1903-10-16

Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS (East Assiniboia) moved :: That the House do concur in the eighth and final report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, and especially that 40,000 copies of the evidence of the inspector of binder twine be printed forthwith in pamphlet form, in the usual numerical proportions of English and French, as advance sheets of the committee's final report, for distribution to members of parliament less 100 copies for the use of the committee, and that Rule 94 be suspended in relation to the printing of the evidence.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to entirely dissent from the motion, but it seems to have two distinct features, first, that the House concur in the report and, secondly, that it concur especially in a certain part of the report. It seems to me to be a very unique form of expression. We either concur in the report or we do not concur in it. If we only desire to concur in a portion of the report, that portion should be stated, and we should not say that we concur especially in a certain part of it. I do not admire the wisdom of concurring in that report, and for the following reasons : The portion of it which we are asked specially to concur in is the publication of 40,000 copies of the evidence given by Mr. Haycock as the inspector of binder twine, to be given to the people of the country. In so far as the information contained in the evidence would be valuable to the farmers, I have not the slightest objection in the world to having it distributed, but in so far as it discloses how imperfectly the work was performed and the shortcomings of that particular individual in allowing a thing to be done which I think should not have been done, I think it is very unwise that we should disseminate that information any farther than possible. What I refer to is the manner in which Mr. Haycock has discharged his duty.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: Mr. Haycock was appointed as au inspector to carry out the provisions of the Act 2 Edward VII., chapter 32 : ' An Act to amend the Act respecting the packing and sale of certain staple commodities,' in which reference is made to binder twine. He was appointed for the purpose of examining binder twine and of seeing that the binder twine offered for sale complies with the requirements of the law. What are the requirements of the law ? The requirements of the law are that :
Every manfacturer, importer or dealer who neglects to comply with the provisions of this section shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of not less than twenty-five cents per ball ; and every manufacturer, importer or dealer of binder twine which is not of the length per pound which is stamped upon the ball, shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of not less- than one dollar and not more than twenty-five dollars per ball, and all such twine deficient in quantity shall be confiscated to the Crown : provided that no deficiency in the number of feet contained in any bail shall be deemed a contravention of this section unless the deficiency ex'ceeds five per cent of the length stated upon the stamp.
Any proceedings under this section shall be taken within six months from the sale of any such ball.
The word ' dealer ' whenever it occurs in this section shall be held to mean the dealer who is the direct purchaser from the manufacturer.
- There were two things that Mr. Haycock was bound to look after, first, that the balls should contain the name of the manufacturer, and, second, that they should have stamped upon them the number of feet per pound. Well, Mr. Haycock went out to discharge liis duties, and he found twine that did not comply with the requirements of the law. He said in his evidence before the Gommittee on Agriculture :
I visited a large number of places and I may just say that the first place, the first point at which I got any bad twine was at Gretna. There I found a lot of twine that was not marked in accordance with the Act and I inflicted a penalty of $25 which was paid and deposited to the credit of the Receiver General of Canada.
By Mr. Gilmour:
Q. And do you say you inflicted a penalty ?
A. I did.
By Mr. Sproule :
Q. You inflicted a penalty without bringing the party before a magistrate ?
A. I did so. The party was satisfied and would sooner pay the penalty than go before a magistrate. However, it is a matter for you people to discuss.
You went on to state that:
By Mr. Blain :
Q. Do I understand that after the fine you had the twine re-marked and that the agent went and sold it ?
A. Yes.
We contended that he had no such authority.
Q. Do you consider you would have the right and power to do that ?

A. I find the Act says that every ball of binder twine that is offered for sale shall have attached to it a stamp with the name of the manufacturer, the importer or dealer, and the number of feet per pound. This twine had the name of the manufacturer but not the number of feet per pound and I had to fine this man. I told him that all he had to do was to put the number of feet per pound on that ball and that it would comply with the Act.
Q. Surely that man would not have the power, would he ?
A. I do not know why ?
Q. I can easily understand why.
A. Not if he marks it properly. * If he marks it improperly, then he is liable to a penalty of $1 per ball.
Q. Suppose that any dealer in this city had ten tons of twine ?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went and inspected it and found it did not come up to the requirements of the Act ?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you think that the dealer had any right, under your instructions to mark the twine with the number of feet and then go and sell it ?
A. He could mark it anything he liked.
Q. Not after paying the penalty ?
A. Yes.
Q. Surely, the agent would not have that power ? I would have thought that twine ought to be put off the market entirely. . . .
A	I said to this man, ' If you had the
number of feet per pound, neither I nor any one else could touch it, and if you put the number of feet on the twine that it actually measured, you would be perfectly safe.'
Here is a party who was selling twine that did not comply with the law, and yet he is authorized to measure and mark it himself. This was held by many members of the Committee on Agriculture to be an authority not given to the inspector under the Act.
Q. Supposing an agent in this city was to buy ten tons of twine and it had on a tag such as you have in your hand, and bore the name of the importer. If that is put on, then the agent having the twine could decide for himself the number of feet per ton and put it on himself ?
A. Yes, and if he does not do it correctly then he is liable to a fine of $1 per ball and confiscation.
Q. Then the Act has no value because it says it must bear the statement of the manufacturer ?
A. It says the manufacturer, importer or dealer.
Q. If you allow that to go, then each man would have the right to put the number of feet per pound on himself?
Further on be was asked :
Q. Do I understand you to say (hat this twine shall be confiscated to the Crown or not ?
A. No, it did not make any misrepresentation. The tag does not make any representation at all as to the number of feet.
Because there was no tag on it. and therefore he could not confiscate. He says :
I had instructions from the department that I have the power to collect the penalty.
He was asked again :
Q. You consider that under the statute you are authorized to impose the penalty and collect it ?
A. I do not impose the fine ; I simply collect the penalty.
it seems to me that is a distinction without a difference.
I do not convict the man. I simply collect the penalty.
Q. You persuade him that a fine will be imposed upon him, and that he had belter pay you ? Is that the case ?
A. They simply prefer it that way ? Yes, that is. the way.
He goes on further :
Q. Have you a tag that was taken off certain twine that did not comply with the law ?
A. Yes. That Is improperly 'narked too ; the name of the manufacturer is not on It.
By Mr. Sproule :
Q. Do you fine according to the Act a dollar a ball for every ball ? What did you do with that case ?
A. The Act, if you will read it carefully, says that the dealer shall be held to be the direct purchaser from the manufacturer. The gentleman in whose possession I found this twine did not purchase it from the manufacturer, so, according. to the. Act, I could not treat with that man.
He finds the twine in the possession of a man who is selling twine not properly marked, and he says that because this dealer is not a direct purchaser from the manufacturer, he cannot fine him, as the law does not authorize him to do so. Then, that is a lamentable defect in the Act. Then in answer to Mr. Henderson, he says :
The Act says the word ' dealer,' whenever it occurs in this section, shall he held to mean the dealer who is the direct purchaser from the manufacturer.
Now, here are two features of the case to which I wish to direct attention. In the first place, the inspector assumes that he is to fine the party who has in his possession twine that is not properly marked, without lodging a complaint before a magistrate or before any tribunal that is authorized to try the case. He collects the fine and says he hands it over to the Receiver Generali That is an authority which the Act does not give him. The Act says :
Every manufacturer, importer or dealer who neglects to comply with the provisions of ttis Act shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a penalty of not less than twenty-five cents per hall, or $25.
Now, I draw attention to the fact that there was no conviction before a magistrate and no complaint made. The man had no opportunity to defend himself, but the inspector comes in, imposes a fine, collects the money, and deals with it as he sees fit. He says he passes it over to the Receiver General. That may or may not be correct. I am not calling that in question ; but I am drawing attention to the fact that he is exercising an authority which he does not possess under the Act. The other

.feature of the ease is this, that where he finds twine in possession of the dealer, if the dealer is not prepared to say that he purchased it direct from the manufacturer, the inspector has no power to fine him. That is a defect in the Act as well as an excessive authority on the part of the inspector. I claim that he improperly exercised an authority which the Act does not give him. The authority of the inspector should be better defined or his instructions should be more explicit. I appeal to the Minister of Justice whether it is competent for any inspector to impose a fine without lodging a complaint before a competent tribunal, where the party alleged to have violated the law would have an opportunity to defend himself ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: At first sight it would appear necessary for a man to lodge a complaint before a competent tribunal and have the man tried by a summary process. Unless there is something special in the Act, there would be no authority for the inspector to impose a penalty without that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is nothing in the Act which gives the inspector such authority. What I object to is publishing 40,000 copies of this evidence, and distributing
them,	containing evidence which only shows either the incompetency of parliament to pass a proper Act or the improper exercise of authority by the inspector in imposing the penalty.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: Of course, I want to speak with some caution. It would appear to me that it would be necessary for the inspector to take proceedings before a competent tribunal before he could do anything. I would require to look into the matter and consider it, and would be quite willing to give an opinion to-morrow if the hon. gentleman will bring up the question
then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In that case, we had better postpone consideration of the motion until the Minister of Justice can look into it and give us the benefits of his judgment. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


James Moffat Douglas: The Committee on Agriculture and Colonization were unanimous in their opinion that this evidence should be printed, and desired that I should make some remarks ou the matter in order to have the printing done as rapidly as possible and the report set before the country. I hope that the House will agree, in view of the unanimous decision of the committee, that no delay should be thrown in the way of publishing this report. If we were reviewing the Act, this discussion would be opportune, but under the circumstances I do not see that it is. If the powers of the in-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: spector require to be more fully defined, that can toe done toy special legislation.


Mr. U. WILSON (Lennox).: I have been a pretty constant attendant at the meetings of the Committee on Agriculture and Colonization, but I was absent at the particular one which adopted this report. There is one thing which pleases me in the evidence and that is that it fully establishes the fact that the only one of our Canadian manufacturers of twine was fined for shortage in measurement. All the other found short was American twine imported into this country. It is quite evident that putting twine on the free list does not tend to cheapen it or make the dealings more satisfactory.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: If the motion to adjourn should carry, this report will go on Public Bills and Orders and not be reached this session.
I would suggest that the report be adopted and any information required may be obtained in supply or in any other convenient form.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I question the wisdom of circulating 40,000 copies of evidence -which is open to the objections I have just taken. We should first have an authoritative statement from the Minister of Justice.


Mr. S. HUGHES (Victoria).: If (his officer, Mr. Haycock, had no authority to levy these fines and if this evidence is to be printed, containing this statement that lie believes he has authority, the farmers will possibly take what he says for granted, and he will be given the opportunity of exercising very improper powers.


Mr. E. COCHRANE (East Northumberland).: I was at the meeting of the coTnmittee and asked this officer a question concerning his duties. He said that all he could do under the Act when the twine was not of proper length, was to confiscate it and to fine the parties. But if he found the twine without tags, he could not do anything under the Act. In that case the law should be amended. If we are satisfied that this man has no right to impose a fine and confiscate, this report should not be circulated. If no man should be fined without a trial, and if a magistrate only has the power to fine, this officer has been exceeding his duty and we should not send out a report which would give a false impression of his powers.


Samuel Hughes: I spoke to the inspector about the binder twine manufactured in American prisons, and he said it was not part of his duty to look after that, but it was for the Customs Department to deal with such twine. I do not see why that should not be part of his duties.


Mr. D. HENDERSON (Halton).: If the law is defective and does not give authority to the inspector to impose a speedy yemedy,

= t	~
it should be amended. But I approve of the printing of 40,000 copies of this special report and sending it broadcast throughout the country. It is evident, from the report, that the farmers have been imposed upon, and they should be made aware of it. According to the evidence, out of fourteen cases in which binder twine was found to be short in measurement, one came from Mexico, one from England, one from Canada and eleven from the States. Surely that should warn farmers against purchasing American binder twine. In order to get rid of this American twine and prevent our people being imposed upon, we should go back to the old principle and put a duty on the foreign article which will keep it out of the country.
It is quite evident that if encouragement were given to the manufacture of binder twine in this country, that all we want could be made in Canada. Nearly fifty per cent of our twine is manufactured in Canada now, even under the great difficulties that exist. The United States manufacturers have access to our market free of duty and they have their own market to sell their products, in which market Canadians are prohibited from entering by the tariff duties. All that our producers have is a portion of that Canadian market. I say that more encouragement should be given to men who produce an honest article and sell the farmers honest measure, and so prevent the twine from the United States being disposed of to our farmers who unwittingly buy it thinking -that they are buying an honest article. I want the farmers to be educated on this point. I think that it will result in bringing about a far better state of things; that our farmers will be guarded ag)ain,st buying American- twine and will see that it is to their interest to encourage this industry which, we believe can be doubled in extent, thus benefiting our workmen engaged in this industry as well as our farmers who buy the goods. I look upon the report as most important, and I believe that the greater currency that can be given to it the better in all interests.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (South Leeds).: I think the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) should not allow this report to be adopted in view of the information we have in that report that the government have authorized a man to go about practically compounding felony. He finds a man who has violated the law and says to him in effect: You are a violator of the law, but if you give me $25 we will say nothing about it. He has authority, apparently, to go about either blackmailing people or compounding felony. If we find a man who has violated the law why should he not be brought up and fined as provided by the law ? I do not wonder at the chairman of the committee and other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House wanting a large 440
number of copies of this report distributed. In my opinion, if ever there was a useless office, it is that to which Mr. Haycock has been appointed. These gentlemen opposite call Mr. Haycock -here specially and get his evidence in such form that it can be printed in pamphlet and sent to the country. This is done in an attempt to show that this office is of some value and the holder of it is earning his money. Yet, by his own report and admission he is going around either blackmailing the parties whom he finds violating the law or compounding felony with them. The farmers of Canada are intelligent enough to know whether they are buying good twine or not, and they can see to it that they are getting full length, without paying Mr. Haycock $1,200 a year as a salary and $1,200 a year expenses to go about doing such work as he is doing. It is evident that this man has overstepped his duties and should be called down. He finds a man with twine that is not regular in his possession, and he says : You are violating the law, but I will let you go oh and sell the balance of this if you will pay me $25. I can put it in my pocket and turn it into the revenue after. On a previous occasion I brought here a statement showing that men had paid fines for illegal fishing to one of the officers of this government, and there was no record of any return of that fine to the department. I do not say that Mr. Haycock would pocket the money, but I say that if the government send out this officer and he finds the law being violated it is the duty of the government to see that those who violate the law are punished, and not called upon to pay so much money to hush it up. It is the duty of the Minister of Justice to look into the matter immediately.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I conceive that my duty is to -speak with considerable care and caution, and not to talk of men as blackmailers and compounders of felony without some knowledge of the facts.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I think the question raised by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the remarks of the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) do not really cover the point at issue. That point is the adoption of the final report of the Committee on Agriculture, which sums up in general terms the work of the committee during the session, and gives valuable information as to the extension of the agricultural 'industry in Canada during the year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister will allow me, I stated that I did not object to the adoption of the report of the Agricultural Committee, but I questioned the wisdom of the portion of the report which recommended the printing of 40,000 copies of the evidence referred to.


The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: At the same time, the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Sproule's) motion for the adjournment of the debate, if carried, practically means that this report will not be adopted, printed or disributed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked if that would prevent the adoption of the report, and finding that that might be the effect, I asked that the motion be allowed to stand or be withdrawn until the Minister of Justice could look over the matter as he desired to do. I have no desire to prevent the report being considered and being finally dealt with by the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Sproule's) object is to get the Minister of Justice's opinion on this question, that can be done without holding over this report. The legality of the inspector's conduct, and the general question of binder twine I do not propose to discuss. But I must say that I think it is very important that the information contained in this report should be put before the farmers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I ask the minister one question ? Would he put before the farmers the statement made by the inspector that he was instructed by the department to act as he did ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think there is any objection to the evidence of the inspector going out. If it is correct, it can be remedied by the discussion which will arise when the information comes from the Department of Justice. But, for the House to interfere with the distribution of this report among the farmers, I think, would be an injury to agriculture. I coincide with the hon. .member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that [DOT]this statement of the inspector showed that [DOT]Canadian binder twine is up to the legal standard and that it was American binder twine almost entirely that suffered by the inspection. That is of the greatest importance to our farmers and to the binder twine Industry. But in this report as it appears .there is no statement as regards the Segal point. That appears only in the evidence which will be printed. I do not think the statement is more important than hundreds of others which appear in the evidence which comes before the committee and whi.ch are dealt with and sifted by the inquiries of the committee at the time they are given. But I would point out to my hon. friend and to the House that this report, the adoption of which is here moved,' was adopted unanimously by the committee, no objection being taken to it by any one. And that committee passed a unanimous resolution asking that this large number of the report should be printed for distribution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under these circumstances, I think the House will be safe in adopting the report of the committee.


