporters of the government in this respect, and if my advice would be worth anything, it would be that he should see that the best and most improved machinery be used in the Kingston penitentiary, and that the facilities be enlarged so that the output would be larger and the farmers would have the benefit. I do not think the price is too high, otherwise the farmers would not buy the twine from the penitentiary in preference to buying it from other manufacturers of the article. But I agree that it could be sold at such a price that there should be no large profit made, but that the farmers should get the whole benefit.


George Taylor: I fully agree with what my hon. friend has just said, if the farmers were getting the benefit; but since this government have undertaken the handling of binder twine, the farmer has been the man who has been fleeced, and the jobber has got the benefit. If my hon. friend will look at the Auditor General's Report at page M-47, he will find the sales given, as follows Beaver, 180 pounds at eight and one-third cents and 5,125 pounds at eight and one-half cents to the farmers; and 366,793 pounds, the balance of that quality, to Mr. John Connor, or Mr. Henderson Black, who represents him, at five and one-tenth cents.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) I am dealing with the future, not the past.


George Taylor: This is the way it was dealt with up to the first of July, 1902. Why should this government sell the twine to this man John Connor for less than the cost of the raw material ? We have maple leaf, sold 17,325 pounds at ten cents. Was that
sold to the farmers ? John Connor got 220,000 pounds mixed manilla at five and a tenth cents, and the government are paying eight cents per pound for the pure manilla. The New Zealand was all sold at six and a half cents per pound, but none of it was sold to the farmers. The next sale is 60,000 pounds at four and five-eighths cents, and at the same time the farmer paid nine and a quarter cents for what he got. John Connor was a lucky man. Henderson Black was only another name for John Connor. $12,000 worth was sold directly to John Connor, and $32,000 worth "sold to Henderson Black. There was $45,000 worth sold at four and five-eighths cents in job lots, and then the department turned about and bought raw material for the next year's manufacture. There was evidently some job in every one of these dealings. First it was Hobbs Hardware Company, and then H. N. Bate, and afterward John Connor.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend forgets that he is speaking to the committee and imagines that he is speaking to some meeting in a back constituency, otherwise he would appreciate the fact that a parliament in 1900 directed the sale of binder twine to be made to the farmers up to the first of July, after which date it was to he sold by public tender. Up to the 1st of July, 1901, it was sold direct to the farmers, and then the balance on hand was sold by public tender by parliament's direction. If my hon. friend see a job in that, I will go before a committee any time he choses.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman is in the position of a trustee, and if he called for tenders and accepted a tender for the manufactured article at a less price than he could buy the raw material at, how can he justify that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE..: The time for selling was gone by and it would depreciate 50 per cent if kept over a year.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman is not in business, or he would know that it would keep two or three years without depreciating.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We should know what this binder twine costs and whether it has been sold to the farmers at less than the cost or more. The complaint is that while the government have convict labour, they sell at the same price as in the retail stores.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is not a manufacturer in the country who sells that at the same price as we do. I have letters from manufacturers complaining about our prices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can tell the hon. minister that it was sold, last year at the stores at the same prices.

3532"


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are talking of present prices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I complain of that it was not sold to the farmers at the cost price plus one cent a pound, which is what the resolution required. The hon. gentleman should bring his experts from the Kingston penitentiary before the Agricultural Committee.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I agree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The information given to-night differs from that given a few years ago, and we wish to ascertain whether the firms are getting binder twine in accordance with the resolution.


George Adam Clare: I see that in the calculation which the Minister of Justice has made that the profit on the manilla is 1-26 per hundred or 10 per cent, in the medium twine the profit is 2-04 or 23 per cent. And in the cheaper twine 2-19, or a profit of 30 per cent.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I cannot have given the figures correctly.


George Adam Clare: The cost of pure manilla is given at 8'50, 1-82, 8-72, and 10-24 per pound. The cheapest was sold at 94 cents.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The cheapest is sisal, sold at 9J cents with a profit of 2 30 cents. Perhaps I should explain. With respect to the manilla the cost of the raw material is 8'42 cents, to which add 182 cents of manufacture, and you have a total of 10-24 cents. That is pure manilla running 050 feet, and sold at 111 cents. Then you have pure manilla-the same material-but running only 000 feet, at 10f cents. Then there is what we call Kingston special, which is made from New Zealand material. That costs 0'90 cents for raw material or adding 1-92 cents for manufacture, a total of 8-72 cents. That is sold for 94 cents. The sisal was purchased last fall at 5-50 cents per pound ; the price to-day is 8 cents per pound. Pure sisal, which cost 5-50 cents a pound for raw material and 1-82 cents for manufacture, a total of 7-32 cents, is sold at 91 cents. I ought to say, perhaps that if my hon. friend (Mr. Clare) would compare these prices with the prices ruling in Chicago on the same date, the 31st of March, he will find that for pure manilla of 650 feet, the Chicago price is 13 cents against 11J cents, which is our price.
MrJ CLARE. What I want to get at is this-why does the hon. minister add 10 per cent to the best twine and about 30 per cent to the cheapest twine ? Why make the farmer pay, more in proportion for the one than for the other ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The lower grade made from pure sisal is a cheaper article and we have only about 4,000 pounds altogether. As it is a low grade and as we have but a small quantity, the in-Mr. .SPROULE.
spector thought that altogether the raw material is now worth 8 cents per pound, we might fairly put the price at the figure mentioned. It is much cheaper than any one else sells it. If my hon. friend would allow me, when I come back to my estimates, I will bring letters from manufacturers from all over the country complaining of the prices at which we sell binder twine.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Selling Canadian or American binder twine ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Selling Canadian twine. The price in Chicago fixes the price elsewhere.