Mr. A. W. WRIGHT (South Renfrew).: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was a motion to adjourn the debate. Does the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) wish to press it ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not desire to press the motion. I desired to get an authoritative statement of the Minister of Justice

regarding the question before we adopted the report. I withdraw my motion.
Motion (Mr. Douglas) agreed to. OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE DEBATES.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE moved that this House do concur in the 7th and 8th Reports of the Select Committee appointed to supervise the Official Reports of the Debates of this House during the present session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that this House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider certain proposed railway resolutions (page 13549). His Excellency the Governor General has been made acquainted with the subject-matter of these resolutions, and recommends them to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to draw the attention of the government to the following despatch from Boston, under date of October 13th, which I find in the Toronto ' World ' of October 15th :


Wm.   E.@: Brigham, secretary of the New England Reciprocity League, has received a letter from a high official source in Canada of which the following is the most important part :
It is of course undeniable that the anxiety for reciprocity in Canada has diminished very greatly, and the country would not view the failure of negotiations in the same light as it would have done a few years ago, still I have every faith in the probability of securing the acceptance of a treaty if the Joint High Commission meets, as I think it will be likely to do, by the 1st of December. Our session is nearing a close.
So this must have come from a member of parliament.
We shall probably complete our labours,some time this week. Prorogation probably will be followed by a communication between Laurie,r and Senator Fairbanks. If all goes well the date for the commission will then be arranged. We will then get together-
I take it this must be a member of the commission who is writing.
-and see what can be done. It will be a meeting of momentus importance, for we are either about to establish better trade relations between Canada and the United States or enter upon a career where we shall be governed exclusively by our belief as to what our own interests require. I feel anxious to see the end reached and to know which one of the roads that lead into a parting of the ways we shall enter.
I wash to ask if this statement has the authorization of the government, or their 4404
sanction, or is it made with their knowledge, or have they any information to give this House with regard to the subject ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid we cannot accept responsibility for the Toronto ' World's ' editorials or correspondence, whether they be written in Boston or Ottawa. The attitude of the government on this important question was indicated at an earlier stage of the session, and that is the precise position of the government to-day.



CATTLE EMBARGO.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to refer to another question. I find the following telegraphic despatch in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of this morning :



[Stage Direction]
Lord Onslow, says Restrictions on Canadian Cattle Cannot be Removed.
London. October 15.-A deputation of Scotch farmers met Lord Onslow, President of the Board of Agriculture, at Edinburgh to-day and tried to induce him to promise the removal of the restriction on the importation of Canadian cattle into Great Britain. His lordship declared this to be impracticable. He approved of the government's policy of a general restriction of cattle importation and said it should be adhered to.
(Canadian Special Cable.)
London. October 15.-Lord Onslow to-day at Edinburgh received a large influential deputation of the local authorities, of the harbour trust and agriculturists. The deputation impressed the necessity of the removal of the restrictions upon the importation of Canadian cattle. Lord Onslow said that after the vote of the House of Commons it was an impracticable suggestion to ask members of the government to bring in a Bill to repeal the restrictions. It did not appear that there was any scarcity of cattle, nor had the price of store cattle seriously lisen. He thought the government was correct in adhering to the policy of retaining the restriction.
I wish to inquire whether the Minister of Agriculture has joined this deputation, or taken any steps to assist them in their effort to get the restrictions removed since Lord Onslow has become President of the Board of Agriculture instead of the late president, Mr. Hanbury ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat, and I would have preferred that the answer should come from him. But I may say that a change of Colonial Secretary, or a change of a minister in England, without a change of government, does not always involve a change of policy ; and the action of the imperial government as disclosed in the correspondence which was submitted to the House some time ago, indicates that Lord' Onslow will adhere to the policy which the government have had on that question. I am not aware whether the Minister of Agriculture has had any important communication on the sub-

ject, but I am afraid that the report in the newspaper is well founded.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Department of Railways and Canals-salaries- to provide tor an additional second-class clerk, $700.	.
['I would like to be able to give some time to them. I should think on Monday.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This is a small item of civil government to provide for an additional clerk. It is simply to meet the growing needs of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is he to be employed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He is to be employed in general clerical service in the inside service at Ottawa.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the hon. gentleman made the appointment yet ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nobody actually appointed. I have a gentleman In mind. [DOT]
Railroads and canals-chargeable ro capital- Intercolonial Railway, additional sidings along line, $63,500.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to provide for a number of new sidings and enlargement of new sidings at quite a number of points along the line.


Mr. LAYERGNE.: Would the hon. Minister of Finance be good enough to say if there is to be something expended at Drum-mondville ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are some improvements contemplated at Drummondville, but they are not contemplated under this item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where is this money to be expended ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At quite a number of different places along the line. In some cases there are new sidings to be constructed and in many cases the sidings are to be lengthened owing to the longer trains that are used.


Louis Lavergne: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he declares that there is nothing to be spent at Drummondville for buying grounds, enlarging the yard and improving the sidings ?
The MINISTER* OF FINANCE. This item does not include any appropriation for Drummondvillle, but there are improvements at Drummondville intended and covered by another item.


Mr. BARKER.: Why is it not possible in these railway estimates to give more details than have been given ? Wo have one item of $63,500, another of $118,000, another of $5,000, another of $125,000, and so


William Stevens Fielding: on. The information that is given is of very little use to us, and it does not in the least enable us in future years to see what has been done with these appropriations. In the other departments far more detail is given and it seems to be growing in the Railway Department as a custom to put the very largest sums of money down and to ask for a wholesale order. 1 do not think that it saves any time of the House. It certainly does not save money, because, over and over, we have been obliged to ask the minister to stand up in the House and give us details occupying the time of the House in giving, these details that might have been given as well in the estimates themselves. If that course had feen followed a great many questions which have to be asked in the House would be saved.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Barker), on the best information I have, that there is no change whatever in the method of preparing these estimates and submitting them to the House. Take this item as an illustration ; although the aggregate is $63,500, it is made up of a number of small items. If you were to make a detailed estimate of each of these small items you would And yourself tied to the exact sum of each, and you would have a number of small items, which is not desirable. It is very desirable that the House should be informed of the class of work to be done, and if necessary, the places at which it is to be done, but I do not think it would be wise to make a spe. cial item of each of these works, because then you would be tied to the exact amount of each particular item.
Mr. BARKER, The explanation which the hon. minister has now given is the very best reason I could furnish for these parti culars being given. It is notorious that in all departments, whether of a railway or of government, officials will endeavour to transpose money from, one purpose to another. Sidings may be asked for at the beginning of the year for a particular place. During the year the departmental officials will have pressure brought to bear on them to spend the money somewhere else, and they "simply cancel the appropriation as made and use it at another place. That is a kind of thing we object to. It is a thing that all railway companies have strictly stamped out, and it should be the same In parliament. If an appropriation is made to an officer of a railway company for a particular purpose the officer is not allowed to use it for any other purpose, and if the department has arranged1 for a certain sum of money to be expended on certain works, it is not right, though the hon. minister suggests it would be right, that there should be any transference of the money to another purpose. I therefore say again what I said last session and during the previous session, that there ought to be more

particulars given in these cases, and the only remedy we have if they are not given in the printed estimate is to ask the minister to state in the House in detail what he is going to do with the money, so that it may go on ' Hansard.' It will be cheaper to the country to put the details in print and then we need not ask the minister to give elaborate statements to go on ' Hansard.'


Edward Cochrane: Am I to understand the hon. minister to say that he should not always be confined to spending money in the way in which he asks the committee to vote it ?' For instance, I might have no doubt in my mind about the propriety of voting $118,000 for double-tracking part of the line. If I understand the hon. minister's explanation rightly, he asks the committee to consent to the expenditure of $118,000 for doubletracking the line, but he does not wish to be confined to spending the money for that purpose, but 'he wishes to be in a position to spend it in any other way that he sees fit. Is that the right construction to put upon the hon. minister's explanation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly not.


Edward Cochrane: What did the hon. minister 'mean when he stated that he did not want to be confined to spending the money in a certain way 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If I conveyed that impression I was very unfortunate in my use of words. I can assure my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that there is nothing new in this appropriation. It is the precise method of appropriation that has been followed for generations, but I do not plead that as a reason why it should be continued, because if it were a bad method I would be quite prepared to have it reformed. I am aware of no difficulty that has arisen under it. I prefer to believe that it is a wise thing to do. But this is for a special class of work ; it is for additional sidings. It cannot be devoted to anything else. The vote for the double track which my hon. friend refers to can only be applied to that purpose. I can give the names of the places where we contemplate building sidings ; but I do not think it would be wise to confine us to a particular amount for a particular siding. Suppose, for instance, that one siding is estimated to cost $2,000 and another $3,000, and suppose it is found that they cost about $2,500 each ; I do not think it would be wrong to apply the $5,000 for the two sidings in that way. All we say is that in giving this estimate we should not be obliged to specify the amount to be spent on each particular siding. Suppose we found during the year that a siding was urgently needed which was not contemplated at the time the estimates were presented, we think we should be able to meet that particular
need. The engineer's estimates for sidings vary from $2,000 up to $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 ; there is one estimate of $10,000 for a siding at Campbellton ; but with that exception all the sums are comparatively small, none of them more than about $6,000. The places at which new sidings are contemplated are :	Assametquaghan, Millstream, Clark's Brook, Cedar Hill, St. Moise, St. Anne, between Red Pine and Bartibogue, between Bartibogue and Beaver Brook, Chatham Junction, Sackville ' Y,' Milford, Windsor Junction, Pomquet, Campbellton. Jacquet River, Belledune, Iona, and a small amount for engineering.


Samuel Hughes: These works will all be done by the ordinary railway foremen and sectionmen 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, by the usual method.


Samuel Barker: I will persist in the point which I have made. The very thing the hon. gentleman thinks is objectionable is done by every railway company which operates a large railway, perhaps more than double the length of the Intercolonial. In other departments of the government, we find the estimates detailed. Thus in the Public Works Department, there are items from $1,000 up to $10,000, each place being given. According to the hon. gentleman's view, all that would be necessary would be to take a lump sum appropriation, and let the government spend the money where they liked. Having put down in the list at the beginning of the year $5,000 for a siding at one place, and $10,000 for another, the officials of the government or the minister may in the course of the year vary the appropriations, and spend $10,000 where it was proposed to spend $5,000 and $5,000 where it was proposed to spend $10,000, and so on. That is not what is expected. I quite admit that if you got down to spending $4 or $5, there might be some reason in what the hon. gentleman says ; but when he speaks of $10,000 for a siding at one particular place not being an item that should be mentioned in the estimates, I do not agree with him. When $10,000 is put down for a siding at Campbellton or anywhere else, it should not be possible for the minister to use any portion of that appropriation for another purpose.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid that I am obliged to disagree with my hon. friend. I think that the present system is the best, and that the system he proposes would be unworkable. I think it is far better to first give the House an intimation of the places at which these works are contemplated, and 'hen leave the government with a free hand as to the details of the work. I must not contradict my hon. friend, but I am rather of opinion that no railway company would submit to its direc-

tors, certainly not to its shareholders, a detailed statement of all such expenditures. It would submit that a certain sum was needed for certain works, and leave the details to engineers.


Samuel Barker: When the engineer makes up his estimate of what he requires during the season, he has to submit that in detail to the management, and he is held to the expenditure as authorized. Here we are acting somewhat in the position of the manager of a railway who is allotting to the engineer a certain sum of money for a certain purpose. I do not say that there might not be a reasonable sum set apart for emergency cases which might arise during the year ; but that does not justify the minister in taking a wholesale appropriation covering points that he knows about. He mentioned several cases where he wants appropriations of $10,000, $5,000 or $6,000. Why should we not have particulars of these ? Why should we not know that $10,000 is to be expended at a particular point for sidings ? Then, in a year or two from now, when parliament will be inquiring into the expenditure, the authority will be before us. Otherwise members will have to search ' Hansard ' to see what the minister had said in regard to each case.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman says that if an engineer of a great railway made his estimate of anfcam-ount required, he would have to give the details, and would be held strictly to those details. Again I must disagree with my hon. friend. What might occur is this, the engineer might make a report during the year that one of the sidings for which an appropriation was made was not pressing, but that he needed another ; or that two or three sidings would cost less than the amounts estimated, while others would cost more. It would be the duty of the chief engineer to report to the manager in these eases. I think the practice would be much the same in the case of a great railway as it is in the case of the government railway.


Edward Cochrane: Does the minister say that such a thing happens as that the engineer of a railway decides that he wants a siding at a certain place and makes an estimate of the cost, and that he is so far out that $2,000 or $3,000 would not be needed, and the money would be spent somewhere else ? Would the hon. minister tell the committee that there is an engineer on the railway who would make such a mistake ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would not consider it a mistake. We vote so much for sidings, and instead of spending money on one particular siding we spent it on another. Suppose we were to follow the course suggested by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and vote $3,000 to be spent on one siding and $2,000 on another,


William Stevens Fielding: making a total of $5,000 for the two, and suppose that on more careful examination it turns out that the sidings would cost $2,500 each, where would be the wrong in spending $2,500 on each instead of $3,000 on one and $2,500 on the other ?


Mr. BLAIN.: The committee are asked to vote money for specific purposes and the department appropriates that to other purposes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of the same class.


Richard Blain: Could the hon. minister tell us where the money was expended which [DOT]was voted last year and whether the full amount was expended ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The appropriation for last year, according to the memorandum furnished me, was $50,000, and we expended $41,638.


Richard Blain: But there was a' revote of $135,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: According to the memo, given me, the appropriation in 1902-3 for additional sidings was $50,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I entirely agree with the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that in asking parliament for money the government should specify the particular locality where it is to be expended and the purpose. That is what is done by the Minister of Public Works. There ought to be an estimate submitted for so much money to build a siding at such a place and so much at another place.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In both departments we are following out the usual system. In many cases, these details in the estimates are embarrassing to the Public Works Department, and it is not always in the public interest that they should be adhered to closely. But there is a difference between a public work and a railway. These public works are far apart and not connected the one with the other whereas a railway is one continuous property.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The St. Lawrence river is one continuous highway yet we have a separate vote for each harbour upon it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And you have large sums voted for dredging without specifying the places.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There might be a specific amount voted to meet such a case as that, but not as a general rule. There might be an amount voted which would be available for any urgent work and which the minister could use without having the place specified.


Richard Blain: I notice in the estimates of last year, that on April 29th, we voted $50,000 for additional sidings along the line,

and on April the 12tli there "was a re-vote of $135,000, is the hon. minister correct when he says that less than $50,000 of that was expended ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would prefer, for my own satisfaction, to let the item stand until later in the day.


Mr. KEMP.: Might I inquire from the minister what is the rule on the Intercolonial Railway when sidings are put in for a private individual or corporation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The government grants some aid temporarily, which is repaid through the freights.


Albert Edward Kemp: What are the conditions ? Are the conditions uniform ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the intention, and in all cases that have come under my notice the rule has been the same. The parties are required to grade the siding and prepare it for the rails, and the government usually loans them the rails or advances the price of the rails, and then a proportion is deducted from freights until tlje account is squared. I am not aware of any departure from that rule.


Samuel Hughes: Does the government charge interest on the cost of the rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think not.


Albert Edward Kemp: It is customary on other railroads to charge interest on the material that is not perishable. I was under the impression that the government exacted less onerous conditions from its patrons than other roads did.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am advised that we do not exact the interest. The general complaint of people who come to me is that we are a little more exacting than are private corporations in the matter of sidings. I have not had an opportunity of investigating that, but I was told so quite recently.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not know that the government railway should grant privileges to private individuals which it is not customary for other railways to grant. I understand that the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway charge the parties for sidings to the extent of the grading and the ties and other perishable material. Then the party has to pay the interest at 6 per cent, I think, -on the rails that are used.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In our case we do not collect the interest, but we do collect the capital.


Albert Edward Kemp: I fancy it is on perishable material only.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The practice on the Intercolonial Railway is that the
party desiring a siding must practically make the road ready for the rails, and the government contributes to the extent of the value of the rails, either by loaning the rails or giving a cash equivalent. The interest is not charged, but the capital sum itself is charged, and is repaid by the parties from time to time through the adjustment of freight account. I know they say we are harder on them than are the companies.
Double tracking parts of line (revote, $18,000)-, $118,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for a portion of the double tracking of the Intercolonial Railway between Halifax and Windsor junction. That part of the road carries not only the traffic of the Intercolonial Railway, but, under an arrangement with the Dominion Atlantic Railway, which leases the Windsor branch, it carries also the whole traffic of western Nova Scotia. The department has been gradually double tracking that section, although it has possibly not been done as rapidly as we should have done it. However, it is rather an expensive work. There was appropriated for this service last year $30,000, of which we expended $11,918. That leaves an amount of $18,000 to be revoted, to which we are adding $100,000 for double tracking three or four miles between Rockingham and Windsor junction, making $118,000 for work which we propose to do during the present year. The whole work will be somewhat expensive, and we will have to ask votes for it in future, years.


Samuel Hughes: Has the government taken any steps to secure property along the Bedford basin for wharf accommodation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have a vote in connection with terminal facilities at Halifax, but the particular place at which property may be taken has not been mentioned. It contemplates getting additional accommodation wherever we find property suitable and at a moderate price. Whether we should go to the Bedford basin or not we cannot at present determine.


Samuel Barker: How many miles of double tracking are there between Halifax and Windsor junction ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The distance from Richmond-the outer portion of Halifax station-to Windsor junction is 13 miles. It is estimated that it will cost $23,000 a mile, making the total cost $299,000. It will necessitate the building of a bridge over. the Sackville river, estimated to cost $50,000, so that the estimate for the whole work is $349,000. We have let a contract for a portion of the work at a more favourable price than the estimate.


Samuel Barker: Were those contracts let in the ordinary way after tenders were called ?
1406;


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. The notes I have here indicate that the contractors are doing the work at reasonable prices; somewhat below the engineer's estimate.


Samuel Barker: Although it is costing $23,000 a mile to double track ;


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The estimate of the engineer was that it might cost $23,000 a mile, but I find here that it will cost about $21,000 a mile for a distance of 2i miles. When the rails are laid it will cost about $20,000 a mile. It is very rocky around the shore of the Bedford basin, and it is rather expensive work.


Samuel Barker: What is the weight of the rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Eighty founds.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is the government considering the propriety of double tracking the Intercolonial Railway to Truro ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The matter has occasionally been mentioned, but it is a pretty serious undertaking. While I cannot say that the matter has not been considered, yet we have not attempted to do it.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is that single line still sufficient for the traffic ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. The business between Truro and Halifax is very considerable, and at times some persons might think double tracking desirable, but the chief engineer tells me that we are still able to handle the traffic with reasonable promptness.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman say that this line is to cost $23,000 a mile with rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The engineer's estimate was $23,000 a mile for the whole line. There is an error here in the figures, which says that the total cost of the line under contract will be $20,000. The contractors' figures for the portion under contract would represent about $21,000 per mile, to which will have to be added the [DOT]cost of the rails.


Samuel Barker: Then the portion under contract will exceed the estimate ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The estimate was for the whole distance, but this particular portion of the road is a very heavy section.
Increased accommodation at St. John, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for the cost of a gantry or travelling crane.


Mr. FOWLER.: What is this to be used for ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is in connection with the construction of the new engine-house.


George William Fowler: This vote Is to provide increased facilities at the port of St. John, and in connection with it, I might perhaps properly ask the minister for some information in reference to the contract which the government has with the Allan Steamship Company. I wish to know, if it is contemplated that the number of sailings of the Allan steamers between St. John and Liverpool shall be reduced this winter ? As I understand it, the government have a contract with the Allans to run five ships on that route, and the Allans have asked that instead of five ships they shall run only three during the winter. The Allan Company receive a certain subsidy, in consideration of which they are to perform a certain number of sailings between St. John and Liverpool, and I am informed that they have applied to the government to be permitted to reduce this number of sailings. I am informed that in order to back up their application they, in a sort of clandestine way, prevailed upon certain individuals fin the city of St. John to sign a petition to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in support of their request. The city council of St. John got word of the matter, and a special meeting was called, and strong resolutions Were passed in condemnation of the proposal to make any alteration in the present contract with the Allan Company, on the ground that it would do serious damage to the trade of St. John. What is the state of affairs with respect to this matter, and how do negotiations stand at present ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I regret that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not here, because, as the contract with the Allan Company is a matter affecting his department, I would prefer that he should answer. However, I quite realize that my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) is entitled to the information, and if he will permit me, I will endeavour to explain the situation, though I will have to do so by more than pronouncing a simple yea or nay. Let me say at the beginning, that no change is contemplated which is likely to materially reduce the volume of business at St. John. I think I am in a position to state that thtere will be more steamers loading at St. John during the present winter than during any past winter season ; certainly not less, and the indications are that there will be more. The contract of the government with the Allan Company is primarily a mail contract. .Years ago the mails were taken from Portland, and after the completion of the Intercolonial Railway it was decided that mails should be taken from Halifax. There was no question then of going to St. John at all ; Halifax was the mail port. The steamers still went on to Portland and loaded or unloaded their cargoes, so that


Samuel Barker: 

practically they continued to make Portland their winter port. Some years ago, the government came to the conclusion that that should be no longer permitted, and, that though the contract was only for mails, we could use it incidentally for the development of Canadian trade. The government, therefore, gave notice to the Allan Company, that if they wished to continue the mail service they must load their ships in Canada-not ,at any particular port in Canada ; the government were not especially concerned in that-but that they must load wherever in Canada they were satisfied they could do so to the best advantage. The Allen Company thereupon arranged to load at St. John for the greater part of their cargoes, and to take some small part of their cargoes in Halifax in connection with the mail. That has been the arrangement for a number of years. In the existing contract with the Allan Steamship Company there is a condition, which they required- and which seemed a reasonable condition- that they would only be obliged to load at St. John when they could find cargo to load with. This year the Canadian Pacific Railway Company having acquired a line of steamers of their own, a new state of affairs arose. The Allan Line business at St. John has been carried out through an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, over whose railway line practically the whole of the cargo came. This year, the Canadian Pacific Railway, having acquired a fleet of steamers of its own, was not able to give the Allan Line the amount of cargo whieh was required. It is not contemplated that St. John shall have any less business or any less number of steamers, but what the Canadian Pacific Railway Company desired was, that they should load their own steamers instead of loading the Allan Line steamers. The Allan Line people, having communicated with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and having been assured by them that they were not able to	give them the traffic,,
inasmuch as they would require to give the greater part of it to the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers-a very natural and reasonable conclusion-the Allan Line people then applied for permission to withdraw	a	portion of	their fleet.
They proposed that, instead of running five steamers to St. John, they would run three and for the remainder they would do their best to find cargoes elsewhere. I think it will be generally admitted' that for the Canadian Pacific Railway to prefer to supply traffic to their own steamers could not be regarded as unreasonable. On the other hand, if they were not able to supply the trade to the Allans it would be unreasonable to expect the Allan steamers to go to St. John and come away empty. The government, knowing that St. John would do no less business and that no fewer steamers would be there than before, this being a
mere transfer from the Allans to the Canadian Pacific Railway vessels loading at St. John, saw no reason why they should not meet the request of the Allan Company that they be allowed to send to St. John only as many steamers as they could arrange to have cargoes for. Under the arrangement they propose that three out of five steamers shall load at St. John as usual. The remainder of the traffic that has been carried by the Allan Line would go to St. John as usual, and would be carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers, instead of by the Allans. The Allan Line came to ask the co-operation of the Intercolonial to get them increased cargoes at Halifax : and arrangements are in progress which we hope will result in two steamers out of the five, being without cargo at St. John, coming to load at Halifax. What success will be attained remains to be seen. We are glad, on the part of the Intercolonial, to do anything we can to meet the request of the Allans as regards these shipments, as we shall be glad to meet any request for the development of trade at any of our Canadian ports


George William Fowler: I cannot understand why arrangements should be made to have the Allan steamships go to Halifax and co-operate with the Intercolonial, when the freight that they will get must come from the west. Because, this is not freight from Nova Scotia that is to go in these ships across the Atlantic, but it is freight developed in the west and carried by the Intercolonial. And, to load it on the steamships at Halifax it must be carried a much greater distance than to St. John. Why, then, would it be necessary to withdraw the steamships from St. John ? There are facilities at St. John for all the trade that can be taken by the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers, the Allan Line and the Donaldson or any other line that may go there. The Intercolonial has an elevator at St. John and other facilities provided by the government for the use of the road. I do not see why there should be this proposed discrimination against St. John. I do not see why steps should be taken by the Allan Steamship Line, evidently acting in collusion with the government, to get the signatures of the people of St. John for making this arrangement. These people were deceived, and many of them would be glad to have their names removed from the petition. They were asked, so I am instructed, when they signed that petition, to keep the matter secret for two days. That is a very strange proceeding on the part of the persons who circulated these petitions. I do not know who those persons were. The mere fact of being asked to keep the matter secret should have aroused suspicions that something was going to be done as against the port of St. John. I have failed to understand from the minister (Hon.

Mr. Fielding) why there should be a portion of the contract between the government and the Allans as to the sailings of their ships abrogated. If the Canadian Pacific Railway have agreed to provide freight to load three of their steamships, surely the Intercolonial, by yirtue of its agreement with the Grand Trunk-and I suppose that still stands-will be able to secure freight at Montreal from the Grand Trunk, that being the very central idea of the extension of the Intercolonial to Montreal. Surely the government can enforce that understanding to get enough freight to fill two ships at the port of St. John. It does not seem to me that the minister has given such an excuse as would warrant the government in undertaking the course it has pursued. It is rather singular that this change should be made so soon after the loss of a representative from New Brunswick from the ministry. It seems to me this is a very important reason why this loss should be made up as soon as possible, that the government should have the benefit of the counsel and advice of some member from the province of New Brunswick. If this sort of discrimination is made against us because of the loss of a minister the sooner we get a New Brunswick man in the cabinet the better for the province of New Brunswick.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: From the way the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) and many of his friends treated the representative of New Brunswinck when he was in the cabinet, this present sympathy with the ex-minister comes very badly from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler).


George William Fowler: I am not sympathizing with him, but with the province.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman need not sympathize with the province or with the city of St. John, for the interests of both are being well looked after.


George William Fowler: The people there do not think so.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I know the people of St. John almost as well as does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler). Perhaps that may be a little strongly put, for the hon. gentleman lives in the vicinity, and I go there only occasionally. But I' know the people of St. John to be a fair-minded, public-spirited and reasonable people, and I feel sure that the majority will not symphatize with the whine occasionally put up in this House and in the press about the injustice to St. John. There is no portion of the Dominion that has received fairer consideration from this government than has the city of St. John. It has received fair-play in the past, and I believe it will be content with fair-play in the future, and that is what it will receive. And if a few people here or there want something more


George William Fowler: than fair-play for any city, St. John, Halifax or any other, they may as well understand at once that they will be disappointed. There is no such violation of the contract the hon. gentleman suggests. While the hon. gentleman from New Brunswick to whom he refers was a member of the government, the condition was inserted in the contract-a reasonable condition-that these steamers should be obliged to load at St. John only when they coulij obtain business. Therefore, the condition under which we are acting existed in the contract before that hon. gentleman retired from the ministry.


George William Fowler: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask a question? He says that there was no change in the contract by taking the two ships away. If that is so, why is it necessary to get the consent of the government to that ? Why should the Allans find it necessary to go to the government if there has been no change in the conditions ? According to the hon. minister, the Allans can simply send their ships where they please, to Canadian ports.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The answer to the hon. gentleman's question is, because the contract contained the condition that when there was no freight available at St. John for these steamers they were not obliged to go there. That condition is not changed in the contract. They come forward and tell us that they cannot obtain freight at St. John. That they have a right to do under the contract. The hon. gentleman speaks about some arrangement made in secret. I do not know anything about that. The Allans came to us and informed us that the Canadian Pacific Railway in future would not give them cargo for all their steamers at St. John. If St. John were losing traffic by the arrangement proposed, I could understand some complaint being made. But when the fact is that not a pound of freight that has been going to St. John will be taken away, and that she will have all the business she had before,
I cannot see the ground for complaint. The hon. gentleman asks why we do not load these steamers from the Intercolonial at St. John. Because we were not asked to do it. If the Allan Line or any other and connecting railway companies-because they must co-operate-have a proposal to make the government looking to the supply of traffic for steamers over the Intercolonial, we will deal with them as readily and as liberally as we have done in the case of their proposal I have submitted. It is for the steamship companies to make the proposal. But the Allan Line, have come and asked us to facilitate the increased shipment of their cargoes at Halifax, for the reasons stated, that they cannot get a cargo at St. John because the Canadian Pacific Railway prefer to carry it themselves. We have met their application in the right spirit, and

we will be prepared to meet a similar application in the same spirit, if it comes, as respects any other port in Canada with which the Intercolonial is connected.


George William Fowler: I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister of Finance should complain of the people of St. John because this matter was brought up in the House. The hon. gentleman says there is a whine from the. city of St. John-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say from the city of St. John.


George William Fowler: They are not the sort of people that whine, they are prepared to stand up for their rights. They have made great sacrifices in order to establish a trade. The people of St. John have done what the people of no other portion of Canada has done, they have expended their own money. A large proportion of the money that is used for providing the facilities in the city of St. John has come out of the taxpayers. A million dollars has been expended in providing terminal facilities, and yet, because they resent the taking away of these ships, they are to be told by the acting Minister of Railways that they are whining. And that remark is applauded by some hon. members from Ontario, for instance, by the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell).


Mr. CAMPBELL.: The minister did not say that the city of St. John was whining ; it was some members who came from that province.


George William Fowler: I want to tell the hon. member for West York that the minister made no such statement. There is no whine about it. Is it to be said that members of this House are whining because they are pointing out an injustice that is being done to the province from which they come ; that they are whining because, being responsible for the rights of their province, they stand up and defend them ? The hon. gentleman from West York himself whines on behalf of the market gardeners of West York. That is the sort of gentleman that he is. The member for West York was l'eady to whine very piteously the other day, when he was talking about freight rates on flour, because that is something that affected the hon. gentleman's own pocket. It struck him very hard then, and he was ready to whine louder than any cur that ever I heard.


Mr. TALBOT.: Order.


George William Fowler: I am not comparing the hon. gentleman to a cur. If the member for Bellechasse wants to take it that way, all right.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Judging from the language of the hon. gentleman, I think that he can take the cake over me. It fits his size.


George William Fowler: In size I think I will compare favourably with the hon. gentleman
from Bellechasse, certainly in physical size, and I trust that my mental size would be far beyond his.	,


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: In ability to bark.


George William Fowler: But coming back to the subject we were discussing. The hon. gentleman made a discrimination


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I didn't say anything.


George William Fowler: I wasx speaking to the minister, not to the member for Bellechasse. But the member for Bellechasse holds so important a place in his own imagination, that he thinks that if anybody makes a reference to any other member, he is referring to him. Now, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the argument the hon. gentleman uses, that because no application was made by a steamship company to carry freight over the Intercolonial to St. John was a reason why they should not use the Intercolonial, and a reason why they should not carry freight there, is a very strange argument. Shall we never use the facilities we have at those ports, unless some steamship company makes an application to use them ? The minister says :	Oh, we cannot use
them, because we have not been applied to by the Allan Steamship Line to give them freight at St. John over the Intercolonial. Well, under an arrangement between the government and the Grand Trunk, the latter is obliged to hand over to the Intercolonial Railway the western freight at Montreal intended for export abroad. Is there not an arrangement of that sort ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, freight bound to the maritime provinces, irrespective of where it is going.


George William Fowler: Certainly, it would include freight intended for export abroad. If they are obliged to give you their freight at Montreal, it would include freight intended for export abroad, and freight for local consumption as well. Now, that being the ease, surely it is within the power of the government and within the management of the Intercolonial to carry that freight over the Intercolonial to St. John. Then, why should * this change take place ? Why take away the sailings of these two ships from the port of St John to Halifax ? In order to give them freight at Halifax, you must carry it over the Intercolonial, and you are carrying it a hundred miles further by taking it to Halifax, than if you took it to St. John, and you are doing that at additional cost. If you were bringing that freight over a distance of a thousand miles, a difference of a hundred miles would not be so important ; but when you carry that freight only a distance of four or five hundred miles, it makes a very material difference to carry it a hundred miles farther than you need to. You are carrying -it a hundred miles farther for the same price as if you took it to the port of

St. John. You have at the latter place your elevator, you have all the necessary facilities, and they are .standing idle, and still you carry this freight a hundred miles further. Now, for what purpose I do not know. It would almost look as if the minister, being a minister from Nova Scotia, has made this discrimination against the port of St. John for the benefit of his own province. Let me say, that it is not only the people of St. John who are interested in this question, but the people of the surrounding counties. The people of the adjoining counties are interested in whatever makes for the welfare of the port of St. John. We are all interested, and, therefore, it is my right to speak on whatever interests my constituents. I do not think that because I am here attempting to defend the interests of the port of St. John and of my constituency, because I am asking why they afe being discriminated against that I should be told either that the people of the city of St. John are whining, or that any one of the representatives of New Brunswick in this House is whining, because he is standing up for the interests of the people whom he represents. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should give some better reason than he has given for making this change. When he says that there is nothing in the contract which compels them to take freight at St. John, that they can go wherever they please, it seems to me that is not consistent with the statement be has made, that they have come to the government and asked them to allow them to take freight elsewhere. But he says they cannot go to Halifax, except they find there is no freight at the port of St. John. How do they know there is no freight at the port of St. John ? What reason have they for knowing ? They have a guarantee that the three ships will be supplied by the Canadian Pacific Railway. They can get freight at the port of St. John as long as it comes from the west. If they can get it at Halifax, they can get it at St. John. I do not see any difference between the two, except that when you carry it to Halifax, you have to carry it a hundred miles further.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