George Adam Clare: Was it not arranged last year that the government should add one cent per pound to the cost of. the binder-twine ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think it was left entirely to my discretion to decide. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clare) will remember that a resolution was at one time passed that fixed everything, but last year the Committee on Agriculture discussed the matter and decided that this should be left with me to exercise my own discretion.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would like to ask the minister a question or two. I listened with great' interest to his statement. Like any other minister, the Minister of Justice must not be expected to carry all the details for whicli we ask in his head, but must necessarily depend largely on what his officers tell him. I wish to call the attention of the hon. minister to two or three matters which are in direct conflict with what he has said. He will remember that a very thorough investigation was made before the Public Accounts Committee two years ago, and that the evidence there went to show that, including all the services the hon. gentleman has enumerated, the cost of manufacturing the twine was one cent per pound. It is an important thing if, from changed conditions, or from the facts not being correctly stated then, or not being correctly stated now, the cost of manufacture is counted as being nearly double what it was counted at before. There was another statement made, a very important one, bearing on the selling of the twine-and, perhaps I may be permitted to digress here for a single moment. I think some question came up between the superintendent at Kingston and the Department of Justice as to whether the twine should be sold at the expiration of a certain time, it not having been sold to the farmers. The Minister of Justice gave it as his opinion that it was necessary, and so the twine was sold. That point I do not intend further to discuss. But' the point to which I wish to call attention, I think the minister will agree, is a very important one. The evidence taken before the Public Accounts, Committee disclosed the fact-correct or incorrect, I am not able to say-that twine did not deteriorate by being held over one

year. But we have from the hon. gentleman's own department two statements in direct opposition to each other, and I would like to ask the minister if he is able to account for that. The witnesses were under oath and were closely examined, and yet there was a clear contradiction. These matters as to the cost of manufacture and as to the affect upon the binder twine of keeping it over one year are important questions. I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I think the minister will see that these points should be answered.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As to the question of deterioration, the inspector tells me that the result of keeping the binder twine in their warehouse is that the oil is apt to run out and the twine therefore may not work so satisfactorily as new twine would, and the farmer would not buy twine which had. been kept in the warehouse from one season to another, or, if he did, would not pay so much for it as for new twine. The proportion of deterioration is a matter of opinion. I had not consulted the inspector when I said that I believed that it would deteriorate 50 per cent, and I do not wish the officials to be held responsible for a statement that I made on my own responsibility. As to the cost of manufacture, I confess that I do not recollect the evidence given before the committee two years ago, I cannot carry the evidence so long in my memory. I will give the basis on which I proceed, and I think it is a fair one. First, I take the actual cost of raw material that goes into the manufacture of binder twine. Then I add the cost of labour at the same price as free labour.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman will permit me-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will explain that as the inspectors puts it to me. They charge thirty cents per day for convict labour, and, as we feed and clothe and house these people, they count the total expense the same as free labour. Then I add the salaries of the officials connected with the industry, also the advei'tising and the freight on material. Then I add 5 per cent for depreciation of the plant-which I think is a very low allowance-and 3 per cent for interest. That is the basis of my calculation. And, as I say, it seems to me, to be a fair one. The result is a total of T81 cents and a fraction per pound-practically two cents in round figures.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has made what appears to be a fair statement. But I am amazed at the statement that was made on a former occasion when all these services were said to be taken into consideration. Now, could the hon. gentleman tell us offhand how much is charged to labour, how much for deterioration, how much for interest, and so on ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: These items are used to fix the price of the output of the present year, and we had to take the items of the expenditure for the past year to ascertain the true amount. We manufactured in 1898-99 and in 1899-1900, 1,726,320 pounds of fibre, for oil, bags and paper we paid $5,436.40 ; for repairs and renewals, $1,109.85 ; for convict labour, $6,598.35 ; salaries, advertising, freight, &c., $11,910.39; depreciation, five per cent, $4,000; interest three per cent for two years, $2,400. That makes itemized over each pound, 1 "813.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to this bugaboo of depreciation, my experience is this : For three years in succession we kept twine over every year on my farm. I asked the men whether they found the twine to run all right and to give satisfaction, and they said it worked equally well with that which was bought fresh every year. Of course, we can imagine that it might dry a little.
St. Vincent ,de Paul penitentiary $110,300.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is a decrease here: Salaries, $1,500; maintenance of convicts, $2,000 ; working expenses, $3,500 ; equipment, land and buildings, $1,300. The number of guards has been reduced by four.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the minister give us the cost per diem of the prisoners in the various penitentiaries ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman will find that in the beginning of my report, page xv.
Manitoba penitentiary, $50,100.


James Clancy: I would ask the Minister of Justice if there is an understanding that some item will be reserved on which we may have a further discussion on penitentiaries ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will hold over any item my hon. friend may wish. I suggested a moment ago that we could resume this discussion in the Agricultural Committee.


James Clancy: That committee is rather overburdened now with work, and I doubt if we will be able to resume it there this session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has sent me over his report, but I do not find any place where the cost is given of the keep of the prisoners in the various penitentiaries.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At the head of page xv, he will find the gross expenditure for the years beginning 1896-97 down to 1902, the cost per capita per diem for all the penitentiaries together.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wanted the cost in each penitentiary.
3S35


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The hon. gentleman will find on the preceding page a comparative statement of the cost per capita for six years for the different penitentiaries, Kingston, St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester, Manitoba and British Columbia.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Customs, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, May 27, 1903.