George William Fowler: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose I was discussing the withdrawal by the Allan Line Steamship Company of some of its boats from the St. John-Liverpool service. I was trying to point out that it was against the interests of St. John to have a lesser service for the ensuing season than during the past season and that it was in violation of the contract that had been made between the Allan Line Steamship Company and the government, the subsidy of which had been increased at this very session of parliament by $25,000. It occurred to me that when this increased subsidy was granted by this House it was Mr. FOWLER.
certainly not contemplated that the service would be lessened in any way or the same justification could not have been made for the increased subsidy, because naturally, the Allan Line Company could run its service from Halifax to Liverpool much more cheaply than from St. John to Liverpool. This is not a political question nor is it so regarded by the people of St. John. This is a question that naturally affects the whole of the people and a protest has been made by the common council which is the immediate representative of che people of St. John. The common council is composed of members of both political parties as far as federal politics are concerned and it is unanimous in joining in the protest and has sent a telegraphic copy of the protesting resolution which it lias passed to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). The government therefore is acquainted with its contents. The request of the common council is not an unreasonable one. It asks that no change in this contract shall be made without giving it an opportunity of being heard by the government. It seems to me that this is only reasonable. The common council is certainly an interested oarty and it seems to be an unfair thing for the government to make a change, as I understand from the hon. Minister of Finance, it has already made a change in the contract. Am I correct in so understanding the hon. gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) has given permission but as the minister is not present I speak subject to correction. I think, that is correct, however.
Mr. FOWLER, Then I understand from what the hon. minister said this morning that permission has already been given by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Allan Steamship Company to withdraw two of its ships. While the cohrmon council of St. John is not directly a party to the contract yet it is indirectly a party to the contract, because it is very closely interested in the matter. The people of St. John have made very great sacrifices in an effort to build up that port. They have done more proportionately to their population than any other port of Canada along this line, and it seems to me that they are deserving of a very great deal of consideration at the hands of the government, and that the very least that the government could have done would have been to have given them an opportunity to be heard before this change took place. My interest in the matter is almost as direct as that of the people of St. John themselves. The constituency which I represent lies directly adjoining that city and whatever makes for the benefit of St. John makes

for the benefit of the county that I have the honour to represent. That is my justification, if any is needed, for bringing this matter up as I have. I trust that the permission which has already been given to the Allans will be withdrawn, and that the people of St. John will have an opportunity to be heard through their representatives in the common council, before this change is finally carried into effect.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I repeat the observation I made before the lunch hour with regard to the people of St. John. I said that I had some knowledge of the people of that city ; that I believed they were a fair-minded and reasonable people ; that when they found the government was dealing fairly and liberally with them they would be satisfied, and that I believed they would have no sympathy with the whine we sometimes hear in this house and sometimes in the press :	that St. John was being
treated unfairly by the government. Those were the words I used, and I repeat them now. I believe that the mass of the citizens of St. John who have been public spirited enough to contribute to the building up of their port, are fair and reasonable people, and when we can show that we are dealing fairly with them, they will have no sympathy with the cry that St. John is being unfairly treated by the present government. I repeat that. Now, I want to say that there has been no discrimination against St. John. There has been no interference with any privilege which St. John has ever possessed. There has been no change in the essential conditions of the contract; there has been no change in the contract such as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) alleges. Let me repeat, that so far as this contract is concerned it is chiefly and primarily a mail contract. The arrangement originally was altogether with reference to the mails. St. John was never a mail port, and therefore it originally had no connection with this contract. When the mails were taken from Portland, a provision was made that they should instead be landed at Halifax and they have been so landed and taken away from Halifax ever since. At that time, Portland continued to be used by the steamship company for commercial purposes and a good deal of their freight was carried to Portland. The government determined that they would not permit that, and that though the contract was one for a mail service, they would require that contract to be used in order that they might build ui>
Canadian trade. They therefore demanded that the Allan Company should load their steamers in Canada-not at St. John, not at Halifax, not at any particular port-but they were to have the ships loaded in Canada. The action of the government was taken for the upbuilding of Canadian trade, and not for a preference of one port over another. The Allan Company then arranged that they would take part of their cargo at Halifax,
and the chief part of their cargo at St. John. That arrangement has continued for some years. This year the Allan Company came to us and stated that they could not continue, because cargo was not available for them at St. John. It is not because there is any less cargo at St. John-there is considerably more-but the situation has been changed by the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in acquiring a steamship fleet of their own. Very naturally the Canadian Pacific Railway want to use their own steamers, and so they have said to the Allans :	We can not give you as much
freight as we gave you before ; we will make a division of the business ; we will will take a portion of it for our own steamers, and we wi'll give you the balance. The Allan Company has been obliged to accept that. They have shown the communications from the Canadian Pacific Railway setting out these conditions. As a matter of fact the Allan Company have gone to the leading citizens of St. John-many of the leading citizens of St. John ; I do not say all- and they have obtained the concurrence of a number of those leading business men of St. John, who have the largest and the most vital interest in the city. These men have recognized that the position of the Allan Company is fair and reasonable, and they have concurred in the arrangement, and have communicated with the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that they are satisfied with the proposal of the Allan Company. Now, in doing that they are making no sacrifice, because there is not one whit less business to be done at St. John ; all the business and more that was done last year at St. John will be done this year. The difference is that more of it will go out in the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers instead of in the Allan steamers. Therefore, St. John is absolutely losing nothing, and that is why I am satisfied that upon further inquiry the fair-minded citizens of St. John will understand the situation, and become as well satisfied as the leading citizens to whom I have referred and who have communicated to the Minister of Trade and Commerce their assent to the change being made. That is the whole story with regard to the contract.
The orily other feature is that the Allan Company then come to the Intercolonial Railway, and say: ' We can only load a part of our ships at St. John ; we have to get part of our cargo at Halifax ; we ask you if you can facilitate arrangements so that we must get some more cargo at Halifax.' We will be very glad if we can do that. It is a matter to be arranged between the steamship companies and the various connecting lines of railway as to getting some additional cargo to go to Halifax. If they, or any steamship line will come forward with the same proposal for the loading of vessels by the Intercolonial Railway at St. John, and if they make the necessary con-

nections and the necessary arrangements with the several companies concerned, we shall be only too glad to deal as fairly with St. John. The only reason why we have granted the Allan Line this arrangement is because they asked for it, and if they or any -other company will come and ask it as respects St. John, we will be glad to give them every fair and reasonable consideration. I have so much faith in the fair-mindedness of the citizens of St. John, that I am quite willing to let the matter rest on that.


George William Fowler: It is a very singular thing to see the government going to certain private persons in the city of St. John-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We did not go to any one.


George William Fowler: Some one went ; the Allan Line went.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is their business.


George William Fowler: The moment the government accept that petition as voicing the sentiments of the people of St. John, then it accepts these private individuals as the spokesmen for that city, rather than the elected representatives of the people. That is the point I make. Here are the elected representatives of the people of St. John in solemn session assembled, passing a resolution against this being done, and the only excuse the government can give fordoing it is, because the Allan Line, forsooth, which are getting an increased subsidy this year, prefer not to call at the port of St. John as well as Halifax. They have to call at Halifax under their contract, and they had to call at St. John, but now two of these vessels out of the five which were engaged in the service are to be withdrawn from St. John altogether, and yet you have this year given the Allans an increased subsidy of $25,000 for performing a lesser sevice than they performed last year. What justification can there be for that ? Surely it cannot be seriously contended for a moment that any number of private citizens have the right to speak for the whole city against the protest of the elected representatives of the people. It seems to me that in disregarding and ignoring the representations made by the city council, and adopting a petition signed by private citizens, you are not carrying out what we have always understood to be Liberal doctrine. These gentlemen may not be personally affected by the change, and the city itself is affected by the change, and so far as the people of St. John being fair-minded enough to submit to this, perhaps the Minister of Finance may find himself mistaken. I do not think it is any reflection on their fair-mindedness that they should protest against this : quite the contrary. The Minister of Finance says he is quite prepared to do the same thing for any other steamship line that he has Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
done for the Allans. If they have a subsidy for sailing between St. John and European ports he is prepared to let them abandon the port of St. John if they request it. That is the only construction you can put upon the language of the Minister of Finance. He must have a very great deal of confidence in the people of St. John, if he thinks they will tamely submit to that kind of treatment. I say right here, that if there had been a representative from New Brunswick in the cabinet, this thing would not have been permitted ; it certainly would not have been done behind the backs of the people of St. John.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I must repeat that there is no disadvantage to the city of St. John in any shape or form. The city of St. John will ship more freight this year, I believe, than it did last year, and more steamers will be running out of St. John this year than last year.


George William Fowler: What additional lines ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Canadian Pacific Railway will be running a larger number of steamers. I am advised that two passenger steamers that are taken off the Allan Line will be replaced by more than two of the Canadian' Pacific Railway ; and therefore the port of St. John will have more business and more steamers under this arrangement during the coming winter'than it had before. That is the first point I want to emphasize, and that is the reason why I believe the people of St. John, who are fair and reasonable, when the matter is placed properly before them, will understand it. Then,i the hon. gentleman said we went to the Allan Line, and did this, that, and the other. We did nothing of the sort. The Allan Line came, through its proper representatives, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and stated that owing to the new arrangements at St. John they could not load all their steamers there, because they do not want any of their vessels to go to St. John and come away empty. This arrangement is good on its merits, no matter who supports it or who opposes it. I do not say that any of the citizens of St. John are to be taken as having better judgment than the common council. The council was called together in a great hurry, and passed the resolution, I venture to say, without being fully informed of all the circumstances. After the Allan Line have arranged for all the freight they can get at St. John, they will have to send their ships to Halifax and get the balance of their freight there.


Edward Cochrane: Under the contract do they not have to go to Halifax ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Edward Cochrane: Then they were not under any greater obligation than they contracted for.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But they would have to go to Halifax and take the mails. They do not have to get a cargo there every week. Under the arrangement they only took part of their cargo to Halifax ; they took the greater part of it to St. John.


Edward Cochrane: I suppose they took what they could. If they got a whole load at St. John, they would go to Halifax and get the mail?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But tinder the arrangement they could only load three out of the five steamers, and they thought it would be useless to compel them to take their vessels to St. John with a knowledge that there would bq no freight there for them.


George William Fowler: The argument of the hon. minister is unfair, for the reason that he ignores the fact that the Intercolonial runs to St. John, and that the steamers could be loaded there as well as at Halifax. There are no additional steamers put on there by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Their steamers are those of the Elder-Dempster Company, which have run there for years.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They will run more of them, I am told.


George William Fowler: I do not know of any increase in their fleet. It may be possible. But the hon. minister ignores the fact of the Intercolonial Railway carrying freight from Montreal, under the agreement with the Grand Trunk, or freight that might be obtained from the Canada Atlantic Railway, for shipment at St. John and Halifax. I do not wish to take away anything from the port of Halifax. We have heard the boast made that there will be such a tremendous amount of freight that even both ports cannot handle it. There is nothing in the argument of the hon. minister. The whole thing has been done to please the Allan Line and to render it unnecessary for that company to fulfil its contract by sending two ships to St. John. So that to-day they get $25,000 additional subsidy, and only send three of their ships to St. John, whereas last year they got $25,000 and sent the whole five ships to St. John, as well as to Halifax. That is the whole gist of the matter, and the arrangement has been made by the government against the protest and without having consulted the representatives of the people of St. John. I think they had a right to be consulted ; and the mere fact that eighteen or twenty gentlemen of the city of St. John signed the petition was not sufficient to justify the government in making this departure from the contract. The hon. gentleman says there is no such thing as a contract to compel them to call at the port of St. John.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that.


George William Fowler: I understood the hon. gentleman to say it. He said it was not an essential condition of the contract.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that.
Mr. FOWLER, I think ' Hansard ' will show that he did. Does he say that it is an essential condition of the contract that they shall call at St. John ? If it is, then the argument is all the stronger against his; , contention, because the government changed an essential, condition of this contract, and changed it without any consultation with the people of St. John, who are most interested in the change. It does not affect Halifax, because the vessels had to call there any way and take whatever freight was offering. Therefore in standing up for St. John, I am not reflecting on the port of Halifax or trying to injure it in any way; nor does it benefit the port of Halifax to allow the Allan Steamship Company to vary the terms of the contract entered into between them and the government. But it does directly benefit the Allan Steamship Company, because they are getting a larger subsidy for doing a less service than they performed last year for the old subsidy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is mixing up several things. When I used the words ' essential condition,' I was referring to negotiations which took place several years ago when the Allan Company wished to make Portland their terminal port, and when the government obliged them to make their terminal port in Canada. I said that it was not an essential condition that they should call at any particular port, so long as they loaded and unloaded at a Canadian port. It was an incident of that arrangement that they should call at St. John and Halifax ; but we were not so much concerne'd in the quarrels of rival ports as we were that the ships should call at a Canadian port, and as long as they did that, we felt that we had no right to complain. That was a mail contract, and the commercial aspect of the question came up later, when the government decided that Portland should not have the business. The contract provides that they should not be obliged to go to) St. John if they found that they could not get sufficient cargo there, and upon that point the Minister of Trade and Commerce was to be the judge. I am not familiar with all that passed between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Allan Line ; but I know the substance, because I learned it from the minister and from the Allan Company. As they could not get their full cargo at St. John, they asked that that condition In their contract should be observed. If it were a question of taking away any business from St. John, I could understand that there would be need for consideration and consultation ; but as it became clear that all the business done at St. John to continue to be

done, and it was only a question whether it should be done by the Allan Line or the Canadian Pacific Kailway Line, it made no difference to the people of St. John whether it was done by the one line or the other. But the Canadian Pacific Railway people have their own ends and interests to look after, not inconsistent with the interests of St. John, and prefer to take a large volume of the trade themselves and give the Allan Line only a limited amount, and it would be preposterous to ask Allans to send their boats there and have them come away empty. With regard to arrangements for taking freight to Halifax, the government have not any freight to give. They have not their line connecting with the west, and are not in a position to control the traffic of the continent. All they can do is to take what traffic they get from other lines. The Allans came to us and said :
' We have to call at Halifax for the mail ; we get some cargo there, and we trust you will give us whatever facilities you can, and we hope to get more cargo there than usual this winter.' If the Allans or any other company come and say that they are making arrangements with roads in the west to bring goods over the Intercolonial to St. John, I shall be happy to deal with them in a fair way. But if they do not come to us, I do not see what we can do.


George William Fowler: When the arrangement was made to bring the Intercolonial to Montreal, it was stated that it would get the traffic coming over the Grand Trunk Railway in the winter season. The right hon. gentleman says we have no connection with any of the western lines.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Grand Trunk Railway has no weistern line.


George William Fowler: IP has lines all through Ontario.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Ontario lias ceased to be the west.


George William Fowler: Down in the maritime provinces it is still the west. At the time the Intercolonial was extended to Montreal, one of the arguments used was that it would get sufficient valuable traffic to pay for the extension, but now the Minister of Railways says that there is no freight from the west.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister said that we have no connections at Montreal, and the government have no way of bringing in freight over its road.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say anything of the kind.


George William Fowler: It is singular that the hon. gentleman should forget so soon.


William Stevens Fielding: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not so singular as that my hon. friend should misunderstand.


George William Fowler: I am not trying to misrepresent the hon., gentleman, but am trying to reason out the matter on a fair basis. I want to have justice done. The Allan Company should not be allowed to vary their contract. They should continue to call at both ports, and there is no reason why there should be any rivalry between the two. When the hon. minister speaks of jealousy between the ports, he is not doing what lie should in his responsible position. He is not endeavouring to allay jealousy, but rather to excite it. All I ask is that the Allans should go to St. John as well as to Halifax. Let them take whatever portion of cargo is offered at the port of St. John, brought over the Intercolonial, and fill up with cargo from Halifax, and when there is no new steamship line I cannot understand how by taking away the Allan steamships there will still be the same amount of freight carried.
Hon. Mi-. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.). In connection with this debate, there is this singular circumstance, that though we have two representatives from the city of St. John supporting the government in this House, no representations have been made to them with regard to this grievance. There is another point which was overlooked, and that is that while from Moncton to St. John there are 98 miles in favour of St. John against Halifax, when you go to Halifax you 'can load your steamer night and day, tide in and tide out, and when she goes to sea she is 250 miles nearer London and Liverpool and 245 miles nearer Glasgow than she would be if sailing from the port of St. John.


George William Fowler: The remarks of the hon. gentleman do not affect the case at all. We are not discussing which is the better port, but whether this contract with the Allans should be carried out, or whether, after receiving an additional subsidy, they should be allowed to ignore the port of St. John. I do not propose to argue the question of the advantages of Halifax over St. John. As regards the members for the city of St. John not having been consulted in this matter. I know nothing about that. Very likely they were consulted, but I do not see either of them here.
To increase accommodation at Halifax, $125,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item was discussed the other night in connection with the main estimates. And I repeat the explanation. A considerable amount of this is a revote. The appropriation last year was $143,000, of which we expended $75,174. There is a I balance to be carried over, in the form of a

revote, of $67,826. With the other works in Halifax, for which we have to provide in the supplementary estimates, we will have a total of $229,500.
Increased accommodation and facilities along line, $88,000.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: We had before us earlier in the day an item which was allowed to stand respecting additional sidings. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) said that the vote last year was much larger than the figures I had before me. I asked him particularly if the item he had in his book was for sidings, and I understood him to say it was. I think, however, on further examination it will be found that he was reading from another vote in which sidings might be included, but not the particular vote to which I refer. The information always applies to the expenditure under that particular head, and the expenditure which I gave under the head of ' additional sidings ' was the correct sum charged against that item. But there is also the item ' increased accommodation and facilities along the line,' and, last year the word ' sidings ' was included in that, so the two items are not as clearly separated as they should be. This item ' increased accommodation and facilities along the line ' includes a large number of small items. There is only one large item, that referring to the extension of the engine house for locomotives and to provide an office at Pirate Harbour on the Strait of Canso. This was to make a twelve stall engine house, instead of a four stall, at that point. The cost of this was estimated at $25,000.


Samuel Barker: Why should that be brought in as part of a general item ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I am inclined to think the criticism is a fair one. This item is large enough to justify a special appropriation. I am bound to say that if I were revising the estimates, I would put it that way. The other items are small, including many places along the line and running from $300 or $400 up to $6,000, which is the largest I see, except that for Pirate Harbour.


Louis Lavergne: Does that include a station at Drummondville ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The amount estimated for Drummondville is $6,000. I must say I cannot give my hon. friend the assurance he would like. The item for Drummondville-speaking from recollection, as I have not the facts at hand- include a freight shed, purchase of land and improvement of the yard. My hon. friend was anxious to have, besides that, a station. For the present, I am afraid we must ask my hon. friend to be patient and crust that to come in time.


Louis Lavergne: The hon. minister knows perfectly well that at Drummond-441
ville there is no station fit to receive the passengers. I hope the government will see their way clear in the near future to-build a new station at Drummondville.


Samuel Barker: When the item for additional sidings was under discussion, the acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Fielding) claimed that he was justified in putting that in a bulk sum because of the inconvenience that would arise if the government were not allowed, from time to time, to expend money on unforeseen requirements. But it is quite clear that the item under consideration now, $88,000, is of a general character to provide for emergency items such as he refers to. , ' Increased accommodation and facilities along the line ' includes almost anything and everything required by the railway which has not been foreseen. If the hon. gentleman should find that, besides all the sidings he intended to build, cases arise during the year that had not been foreseen, he has quite enough under an item like that $88,000 to meet them. The very fact that an item of $25,000 for one work could be put into such an item as this shows how loose the system is. It has become the practice with the Railway Department-
I do not say that it has been confined to this government-to lump a large number of items so as to make a sum anywhere from $50,000 to $150,000, and then spend it as they please. That is not in the interest of the public. It allows very loose methods to be adopted, and puts the control of the department beyond parliament. I remember that two years ago we had an item discussed in the Public Accounts Committee. It was under this heading of * increased accommodation.' We found that stations were being built, and sidings eonstruc-ed. There was a case where a specific grant of $8,000 had been given to build a station-at Westville, I think-and the government spent over $16,000, quietly taking the balance of $8,000- out of this item of ' increased accommodation.' If the hon. gentleman wishes to have a system under which parliament will have any control over the expenses of the railway, he must have a different system from this. Whether this was adopted thirty years ago or last year' matters not. A better system should be adopted.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I agree with my hon. friend <M(r. Barker) that where there is an item for any considerable amount, whether for a station or anything else, that ought to be voted separately, and the expenditure should be limited to the amount set down in the item. Of course, I think it would hamper the working of the railway to attempt to carry out that system in the case of these small items.


Edward Cochrane: Why is it necessary to spend $88,000 in increased facilities along



the line ? Has the business increased so rapidly, or has there been depreciation of the railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course the business has grown. I gave the figures [DOT]the other day.


Edward Cochrane: Would the hon. minister say whether the business has grown in local business, or in through freight.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think both have grown to a considerable extent. I fancy the local trade is perhaps of more immediate importance. To meet the conditions of this local trade it is necessary to increase the sidings and enlarge the stations. Whenever I go over, the road, I have constant representations made to me that the station buildings are not large enough. These buildings were erected many years ago, and ought to be enlarged.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I notice that the minister mentioned Brookfield. What is to be done there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is for the enlargement of the station and extension of the plaform which requires additional land. The amount is small.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: It ought not to be small. That place has grown to be a leading business point ; it is the exporting centre of the whole trade of that region and the Stewiacke Valley, and ought to have the most ample facilities. Brookfield is an Important trading point on the Intercolonial between Truro and Halifax, and ought to have a much larger station. I was there last year, and several persons complained of lack of room for the business, and said that accidents might happen any day in consequence. The place is crowded with timber and lumber, and I would suggest to the Minister to add $2,000 or $3,000 to the vote.


Louis Lavergne: What amount is to be expended at St. Cyril ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The improvements at St. Cyril will cost $1,500.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am sorry that an amount has not been put in the estimates to raise the wages of the trackmen and all the men engaged on the Intercolonial. That is getting to be a great service, and the labouring men are paid far too little in comparison with the important services they render. I met a number of these men a short time ago, and inquired into their condition. It is impossible for a man receiving only $1.10, $1.20 and $1.30 a day to make a living. He requires to be an accurate man, he requires to go upon the railway in the morning, and walk over it, and exercise the highest human care in order to protect the safety of lives and property. The distinguished officials of this road are handsomely paid, the deputy minister and the managers. I do not begrudge it to them, but I am speaking for the poor trainmen who absolutely do the work to maintain the road and ensure the safety of the trains and passengers. These are the men whose care and diligence make it possible for the railway to be run successfully. The trainmen, the trackmen, the conductors, the drivers, the firemen, the brake-men, the station agents, the telegraphers and the gravel men-these are the men who should receive an increase of salary. The telegraphers, I think, did get an increase a short time ago, but I am told it is a very trifling thing. You add 15 or 20 cents a day *to a man's wages, and what does it amount to ? It only enables him to buy a plate of apples or a pound of candy for his children. It is immediately dissipated. The whole scale of wages on the Intercolonial should be recast. In my community, the railway men, who were at one time not considered to be a very reliable class, are now highly considered. The Intercolonial Railway servants to-day, I am proud to tell the minister, so far as my community is concerned, are a splendid class of men, who occupy good positions, men of trust and men who are worthy of trust. Their families occupy good social positions. They go in for educating their children, and in the town of Truro there is no better class of citizens than the employees on the Intercolonial. How they manage to maintain their families on the wages they get is beyond my comprehension. I think every member of this House and every man in this country would be willing to see these men well remunerated. Every day large amounts of property are destroyed because we ask some of the men to work too long hours, to work when they should be asleep. A man gets worn out through long hours, and an accident takes place in consequence. These things should not be. Supposing some man is overworked whose business it is to look after the track, an accident takes place, and away the train goes. The travelling public are entirely in the hands of these people, and we should make it possible for them to give the best service they can. I ask the minister to increase the wages of these men in consonance with the growing time. I am bound to say that at the present time nothing would be more degrading to Canada than that workmen in the employ of the government should receive insufficient wages to maintain themselves and their families in respectable positions, and enable them to pay their debts. The minister would not like to hear that one of his officials was not paying his debts. It would be disgraceful for an employee on the Intercolonial not to be able to pay his debts. Yet it strikes me the government is asking from these officials more service and better service than they are paying for. These men cannot discharge their duties to their fellow men and pay their debts, and at the same time maintain their families in anything like suitable


Edward Cochrane: comfort, on the wages that they are now receiving. A conductor, a trackman, a fireman is just as much entitled to a remuneration that will enable him to maintain his family in a position of comfort as any man in this House. We sometimes do not think of it. We fancy that people other than labourers or mechanics have superior rights. I say, if there is any sacrifice made, we should make this sacrifice in parliament. We should give up our indemnity and sit here free rather than that our workmen should suffer.


An hon. MEMBER,: For how long ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid $100,000 would not go very far. At a rough calculation, to pay 50 cents a day to each of the employees on the Intercolonial would require $1,250,000.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Well then, vote it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The trouble is that there are hon. gentlemen who sit opposite who are not as broadminded as the kind of people we raise in the maritime provinces and perhaps they would not be so ready to vote it as my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley). But, to be serious, a question was asked the other day regarding the workmen on the Intercolonial Railway, and I promised that upon the visit that I hope to be able to pay at an early date to the maritime provinces to make some inquiry into the matter ? I would not like the idea to get abroad in this country that all of the officials on the Intercolonial Railway are to get an increase of pay. A great many of the men have bad their wages increased during the past few years, and I think they are fairly well compensated now. Only those who are really underpaid and who have a good claim, should be given encouragement to hope that they may get an increase of pay. I want to guard against the idea getting abroad that it is the policy of any party to give these people an indiscriminate increase. If there be cases where they are not getting fair wages by all means let us try to make them right. I think they should have about the same wages as those which can be obtained in private employment. I do not think the idea should go abroad that government employment should pay better than private employment. People who are willing to serve His Majesty should certainly not expect to get more than they could get outside. I think the government service should pay about what is paid in ordinary employment. I do not adopt the suggestion of the bon. gentleman that the great officers of the railway are too liberally paid. On the contrary, I believe they are not. I doubt if there is a large railway on the Continent which pays its chief officers as little money as we pay to the chief officers of the Intercolonial Railway. The difficulty is that we are not able to deal with these gentlemen as liberally as we ought to do. When the Railway Bill was under consideration at this session of the House we had to fix the salaries of the members of the Railway Commission at a sum in excess of what we pay cabinet ministers or the higher professional men in the employment of the governent.

Therefore, while I am not willing to say that the men who are at the bottom of the ladder receive fair compensation, I cannot say that we are paying too much to the men higher tip. The difficulty is to get men to fill these higher positions. Private corporations find that in order to get the services of good men to-day they have to pay them more money than we are able to pay them.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I did not mean to say that the higher officials were getting too much. I do not go in for small salaries. I say that if there is to be niggardliness anywhere, I would rather have it in dealing with the higher officials than with the great body of the workingmen.


Samuel Barker: The hon. Minister of Finance has referred to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and has suggested that we would not consent to the proposition of my hon. friend (Mr. Gourley). I firmly believe that if the government pursued the ordinary methods pursued by railway companies that are managed on commercial principles, if they avoided all possible waste and took every pains to administer the railway on business principles, they would be able to pay better salaries.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no reason to suppose that the Intercolonial Railway is not well managed in every respect, or that it is not managed in a way that wiU compare with any other railway in the country. I have not had a personal opportunity of investigating the matter, but from my knowledge of the officers and of the minister who has had charge of the road, I have every reason to believe that they have been doing their best to run the road in a satisfactory way.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Last year three or four lamentable accidents, involving a loss of $150,000 worth of property, besides loss of life, occurred on the Intercolonial Railway, within seven or eight months. Without desiring to impute any neglect on the part of the people connected with these accidents, I am bound to say that the impression which prevailed along the line of railway was that they were the result of neglect caused by the men being overworked. I do not blame anybody, because it is the system that is wrong. We started out in Canada a few years ago endeavoring to skimp in one way or another. Instead of setting an example of generosity and fair-play in the country, we have set an example of penuriousness. But. I am glad to say, we are getting over that. It Is the system I blame and not the people who have been administering it. The system is bad, and we ought to be generous and bigminded enough to change the system, no matter what it will cost.
Increased accommodation at Pictou, $61,700.


Samuel Hughes: There appears to have been a great deal of expenditure at this place for the last two or three years.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In 1902-3 the appropriation was $70,000, of which only $12,155.10 was expended, leaving a balance of $57,844 to be carried forward. To that extent this is a re-vote.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman told us when we were discussing the main estimates, that he would bring down information with regard to the purchase of land.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is an item of $25,000 for land which has not yet been paid. Negotiations are going forward for its purchase, and we can only give an approximate estimate. The details of the expenditure are as follows : Excavation, $1,650 ; Filling and grading, $5,000 ; Ballasting, $2,750 ; Sidings and tracks, $6,000 ; Piling and trestles, $10,000 ; Loading platform, $1,000 ; New station, $30,000 ; legal expenses, $1,500 ; Contingencies, advertising and inspection, $10,300.


Samuel Barker: Will that complete everything ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This will complete the work at Pictou.


Mr. BELL.: What area of land will be purchased there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The land has not yet been purchased. Probably the hon. gentleman's local knowledge will enable him to form an opinion as to the area of land that will be necessary. It is proposed to acquire some land close to the present station. A valuation has been put upon it, but we are not satisfied with the amount, and it is now a matter of negotiation.


Samuel Hughes: Could the hon. gentleman give us the amount of business that is transacted at that station ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, but Pictou is the point of crossing for Prince Edward Island in the winter, and the business is very considerable.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I call the attention of the minister to the very inadequate accommodation of the Prince Edward Island side at Georgetown, where the warehouse is about one-third the size of the warehouse at Pictou, and where the merchants have to pile up their goods in rain and snow. The minister should give his immediate attention to that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will promise my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) that that matter shall be immediately inquired into.


William Stevens Fielding: 


John William Bell: I suppose the intention is to remodel the entire yard at Pictou ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John William Bell: I may say to the House, that that work is very necessary because unquestionably - the entrance to the Pictou yard is too narrow. The station building is a comparatively small one, and it is not at all suitable to a town of the importance of Pictou. While I would not be able to hold myself responsible for the economy with which the minister may be proceeding, I certainly have every reason to sustain him in asking a grant for the purpose of giving more extended accommodation at that point. Pictou has a very large traffic ; it is not only the terminus of the old Pictou branch, but it is also the point at which practically the Oxford line meets th-e main line of the Intercolonial Railway. It is really a junction, and a very important point to which a great deal of. travel tends. I am sure that if the hon. gentlemen in this House saw the present accommodation at Pictou, they would be prepared to admit that it is necessary to improve it very considerably. At the same time, we must hope that in the course of time, the requirements of our friends on the Prince Edward Island side will be fully met. But one thing at a time ; I presume that having attended to Pictou. the shower of good things may be expected to fall on the opposite shore of the straits.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: That is about the only
way we get anything.


Edward Cochrane: I see that it is to cost $10,000 for advertising and inspection. If that is a proof of the way the money is spent there will not be much economy about it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That includes the payment of engineers.


Edward Cochrane: What are your own engineers doing along that railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the construction of new works the remuneration of the engineer is charged, in proportion, against each particular work. It is as broad as it is long, as far as the treasury is concerned.


Edward Cochrane: That puts the matter in a somewhat different light.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We had that point discussed the other night.


Mr. CLANCY.: Did you say you had a fight ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I used the word ' night.' I would not have a fight with anybody, and least of all with my hon. friend from Bothwell.
Improvements at North Sydney, $21,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The work contemplated by this vote is as follows :
loading platform, $1,200; freight shed, $5,000 ; removal of freight shed, $500; removal of engine house, $500; additional sidings and rearrangement of yards, $12.000 ; advertising and other expenses, $800. Total $20,000. in addition to $13,000 in the main estimates, leaving $33,000 to be expended on this work for the present year.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Are they putting up a new building there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not a new station building, but a new freight shed.
Increased accommodation at Moncton, $14,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to erect a building for the express company's rooms, mails, conductors' outfit boxes and offices of the car service department- a wooden building, estimated to cost $14,000.


Samuel Barker: We had in the main estimates a vote of $15,000 for additional work on the freight shed at Moncton. It is not fair to those who have to go over these items to take up a station two or three times during a session. It seems to me only reasonable that the officers of the department, when furnishing their requirements for the season, should give everything at once, and not in this piecemeal way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When the last main estimates were before the House, I think I intimated that we would have to provide for these particular things in the supplementary estimates. The main estimates were prepared a long time ago, and, as the months roll on, our knowledge of what is required becomes greater ; so that it is not unreasonable for us to come down with an amended estimate.


Richard Blain: I understand that the government are constructing some large locomotives at Moncton ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The deputy informs me that we have lately undertaken to construct locomotives at Moncton. We are enlarging our shops for that purpose.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Has the minister given any contract for locomotives to the Montreal concern ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. We have a contract outstanding with the locomotive works at Kingston, which is not yet finished.


John Dowsley Reid: How many locomotives are being built there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have constructed two locomotives at Moncton, and are arranging to construct two more. There are fifteen remaining undelivered by the Kingston Locomotive Works. We have not given any contract yet to the

14092:
Montreal works. I think they are just getting into operation.


John Dowsley Reid: Have they made any application to the government for any contract ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I think that I had a letter recently from the manager of the company, asking me to give them an order; but, as our orders at the Kingston Locomotive Works are not yet completed, we are not yet in a position to order any more: I have no doubt that as time passes we shall be able to give the Montreal works a share of our orders.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it the minister's intention soon to advertise for tenders for more locomotives ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are not advertising for contracts at present.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there will be no contracts given until the next session of parliament ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that; I am not going to bind myself as to the future.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the minister promise to give the Kingston works a chance of competing ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think both of these locomotive works should have a fair opportunity of bidding. I would give them both a chance.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that this Montreal company put up their works because they claimed that they could get contracts from the government to keep them running.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They have no contract with the government so far as I know ; and, beyond a simple letter written to me asking if we wanted locomotives, they have not made any effort to get any contract.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not doubt the hon. minister's statement. At the same time, I believe a great deal of pressure has been put upon the government-perhaps not on the Minister of Finance-to get contracts for these parties, and at good big prices too. If the minister will only leave these contracts for engines open to competition, so that the Kingston works and others can get a chance to tender, no person can complain ; but if these parties in Montreal claim they can g;et contracts from the Dominion to keep their works running practically without any tender, I think it is not a very nice state of affairs. I mention this now, because at the next session of parliament the matter will come up again. I would like the minister to be in a position to say that he will advertise for public tenders.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have never heard the rumours the hon. gentleman Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
refers to. I do not think they have a shadow of foundation. If the gentlemen he refers to were desperately anxious about contracts with the government, then, in the few weeks during which I have been in the department, I would have heard something about it. They have made no proposal whatever beyond a simple letter asking for orders for locomotives. If I had desired locomotives, I would probably have asked these two concerns to compete. If the hon. gentleman wants me to say what I shall do in the future, I must decline to bind myself.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister knows well enough that these gentlemen would not approach him for the simple reason that they do not know whether he is to be the Minister of Railways or not. The general impression is that he is only holding the portfolio temporary. If he will state that he is to be the minister, he will have these gentlemen after him in a short time. Will he state now that he is going to retain the portfolio ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sorry that I cannot gratify my hon. friend's curiosity. But I think that if these gentlemen were breaking their necks about getting contracts, they would in all probability have come to see the minister who has to submit the estimates to parliament. If they have not done so, that indicates there is no foundation for what the hon. gentleman says.


John Dowsley Reid: I know that they are looking for contracts.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not discreditable.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that it is not, but the hon. gentleman is only acting as minister to pass these estimates. There is to be another Minister of Railways who will spend the money, and it would be useless for these men to try and make any arrangements with the acting minister. That is the reason they have not approached him. If he will only state now that he is to be the Minister of Railways, I will venture to say that within six days they will be applying for contracts for engines.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already told the hon. gentlemen that they have applied to me. They wrote a letter stating that they were prepared to do business and that was the beginning and end of the whole matter. As to who is to be the Minister of Railways for the next five or six years, my hon. friend should not expect me to give him any guarantee on that point.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. minister is going to give any more contracts for engines, he should call for tenders and give these Kingston works an opportunity of tendering. If he will do that, nobody will have any fault to find. But if he simply

writes a letter to a firm asking for a tender, and then awards the contract without giving any other firm an opportunity to tender, he will be acting most unfairly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Considering that the Kingston firm has large contracts and the Montreal establishment none, nobody need waste much sympathy on the Kingston firm.


Richard Blain: What do - the engines at Moncton cost compared with the prices at the Kingston locomotive works ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am advised that the cost of these two locomotives is somewhat inside the prices we have been paying. I will get the figures and supply them at a later stage.


Richard Blain: Are the works at Moncton completed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, they are in condition for the building of engines at present.


Richard Blain: Was the item of $50,000, voted for a workshop, expended and is the workshop completed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no memo, of that here.


Edward Cochrane: Is the capacity of the engines built in the government shops the same as those built at Kingston ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the same class of engines but they cannot build so many.


Edward Cochrane: Could not the government increase the capacity of their shops and build all the engines they want themselves ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The suggestion is well worth looking into. As regards the question of cost, before answering definitely I would like to inquire into the particulars-for instance whether any duty was paid. A number of things have to be looked into, which enter into the cost, before I can give the information.
Mr. LEFURGEY; I would like tp have the power of those engines.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are
the same class as we are getting in the locomotive works at Kingston.


Richard Blain: Last year we voted $30,000 for a steam boiler for heating and electric light. Is that completed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have that information for the evening session.
Towards improving terry service, strait of Canso, $66,400.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The dock on the Cape Breton side of the railway at the Strait of Canso, at Point Tapper,
is very much exposed to the ice and there are difficulties on that account in operating the new ferry steamer. This vote is intended to pay for the extension of crib-work protection on the Point Tupper side in order to prevent the ice entering the dock and interfering with the entrance of the steamer.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: How much, does this make that wa have expended on the ferry service there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have a statement of the total expenditure made but.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It will amount to upwards of $7,000 with the supplementary estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I know it is a very large expenditure.


Samuel Barker: In the main estimates the hon. gentleman asked for $11,000 for this purpose. And now in the supplementaries we are asked for six times as much.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are two different works. One is for an electric lighting plant and the other is for building an addition to the dock.


John Dowsley Reid: It must be a very big dock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is, and it must be very strong to resist the ice.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will the hon. gentleman give us the information later '?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Let the item stand in the meantime.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 will give the information to-night anyway.
Protection to Grand Narrows bridge, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have a large and expensive bridge across the Grand Narrows, Bras d'Or lake, and some difficulty is found because vessels passing through are apt to strike the piers on account of the strong tide which runs through obliquely. There is danger of the vessels being carried against the pier on which the swing span rests when closed. Some damage has already been done. To prevent further damage, and possibly, the destruction of the pier, which would cut off through railway traffic, it is proposed to construct a pier at both ends to prevent the vessels striking the pier. A large class of steamers is used carrying limestone to the works of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. Clusters of piles will be driven, with a wide base, and they will be drawn together at the top and securely fastened, and stone | will be placed around them. The depth of I the water at this point is about sixty feet.


John Dowsley Reid: Will this, and the work we have just dealt with be done under contract by public tender ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a large work and I think it would be done by contract.


John Dowsley Reid: Tenders publicly advertised for ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Where tenders are asked for there is always a public advertisement.


John Dowsley Reid: And the lowest tender accepted ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Always.


John Dowsley Reid: Will that be the case here ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can say that I do not know of any reason why tenders should not be called for. If mey are called for the lowest will be accepted.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course the tenders are not publicly called for unless there is a public advertisement.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is always done.


John Dowsley Reid: Not in my constituency. Letters are sent to friends of the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In works of this character ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, in similar works.


Samuel Barker: The Public Works Act provides that for such a work done under the Public Works Department, tenders shall be publicly called for. Does the minister draw a distinction between a railway work, such as this and the work done under the Public Works Act ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not drawn any such distinction, and have no intention of doing so.


Samuel Barker: The minister said ' if.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not wish, at the moment, to commit myself too definitely. The general policy is that works of this character are to be let by tender.


Samuel Barker: The Act says you must.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am' not sure that it is so under the Railwav Act.	'
New Glasgow-extension to freight shed and crane for loading platform, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: New Glasgow is a growing and important place. Some months ago, a deputation of the board of trade waited upon me and represented that the need of such improvements there were very great, and this appropriation is to give some extension of the freight shed. Hon. Mr. FIELDING.


John William Bell: What is the length of this extension ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: One
hundred feet.


John William Bell: South end or north end ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The
memorandum before me does not state. No doubt, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) will know.


John William Bell: The crane is on the opposite side of the track ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say as to that.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose the minister will give us his word that in the case of these works of $5,000 or over, competition will be allowed after advertisement in the newspaper ? If not, I will draw attention to it next session.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All the more reason why I should not promise.


John Dowsley Reid: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I say that it is the general policy and I have no desire to depart from it. But I do not want to be tied with regard to any particular item. It should not be pressed that far.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister wants to do what is right in the public interest. Why should not he allow the public to bid for these contracts ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know of any reason.


John Dowsley Reid: Will he in this case ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE, i think I shall, in all probability. But if there is any good reason to state to the contrary,
1 want to be free. I do not anticipate there will be.
Mr.* REID/ (Grenvillie). Will the hon. minister promise that this policy will be followed while he is acting Minister of Railways and Canals ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. The hon. gentleman had better rest on what I have promised him.
Matapedia-new station and other improvements, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is an improvement to the well known station of Matapedia, the centre of the sportsmen's business. That present station is not at all creditable, especially when you consider the number of people who come there from all parts of the world.



[Stage Direction]
New station at Windsor, N.S., provided that the railway companies using r.he station make arrangements satisfactory to the Governor in Council for payment by way of interest or rental of a reasonable proportion of the cost, $10,000.
The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Windsor is a place about forty-five miles from Halifax, reached by branch of the Intercolonial running from Windsor Junction. This is leased to the Dominion Atlantic, whose own line begins at Windsor and runs westward to Yarmouth. We, as owners of the Intercolonial are interested from Windsor to Halifax, and a new road has been constructed from Windsor known as the Midland. We think we ought to provide a better station for the town, but we do not think we ought to do it entirely at the expense of the Dominion, but that these other companies should make some arrangement to contribute to the cost. If they will make a reasonable arrangement, the station will be built. If not, we will come to parliament for further instructions.


John Dowsley Reid: Why should this be added to capital account ? There is a station there now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a mere shed, built twenty years ago. Practically, there is no station of value at Windsor.
Steel rails and fastenings (revote), $580,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can the minister give us some information about the old contract made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) with the Clergues for steel rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I gave some information the other day, in answer to a question as to the quantity of rails furnished. It will be remembered that we made an arrangement with the Clergue Company to give them a contract for 25,000 tons immediately, and the assurance of similar contracts for a period of five years. They were not able to deliver any rails within the first year of the contract. Subsequently, they made a further arrangement and delivered about 5,700 tons out of 10,000 which they expressed the hope of being able to deliver. We have taken all from them that they have been able to supply. I believe that they are not manufacturing now-up to the date of their recent trouble and before they suspended operations.


George Taylor: How are these rails as to quality ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There were a few, I am told, open to some objection, but in the main, they were good.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that contract closed, or does the government intend to accept the fulfilment of the contract from the new company coming in ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract is regarded as practically at an end, inasmuch as the company are not able to comply with the terms. At the same time, I am sure that if any company is able to come forward and make the rails, we will be glad to give them an order.


John Dowsley Reid: Has any one approached the government with a view to the reorganization of this company, within the last few weeks ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not to my knowledge.


John William Bell: Is any guarantee required from this company with regard to the quality of the rails which are delivered to the government ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are subject to inspection, and have to come up to the recognized standard of good rails.


John William Bell: Are they required to Stand a certain amount of use ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We pay on delivery, and of course we have to take the risk, providing the inspection certificate is satisfactory. They give a guarantee that they will stand for five years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The rails that were delivered, have they been paid for and accepted ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They were paid for, I think, at the rate of $25 per ton on account. There may be a small balance due. I know that the necessary papers were passed to pay them the money, quite recently ; I do not know whether they have received it. Practically it is all settled. The $32.60 per ton, but they did not deliver any rails under that contract. The arrangement was that, while $32.60 was fixed as the price for that year, the price in future was to be governed by the market conditions, it was not a continuing price for five years. They had an assurance that an order would be given to them at the current price. They did not deliver any rails at $32.60. The subsequent arrangement was at $27.75.


Samuel Barker: How many tons of rails is it proposed to provide with this money, where is it proposed to lay them, and what is the weight of the rail ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This money is taken to cover orders which have been given, and which are now being delivered. A portion of these, 1,872 tons, they have taken from the ship railway, that is a railway on which they were laid for some years but never used. That is a very heavy rail, 110 pounds. We received that at $21 per ton. The price is low. Then we have 15.244 tons of 80-pound rails, received from the Kidston firm, in Glasgow, at $25.25 per ton. Then, there is the 485 tons of this particular item, which is a part of the Sault Ste. Marie delivery, at $27.75. This estimate also in-

eludes plates, bolts, nuts, and so forth, that have been purchased in Canada.


Samuel Barker: Where are they to be laid?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The 110-pound rails are to replace rails of 67 pounds, the 67-pound rails are to replace those of 58 pounds. The 80-pound rails -will cover 211 miles, and are to be laid between Point Tupper and. Sydney, and on the North Sydney branch, on the Drummond division, between Truro and Mulgrave, on the Oxford and New Glasgow, the Pugwash branch, the Pietou Town branch, Pictou Landing branch, and the Dartmouth branch.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Many of these are to replace the lighter rails. What do you propose doing with the others you take up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The lighter ones are usually sold to other roads which
do not require heavy rails.


John Dowsley Reid: I think that any responsible Minister of Railways who would come down with items- like these year after year, should be ashamed of himself. Here we are asked to pass a vote for renewing rails. I think the acting minister will admit that no railway manager in the world would ever go to his directors and say : I want so much money, to be charged to capital account. If the acting Minister of Railways were the responsible Minister, I would be inclined to censure him for coming down year after year and asking us to add to capital account amounts for railways and engines and for the renewal of those that have been worn out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the management do with the old rails that have been taken up ? Are they piled up and kept for sale ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A price is put upon them, and many railways in Canada, wanting the lighter rails, come and buy them. The department has to fix a price which it regards as a fair selling value.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the minister credit to capital account the money that he gets for the old rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly.


Samuel Barker: What is the total number of tons ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total number of tons of rails represented in this item is 17,603.


Samuel Barker: Was there not some mistake in saying that this quantity of S0-pound rails to the yard would cover 21 miles ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The figures which are given to me seem to show that these rails will lay 211 miles of track.


John Dowsley Reid: Although these estimates are very important we have to Hou. Mr. FIELDING.
pass them without having a minister who will assume responsibility for them. I think the government should have appointed a minister who was prepared to do that. I would like to ask the hon. minister if there is any possible chance of having a Minister of Railways and Canals appointed before the end of the session, so that we can ask him if he will assume responsibility for these estimates ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the session lasts for three or four months longer I think I can promise my hon. friend that the office will be filled.


John Dowsley Reid: That is a reflection upon the government, because it shows that they are afraid to fill it now. I think the hon. minister will admit that if they had appointed a Minister of Railways when the office became vacant he could not have carried any constituency in this Dominion.


Samuel Barker: I think the hon. minister's statement as to the mileage will have to be checked, and perhaps he will let us have it again, because I am sure it is not 211 miles.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will. The figures as given to me imply that these rails will cover 211 miles. However, I will have the information possibly at eight.
Rolling stock (revote), $590,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you going to purchase with this vote ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This stock will be made at the several factories in Canada engaged in that line of work.


John Dowsley Reid: Will you purchase any at the Montreal works ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, we have no contract with the Montreal company at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I asked what amount ot' rolling stock you intend to purchase for this amount of money ?	*


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A portion of this money is required to pay the balance due on fifteen locomotives and two shunting engines. We propose to purchase two hundred and seven box cars, nine auxiliary cars and one hundred and thirty ballast cars, which may be used also for coal. The locomotives have been ordered from Kingston, as already stated. The box cars are being made by Messrs. Rhodes, Curry & Company, and the ballast cars have not yet been ordered.


Samuel Hughes: This was voted last year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This was voted last year and not expended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is all the rolling stock you are going to purchase ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Will this vote cover it all ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is estimated to cover it all.


John William Bell: How many cars are subject to repair and condemned as unfit at the present moment ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have to get that information.


John William Bell: I would like to ask the hon. minister if there are any cars or engines belonging to the Intercolonial Railway at present leased to other roads ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is one engine leased to the Bale des Chaleurs Road.


John William Bell: Any cars ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No cars. I have had several applications recently for the loan of cars, but we have not had any to spare.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he intends to put in running order the 500 cars that are out of service before he charges this to capital, or whether this is to replace the cars out of service ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Those cars will be repaired.


Samuel Barker: During the current year 1


John Dowsley Reid: Whose constituency is that in ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is in Cumberland county.


John Dowsley Reid: Were tenders asked from other concerns ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. from everybody.


John Dowsley Reid: Was this the lowest tender ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The lowest tender.


John Dowsley Reid: In the case of the engines, were tenders asked from any other parties than the Kingston Locomotive Company ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think at the time there was nobody making locomotives in Canada but the Kingston Company.


John Dowsley Reid: Were tenders asked from any person outside of Canada ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the minister of the day ascertained what they could be made for abroad, and having ascertained what the proper prices were, he fixed the price for the Kingston people, who were the only people manufacturing in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the price less than the foreign price with the duty added ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, as quickly as the work can be done.
Mr. i&PROULE. Will the hon. minister state the prices at which these locomotives, box cars and ballast cars were purchased ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not the price of the locomotives, but the balance required on the contract is $204,886. The locomotives were purchased at Kingston. The box cars are to cost $999 each, and the ballast cars $950 each.


John William Bell: Are the latter flat cars 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These are flat cars which will be used for ballast but they are constructed according to a new patent, so that they can be used as coal cars also.


John William Bell: The cost of box cars and ballast cars is almost the same. Ballast cars usually cost $600 or $700. These are to cost over $900.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is not the ordinary flat car ; it is a car specially constructed for dumping ballast, and it can also be used for coal.


John Dowsley Reid: From whom were the box cars purchased ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: F'-om Messrs. Rhodes, Curry & Company, of Amherst, N.S.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I could not answer that, but it is quite satisfactory to the company.


John Dowsley Reid: If the engines were costing a great deal more than what they could be got for abroad with the duty added the department should know it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sure they are not.


Edward Cochrane: It might be satisfactory to the company and unsatisfactory to the country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no doubt that the Minister of Railways, in a desire to have these engines made In Canada, gave the company as liberal a contract as he could, but I take it that the price represents about what they could be purchased for abroad plus the duty.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister akes it for granted, but the deputy minster knows whether that is true or not. rhe deputy minister knows what the tend-jrs from abroad, with the duty added, imounted to. The hon. minister should be ible to give this committee the information as to whether the price is equal to or less than what these engines could have been purchased for in the foreign market, with the duty added.

14103


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman a comparison of the price paid with the foreign price, but I can now give the cost price of the locomotives. There was a contract dated 16th June, 1902, for twenty-five locomotives with the Canadian Locomotive Companv, for $20,270 each.


John Dowsley Reid: The Kingston locomotive works are doing a great deal of work for the government, and they are making an awful lot of money and that is the reason these Montreal works have started, because they claim, that with the government at their back, they can make an awful lot of money out of the government, and that they can get all the contracts they want to run these works for years, at almost any price they wish. I would like if the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) should remain Minister of Railways and Canals, because I have great confidence in him, and I believe he will do what is straight. He will have a say in the matter when it comes up in Council, and^ I would now draw his attention to the fact that these works in Montreal have been built simply because they expect, within two or three years to make enough money out of the government to pay for their whole works. That rumour is public property, and time will tell. If I have the honour of being in the House, I am going to draw the attention of the minister to this fact session after session, because I have impressed it upon him now before any work has been let. I am quite satisfied that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding), if he is minister, he will come out straight, but if he gets some of these other gentlemen that are mentioned for that portfolio, I would be a little doubtful of it myself.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have to accept that compliment and carry the item.
Dredging at Point Tupper-to pay M. Connolly interest on $61,429.07 and $16,624.09 at 6 per cent, $5,162,61.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Payment of this account was delayed because of some difference, between Mr. Connolly and the Auditor General regarding another claim. Mr. Connolly owed some money to the government arising but 'of some other work, and an understanding was come to that Mr. Connolly would pay the balance which he owed to the government, and the government pay the balance which they owed Mr. Connolly, interest being calculated on both sides of the account.


John Dowsley Reid: These accounts are pretty well mixed up. We have a dredge purchased that is pretty hard to explain ; and then we have a mix-up in these accounts.


Samuel Barker: Was the liability of the government referred to the law department?


John Dowsley Reid: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think there was no question as to the liability of the government. The point was, that the Auditor General would not pay this account until the other account was paid by Mr. Connolly. There is an item in the Public-W orks estimates this year which represents the other side of the transaction.


Samuel Barker: Does the Auditor General approve of this ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So far as I know ; I think there is no question about it.


John Dowsley Reid: How is it that the minister votes interest to Mr. Connolly, whereas if any other poor unfortunate has a claim against the government he has to go to the Exchequer Court.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nothing to go to the Exchequer Court with in this case. The payment of interest, of course is an act of grace on the part of the Crown. As we get interest on one side of the account, we think it only fair to pay it on the other.


John Dowsley Reid: That is right, but I have even a more just claim in my own county, and the government has refused to pay it. The government wanted some land belonging to a poor widow and they worried the life out of her for three or four years, at the end of which time they gave her $800 for her claim, although she was entitled to a great deal more. I refer to the case of Mrs. Morrison. They held the $800 for three or four years and they absolutely refused to pay interest on it from that day to this. They told the poor widow to go to the Exchequer Court, but in this case they pay exactly a similar claim without sending Mr. Connolly to the Exchequer Court. That is absolutely unfair.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is nothing to refer to the Exchequer here. If parliament gives the money it gives it as a matter of grace.


John Dowsley Reid: Why not extend your matter of grace to the case of the poor widow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know anything about the other case.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, the hon. gentleman was not in the department at the time, but he is assuming responsibility for this vote, and I say it is an act of partiality and favouritism. Mrs. Morrison has asked me to appeal to the department, but I thought there was no use as they refused the claim before. But here the department is quite willing to pay Connolly and they refuse to pay the just claim of the poor widow. Will the minister give me an opportunity of putting the case before him, and I will leave it to his own sense of honour and fair-play to say whether it is just or not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Each of these claims will have to stand on its own merits. I cannot express an opinion in advance.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a poor widow who cannot defend herself.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: She has an excellent defender.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a case of hardship. If the minister gives me his word that he will consider the case, I will leave it to his own sense of fair-play.


Samuel Barker: Has there been any dispute with regard to this credit to Connolly on the part of the Auditor General ? If the Auditor General Is satisfied with this vote we have nothing more to say, but if we pass it now, the Auditor General must pay it whether he thinks it right or not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not know whether the Auditor General has had before him the question of the payment of the interest, but there was no dispute whatever about the principal sum, as between the Auditor General and the department.


Samuel Barker: Why didn't you pay it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because the Auditor General held an account (and I do not say he was wrong) against Mr. Connolly, and he would not pay it until all the accounts were settled together.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the hon. minister not allow the case of this widow woman to be appealed to him ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I have too many applications in the department already to invite others. All I can say is that each of these cases as it comes up will be dealt with on its merits.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that there were two transactions, one in favour of the government and one in favour of Mr. Connolly. Which party stood to benefit the most ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The figures which I have before me have relation only to the Department of Railways. I know that the Minister of Public Works, as disclosed by his estimates, has had some transactions with Mr. Connolly, and it was in consequence of money claimed to be due from Mr. Connolly to that department that this payment was delayed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was the same rate of interest allowed on both sides ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it is. I understand that the late Minister of Railways and Canals came to a settlement with Mr. Connolly on a basis of six per cent. I am not sure what rate of interest was computed in the transaction with the Public Works Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the other account for ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A contract in connection with the Kingston graving dock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister get that information for us and let us know, because I presume that to be fair, the interest should be the same on both sides. I assume that this transaction could not be settled unless Mr. Connolly got the best of it, or at any rate got generous fair-play.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. minister should be willing to give me time within the next six months, whenever it is convenient to him, to place the case of this widow woman before him, and depend upon his sense of justice.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will promise that I or somebody else will give time to every claim of any kind that is submitted to the department.
Engine house, &c., Chaudiere junction (revote), $33,500.
Mr; MORIN. On what side of the Chau-digre river will this building be put up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Prime Minister tells me that it is on the east side.


Mr. MORIN.: Has the site been bought ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is being obtained at present.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How many acres of land have you obtained for it, and how much have you paid for the site ?	'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not the information, but I will obtain it for the non. gentleman.
New machinery for locomotive and car shoDS $9,000.	'
Mr. BLA1N. Will this complete the machinery for the car shops ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think this will be all at Moncton.


Richard Blain: Was the amount of $49,000 voted last year for the equipment of the machine shops there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I find that the appropriation for 1902-3 was $10,000 and the expenditure was $9,280 ; that is, for new machinery only.


Richard Blain: What capacity have you now in the workshops dt Moncton for manufacturing locomotives ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not more that half a dozen a year.


Richard Blain: Is not the equipment for machinery; $50,000 or $60,000, pretty large for that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a great deal of repair work done there all the time.
To compensate the Anchor Line for salvage services to ss. * Scotia,' $16,072.23.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The ' Scotia ' is the ferry steamer in the Strait of Canso which got into difficulty on her way over from Great Britain. Assistance was given her by one of the Anchor Line steamers, and the question arose of what salvage should be paid. An action was brought by the owners of the Anchor Line steamers against the government, and the government were obliged to plead that the Crown is not liable-not because we were not willing to pay a fair amount for salvage, but because our relations with our underwriters were such that, for our own protection, we had to take advantage of any privilege we enjoyed. We. however, had no intention of not paying salvage, and the Deputy Minister of Justice, who looked into the claim, gave us the opinion that it would be wise and just to pay this amount, which the company have accepted.


John Dowsley Reid: The case was never tried in court?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, and judgment was given in our favour on the technical point that the Crown was not liable.


John Dowsley Reid: How much did the company claim ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They claimed a very considerable sum in excess of this.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We compromised with their agent, who came from New York. He agreed that the amount we offered was reasonable, and the company are perfectly satisfied. Our recourse against the underwriters still exists, and we are endeavouring to make them pay.
Additional sidings along line, $63,500.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This'is an item we allowed to stand over. I find that the item mentioned by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) is not the same as this, although the wording is somewhat similar. The item he read was for additional sidings and increased accommodations and facilities along the line, $135,000. That is much broader and not confined entirely to sidings.


Richard Blain: What proportion of that $135,000 was expended on sidings ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 


$71,727.2G.
Samuel Barker: As you have got through that item 31, I wish to say that, although no discussion has taken place on the system of charging to capital certain expenditures


Richard Blain: which should go against income, I desire once more to protest against the system adopted by the government in that respect. In the one item of steel rails and fastenings, $585,000, really not more than $100,000 should be charged against capital.
Prince Edward Island-Murray Bay harbour branch and Hillsborough bridge, $180,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item was wholly explained in the main estimates, when I informed the House that we would have to provide an additional sum in the supplementaries.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I find that this railway cost $28,000 per mile and more; why does it cost so much ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract is on schedule prices, and as the quantity of work increases, the total cost is greater. The engineers say it is through a difficult country and the cost of construction is much larger than it would be in the case of a narrow gauge road, built through an easy country. The country is considerably rocky and rolling. The whole cost of the work is estimated at $2,795,113.


John Dowsley Reid: Who are the contractors ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contractors for the construction of the road are Willard Kitchen, and for the bridge, M. J. Haney.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the contract price for the bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract is on schedule prices. The cost is estimated at $1,494,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Did any other contractors tender ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The bridge was let after public tender and competition.


Samuel Barker: Do those figures include the superstructure ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The cost of the bridge would include the superstructure, which is to be removed from the Intercolonial and taken over to Prince Edward Island.


Richard Blain: In the discussion last year, page 2862 of ' Hansard,' the hon. minister stated that the cost of the bridge would be $1,100,000. Now he says it was let by contract at schedule prices, and the cost he estimates at $400,000 more than he did then. Would the hon. minister tell us how that comes ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There can be no change in prices but only in the quantities. Just why the engineer should have made an estimate of quantities last year, which moneyed out to $1,100,000,

when now we find the estimate $1,400,000, I cannot explain. I will have to look into it and see how the discrepancy has occurred.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there any change in the engineers ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, there was no change except in the quantities. In either one casd or the other, they have not been estimated with sufficient accuracy.


John Dowsley Reid: It does seem strange that last year the engineers should have made an estimate of $1,100,000 and now they make an estimate of $1,400,000. The minister ought to allow the item to stand until he can explain it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Did these estimates read by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) include the superstructure ?


Richard Blain: I will read to the hon. gentleman what the Minister of I'.ailwavs and Canals said last year. ' The bridge itself will cost $1,100,000.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That might or might not include the superstructure.


Richard Blain: It would hardly be a bridge without a superstructure.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The engineers do not always taik that way.


Richard Blain: The minister would not say that the cost of the bridge without the superstructure would be $1,100,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can not say that. I will look into it.


Richard Blain: This is the kind of thing that causes delay in passing the estimates. Will the hon. gentleman say that the bridge will be completed for not more than $1,460,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The figures given to me of the latest revised estimate is $1,494,137. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) asks me if I will guarantee, on my own responsibility, that the bridge will be finished for that. I will not. Nor would he if he were in my place. I am obliged to take the information that is given me by the engineers on such a subject as this.


Richard Blain: I would not ask the minister to pledge his own word to the House for the completion of that work for that amount. But it does seem as if the engineers were at fault, or else, owing to hurried and incomplete explanations, it is impossible for members of the committee to understand what these works are and what they will cost. I could easily understand it, if it were a mere estimate. But here is a work under construction with a large amount of money already expended on it. And the minister, with so large an item
as $500,000 before the committee, last year made tire statement that the bridge would cost $1,100,000. It seems strange-and the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals will agree with me I am sure-that we should be told now that the bridge will cost nearly $1,500,000. I suppose the river has ijot got any wider, necessitating the building of a longer bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think not.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the hon. minister will give us a statement of the estimates for the superstructure and for the other work-the original estimate.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The original estimate of the bridge ought not to differ from that of to-day, because there has been no additional work, so far as I know. I cannot explain why my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals of last year gave an estimated cost of $1,100,000. I will have to learn, if I can, before the estimates are finally disposed of, what the explanation is. Sometimes, there are explanations of these things. Sometimes, two items which seem to relate to exactly the same work do not relate to exactly the same thing.


Edward Cochrane: The minister must see that this is not a satisfactory way to vote money. Last year the Minister of Railways and Canals asked the committee to grant a sum of money for the completion of this bridge. This year, we are asked to vote $300,000 more for the same work. And the acting Minister of Railways and Canals himself tells us that he is not going to pledge himself that this is all the bridge will cost. We cannot know what we are doing under these circumstances, we do not know where we are at. I do not know for one, and I cannot feel safe in coming to a conclusion in this matter unless the minister gives us better assurance than he has seen fit to do so far in his bland way. I do not hold the minister responsible for this increased estimate of $300,000 but the question naturally arises, how are we to know that we shall not be in the same position next year. The hon. minister tells us that when engineers speak of a bridge they do not always mean a bridge with the superstructure. If an engineer talked to me about a bridge, and I found out afterwards that he meant a bridge without a superstructure, I should think he was trying to deceive me. Surely the hon. minister was not in earnest when he spoke in that way. The minister tells us that this bridge will cost $300,000 more than the amount given last year


Samuel Barker: Three hundred and eighty thousand.


Edward Cochrane: It has gone up again. It seems to me that we are entitled to have

this question treated with more seriousness by the minister. Of course we may laugh over these things and so let them go, but we can hardly do that and deal justly by the people we represent. If anything of this kind were to occur in a municipal council, there would be a general opinion that the councillors were trying to deceive the people. We are entitled to know just what money will be required to finish this bridge.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Cochrane's) criticisms are quite fair. I say that when my attention was drawn to the fact that the engineer said last year that the bridge was to cost $1,100,000, I find now that it will cost $1,490,000. There is an explanation due, and I will endeavour to obtain it. I will let the item stand in the meantime.


Samuel Barker: The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) asked what the cost of this superstructure would be. That is provided for by the government and I think the government should know.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The cost of the superstructure which, of course, would include the transfer of the bridge from the Intercolonial, the carriage and construction is $275,000.


John Dowsley Reid: And the rest of the structure.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For the construction of the branch ?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I am talking of the bridge. I asked how much the superstructure of the bridge would cost, and also the other parts of the work, in order that we might get at the original estimate of the cost.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The estimated cost of the superstructure is $275,660 ; of the superstructure and approaches, $1,218,436, making in all $1,494,096.


John Dowsley Reid: Now give us the original estimate, I mean when the contract was given to Mr. Haney.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will find out what the original estimate was. There ought to be no difference in these estimates, because the price remains the same. It is merely a question of quantity. Mr. M. J. Haney was the contractor.


John Dowsley Reid: Then {he minister will allow this item to stand until we get full information ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Judging from the estimates since 1900 for the improvements at Hillsborough, one would think that Prince Edward Island was getting a lot of money.
I find that in 1900, $700,000 was voted ; the next year, $450,000; the next year, $500,000 ; further supplementary estimates the Mr. COCHRANE.
same year, $450,000 ; for 1903-4, $750,000, with this present estimate of $480,000, making in all $3,330,000 voted since 1900. Now, there must be some mistake. This is certainly misleading to the people of Prince Edward Island, because they have not received all that money.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is confusing two entirely different things. The votes for public works and the actual expenditure upon them are two different things. Large sums of money in these estimates are re-votes ; therefore one gets no intelligible idea of the cost of a particularly work by merely adding up the various items of appropriation.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister can bring down the total amount that has been paid out on the Prince Edward Island Railway since 1900.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can give that now. The total expenditure on this work for the last four years ending June 30th. 1903, is $1,492,525, on the Murray harbour branch and upon the bridge-the whole enterprise.


Richard Blain: The minister having given us a statement of the supposed cost of the bridge, would he give us a statement of the cost of the railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The estimate of the railway to the point known as Murray river which was one contract, is $926,460.70. To that is to be added the cost of the line down to Murray Harbour, $104,600.32. These two items would make up the cost of the railway. In addition to that, there will be required a crib-work wharf at Murray Harbour which was estimated to cost $69,955. These three items will be the cost of the railway and the terminal facilities at Murray Harbour.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Legislation-House of Commons-to provide annual increment to ten clerks at $50 each, $500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What clerks are these ?


Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. L. P. Brodeur).: I have not the names with me, as I did not expect my estimates to come up, but they are all clerks who are entitled to increase of salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did they get an increase last year ?


Mr. SPEAKER.: Some of them must have had increases last year. We generally give increases so long as they do not reach the maximum of their class. I suppose that those who were not transferred from one class to (another received increases last year, and are this year receiving increases.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All those who did not reach the maximum got increases last year ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did they the year before ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Since I have been Speaker of the House of Commons I have always given increases to all those who have not reached the maximum of their class and who are entitled to them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Speaker is more generous to his employees than some members of the government are. We are not objecting to it, because I think he has done the right thing.


John William Bell: I understand that some officials of this House are not included here, and I understand that in many cases, on account of the length of the session, those who are not paid for their day's service, but who are paid by the year or the session, will be at a great disadvantage. In some cases gentlemen who are at the head and in charge are receiving remuneration which in amount is less than that received by their subordinates. An example of this is the gentleman at the head of the sessional writers. While the session has been protracted to such an extent that it is necessary to increase the pay of all the temporary employees and also of all those who are employed by the day, some recognition should be made of the length of time during which these older and annual employees are obliged to work. I find that a few are provided for, but very few, and it strikes me that while it might not be advisable at this time to touch the more expensive salaries, there are some gentlemen who are receiving very small salaries which it might be well to increase. I may mention the case of Mr. Stewart.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I know the case to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) refers. The sessional writers are not on the permanent list. Those for whom provision is made in the estimates are all officers who are on the permanent list. The one to whom the hon. gentleman refers is not on the permanent list. I understand the difficulty in which those officers find themselves this year on account of the extraordinary length of tile session, and probably some means will lie taken by which these officers shall at least receive the same salary as those who are under them.


John William Bell: I suppose 1 am to understand that his honour the Speaker is making that definite statement, and that something will be done to put these gentlemen in a better position than that in which they are at present I see that the further supplementary estimates contain some provision for officers of the House of Commons, but these gentlemen are not included.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I may say that it is not necessary that these amounts should be included in the estimates. I think that there is already enough money voted to provide for these increases. It will be a question for the board to determine, and we expect to have a meeting of the board very soon, and the matter will he looked into.


John William Bell: That is the Board of Internal Economy ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: A number of years ago the regular press representatives in the press gallery were placed on the list of sessional writers, but the practice has been discontinued for some years. Inasmuch as this has been a very long session,
1 am satisfied that the Speaker would be endorsed by the House and by the country if he would, at all events for this session, fall back upon the old custom and allow tlie representatives of the leading journals who have been here during the entire session to be again placed on the list of sessional writers.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The matter has never been brought to my attention. In fact, this is the first time that I ever heard that some years ago the members of the press gallery were also sessional writers. It may be so, but I have never heard of it. This is the first time also that I ever heard it proposed that something should be done in the way suggested by the hon.' member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes).


Samuel Hughes: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take the matter up and consider it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course, there are some little courtesies which have always been extended to the gentlemen of the press, but do I understand that the hon. gentleman suggests that representatives of the press should be paid as if they were sessional clerks ?


Samuel Hughes: They do as much as the sessional clerks.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: One is a public servant and the other is not.


Samuel Hughes: I think the custom was that some years ago the members of the press gallery were on the list of sessional writers, and I think that those who have been here the entire session and given their entire time to the work of the House and of the country should be placed on the list of sessional writers. I should lie pleased if the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) would go into the matter.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The practice may have existed, but I have never heard that members of the press gallery were also sessional writers. I will inquire about it.



Mr. GOT! It LEY. I heard a young page boasting the other day in the Senate of the superiority of their House, because they pay their doorkeeper $1,000, while ours only gets $500. I want to know whether that is correct or not. I hope there is some explanation of that, because we hold the purse strings and we should see that our officers are properly paid.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The question was brought to my attention some time ago, and I inquired the reason why they gave $1,000 a year, or $900, to the doorkeeper of the Senate. The reason given was that the officer they have there is a very old officer who was at one time doing something else. He became old or for some reason or other they decided to appoint him doorkeeper, and leave him at the same salary as he had received before. He wanted this position of doorkeeper, because he thought it would give him less work to do. He is a very old officer and this is why he receives more salary.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I think this is a very ridiculous sum to pay our officer for a long session like this ; $500 seems to be really beneath contempt as a compensation for such an important officer as this one who preserves our House from intrusions at all times. I really think it is worthy of more serious consideration.
Tradesmen, and 'others, $1,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There is one of the employees of the House who is only allowed $3 a day for himself and for the use of his horse. He has pointed out to me that the messengers receive $2.50 per day, and the extra 50 cents which he receives is not sufficient remuneration for the use of his horse.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I will inquire into the matter.
Murray Harbour branch and Hillsborough '' bridge, $480,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Before six o'clock, my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) raised a question with regard to the estimated cost of the Hillsborough bridge and the Murray Harbour Branch Railway. The hon. gentleman pointed out that the' minister stated last year that the cost of the bridge would be $1,100,000, while I have stated that the cost would be $1,494,096. As I then suggested, the difference arises from the fact that while the cost of the bridge itself was placed at $1,100,000, the contingencies and the superstructure would increase the estimate to the larger amount. It would have been better had the minister last year stated that his estimates did not include the superstructure, but it is quite evident that he did not intend to include it, because the sum he mentioned is almost exactly the engineer's estimate for the substructure, namely, $1,107,667. To this should be added 10 per cent for contingencies, amounting to $110,767,1 Mr. SPEAKER.
and for the superstructure $275,660, making the total cost of the bridge in its entirety $1,494,096.


Edward Cochrane: What are the contingencies in the case ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is the practice with engineers to allow a margin for contingencies in connection with such works.


Samuel Barker: I myself thought that might be the explanation of the difference, but I am bound to say that when a minister speaks of an estimate in this House, he should include contingencies. We have reason on this side of the House to complain that there is too much looseness in the answers given to questions of this kind, and I am sorry to say that very frequently we have reason to believe that an answer is given which may satisfy the House for the moment. I do not make any personal reflection now, but I have noticed frequently a desire on the part of a minister to say something which for the time being may satisfy the House. We are entitled to know the whole truth, and no matter who the minister is, or how much I may respect him personally, I shall never hesitate to speak my mind plainly, if he is guilty of such a thing. A minister is bound to give the fullest explanation to this side of the House, and to his own followers, on every item of these estimates. The contingencies are included by every engineer in an estimate for such a work, and it is absurd for any minister to give an estimate without including contingencies in it. I bad no doubt when this $1,100,000 was spoken of as the probable expenditure required for this work, it meant that the actual estimate was $1,000,000 and that the $100,000 was the 10 per cent added to it. Still, I think it is quite possible that the Minister of Finance has told us just what occurred. I have no doubt that on that occasion, owing to the want of proper care, the care which we are entitled to expect from the government of the day, the $1,100,000 was taken as the full estimate, including the contingencies, when there ought perhaps to have been 10 per cent added to that. There is no doubt, however, in my mind that this contract requires on the part of the acting Minister of Railways a very careful investigation. Assuming that the hon. gentleman was correct in telling us that this narrow gauge railway is going to cost $28,000 a mile


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I did not say so. An hon. gentleman on the other side said that.
Mr. BARKER, I think the hon. gentleman said so, and he added that it did seem a very large amount for a narrow-gauge railway. I think ' Hansard ' will show that I am correct in that. If $28,000 a mile is being spent by this government on a narrow-

gauge railway in Prince Edward Island, with all the facilities which it has for completion, such as providing steel rails from the Intercolonial Railway at practically the cost of scrap, it is a monstrous thing to suppose that such a railway will cost any such money.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not say that the road would cost $28,000 a mile. The figures came from an hon. gentleman opposite, I do not remember whom.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it was I who made the calculation. I said that according to that calculation the cost was $28,000 a mile-am I correct in that ? And I think the hon. minister said that it was a big price for a narrow-gauge railway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman confirms the statement I made. I did not make the calculation per mile. I said the road was expensive, but I did not compare the figures, and they did not originate with me. As a matter of fact, the cost of the road to the point where it has reached, Murray river, not including the bridge, would be $21,056 a mile.


Samuel Barker: [DOT] No one ever beard of calculating the cost of a railway per mile and omitting all its bridges.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I suppose that if we were to take a piece of the Grand Trunk, including the bridge at Montreal, and figure its cost per mile, it would amount to a great deal. This Hillsborough bridge is a large and costly one, and any attempt to figure out the cost of a narrow-gauge road associated with the cost of that bridge, would be so manifestly unfair that I cannot imagine the hon. member for Hamilton wanting the figures to be put in that way.


Samuel Barker: I think the cost of a road ought in every case to include the cost of the bridges. It is quite open to the hon. gentleman, when he finds that the cost is exceptionally high, to point out that there is an unusually costly bridge; but no one ever heard of the cost of a railway being estimated per mile without including the cost of the bridges.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That may be correct in the case of a long railway with ordinary bridges. On the other hand, it would be equally absurd to take a short narrow gauge railway, containing one very long bridge, and add the cost of the two together to get at the cost per mile of the railway.


Edward Cochrane: You could not have the railway without the bridge.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But a statement of that character would be very misleading unless you made an explanation as to the cost of the bridge.
442*


Samuel Barker: That is what I say, and it is open to the hon. gentleman to make that explanation. Even the railway without the bridge cost 50 per cent more than it ought.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman were doing the work as a contractor, perhaps he would not think so.


Samuel Barker: As a government contractor I might not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is not quite prepared to say that any contractor would do it for less than the contractors are doing it for now. So far as I know, they are doing it at ordinary schedule prices. If that is so, the hon. gentleman's remark is uncalled for.


Samuel Barker: I can probably give the reason why it is costing more than it ought to cost. This question was up last year or the year before. The fact is that the contractors got the contract for the first ten miles of this road on certain specifications at so much per yard, and the government, instead of calling for tenders for the remainder of the road, told the contractors that they could complete it at the same rates, without the least investigation as to whether the continuation of the road was of the same character or not. We complained at the time that no railway company in the world would ever think of letting contracts on such a basis. The minister at the time had to admit that he did not know the character of the work yet to be done ; he had received no estimates or statements when he entered into the new contract. That is what this business government thought was the regular thing, and it was approved by every hon. gentleman opposite.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the contract had been taken for the first section at so much per mile, and if it had been extended at the same rate for a different class of work, then the hon, gentleman would have some reason to complain. But what is the fact ? The first contract was made at schedule prices, and when the road was extended the contractor was allowed to continue the work at schedule prices for the same class of work, because there was no material difference in the work. It was a mere question of quantities.


Samuel Barker: I said1 the first contract was let on the basis of so much per yard for the different qualities of work. But what I complained of then, and what I complain of now, is that the government, without ascertaining the nature of the work to be done, without knowing whether it was more expensive or less expensive than the part already done, simply told these contractors to go on and do the work. Did those gentlemen take it without investigation ? I would like to ask any hon. gentleman in this House whether it ;s

reasonable to suppose that the contractors would have taken the extension without ascertaining whether it was more profitable or less profitable for them to do the work. The minister of that day admitted that he had no reports whatever from bis department as to the nature of the work yet to be done; and it is absolute folly for the hon. gentleman to tell me now that the government had ascertained that the work yet to be done was of the same character as the work already done. The minister of the day, a year ago, admitted that he did not know. He simply shut his eyes and told the contractors to go ahead.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not want to contradict my hon. friend, but I question if the minister used any such language. The general conditions of the country there are well known, and .1 am advised that they do not differ. As the rates were schedule rates, so much for every yard of earth removed and masonry constructed, it is simply a question of quantity. Unless the contractors did a larger quantity of work, they could not get a larger amount of money. If the general conditions of the country are the same and the schedule prices were fair in the first instance, I do not think there is anything to warrant the statement that the cost is excessive.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman, I fancy, lias never had to pay for any work done on a railway or he would not use such an argument. It is quite possible that you may have to handle the same earth or rock or whatever it may be, but the value of that work depends on the haulage. If you have to take up a yard of earth in one place and haul it a mile, that will cost you considerably more than if you have to haul it half a mile or less. The government should have obtained from its engineer a report as to how far every yard of earth and rock would have to be hauled. You pay a man so much per yard, not merely for digging up the earth, but for hauling it, and the rate largely depends on the length of haulage. A contractor may excavate and haul a short distance at fifteen cents per yard and charge thirty cents a yard for double the distance. How can you tell by one ten miles of the road what the next ten miles will cost. The minister of the day admitted that he had made no inquiry.
I venture to say that there is not a railway company in this country who would think of letting a contract to a contractor on ten miles of road simply on the basis of what they paid another contractor on another ten miles. They would have an estimate from their engineer of the distance every yard of earth had to be hauled, and every detail, before they would give out the contract.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. minister the plans, cuttings, specifications , and profiles ? He should lay these on the
table ? We should know how much filling and putting had to be done and what was the nature of the cutting on every mile of road. The price paid for building a road in that country seems most extravagant and perfectly abnormal. You could build a road through the Rocky Mountains for the same money.
The MINISTER OB' FINANCE. These plans and specifications are not in Ottawa, but they were all submitted to the House when the matter was discussed on a previous occasion. The contract is not one which has been recently let. I do not recollect the precise words used by the minister at the time, but I am assured by the chief engineer that it was well understood that the general character of the work on that line was the same and we could properly take the prices given in the first contract as a very fair criterion of the value of the work.


Samuel Barker: The matter may have been well understood but that is not the way business men enter into contracts. I asked# the question at the time if the department had had reports showing the nature of the work, and the minister admitted he had not. The idea of any one entering into a contract involving large sums of money upon what was ' well understood ' as to the nature of the country !


Mr.   BRAIN@: What is the length of this road V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Forty-four miles to Murray river and six and a half miles thence to Murray Harbour terminus, making fifty and a half miles.


Mr.   BRAIN@: Has the terminus been decided upon by the department ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, but the last six and a half miles have not been constructed.


Mr.   BRAIN@: And the total cost of the road outside of the bridges ?


Samuel Barker: Is $1,400,000, which is nearly $28,000 per mile.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Including the bridge.


Samuel Barker: No, excluding the bridge.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total cost of the work down to Murray Harbour, which is the terminus, is placed in the revised estimates at $2,795,113. If from that you will deduct the estimated cost of the bridge, $1,494,097, the result will give the cost of the road without the bridge. That also includes $09,555 for terminal facilities at Murray Harbour.


Samuel Barker: This particular harbour ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, but if you use terminal facilities on a short road,


Samuel Barker: 

the cost will be more per mile than on a long road. $2,795,113.17 is the estimated total cost of the work. The estimated cost of the bridge is $1,494,097.


Richard Blain: That would make the total for the bridge and railway, how much ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The bridge, railway, rolling stock, and wharf at Murray Harbour, all united, cost $2,795,113.17. That includes the bridge and rolling stock and $69,000 for the wharf at Murray Harbour.
Mr. HI,AIN. The Minister of Railways and Canals last year estimated the cost of the bridge at $1,000,000 and the cost of the road, including rolling stock, at $2,620,000. So that the hon. gentleman is under the estimates of the late minister.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have the same figures. They gave the cost down to Murray river, but, the road down to Murray Harbour is six miles and a half more, which could not have been included in that statement.


Richard Blain: The estimate which the hon. gentleman is giving now is very much lower than that given by the Minister of Railways and Canals last year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not see how that can be.


Richard Blain: The last minister gave the cost of the road, including rolling stock, at $2,620,000 and the cost of the bridge at $1,100,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The cost of the bridge was included in the cost of the road.


Richard Blain: No, here are the exact words:
* The railway including the rolling stock, will cost in the neighbourhood of $2,620,000. The bridge itself will cost $1,100,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is included in the $2,620,000.


Samuel Barker: Allow me to point out another fact. Tire late minister gave the figures last year at $2,620,000, omitting the last six and a half miles of railway. Now we have it up to $2.S00,000 round numbers. That means an addition of $182,000 for six and a half miles of railway, which is $28,000 per mile.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend should mention that in that six and a half miles is included $70,000 for the wharf.


Samuel Barker: I admit that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman admits it now but he did not state it.


Samuel Barker: I am giving the average cost of the road. You can find some half miles on the road that will cost $50,000.
But I am speaking of the average. The whole average is $26,000 to $28,000 per mile according to the hon. gentleman's own figures.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And In his estimate the hon. gentleman includes nearly $70,000 for a wharf. If that is understood and clearly stated, I do not object to his calculation.


Samuel Barker: The hou. gentleman knows that you can find roads one hundred miles long with terminals worth a million. All that is included. You do not count only the cheapest or worst part of the road, but include the terminals also. You will spend sometimes on one station more than will build five miles of the road. All that is taken in in estimating the average. Taking this whole road without the bridge, the cost is $26,000. Take the last sir and a half miles, the cost is $28,000, and I do not see how the hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) was far wrong in his estimate. The hon. gentleman seemed to think this was an excessive amount for a narrow gauge railway and I think everybody will agree with him.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) can find terminal companies with only two or three miles of railway, and terminals worth immense sums, which would make the road cost on the average, perhaps, $100,000 a mile. In the case of this railway the hon. gentleman includes a great bridge and a wharf at the end of the road, and so figures out a very high average cost for this narrow gauge railway. He may be technically right, but the statement is a very misleading one.


Samuel Barker: The hon. minister always wished to put in this bridge. Well, if he puts that in he makes the cost of his road $55,000 a mile, and, leaving out the bridge the road costs $26,000 to $28,000 a mile, and, judging by the differences in estimates that are given us at different times, we may probably add ten or fifteen per cent to that. It is perfectly fair to count in even the cost of an expensive terminal in averaging the cost of road per mile. You can find miles that may cost $75,000 to $100,000. But that is not the way you take it-you take the average of the whole.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is still leaving out $200,000 for rolling stock which is included in this. That adds to the cost per mile.


Samuel Barker: All that is part of your railway system. And I am not sure that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) is going to spend $200,000. He has a good deal of rolling stock already in Prince Edward Island. But, assuming that he does, he has $28,000 a mile expended in Prince Edward Island for a narrow gauge railway. Why you would not spend that to-day for a

first class railway in Ontario. And tills road in Prince Edward Island is laid with second-hand rails from the Intercolonial, has a second-hand bridge from the Intercolonial and, no doubt, the rolling stock will be second-hand also. That is what Prince Edward Island gets, apparently. The govern ment is transferring this bridge from the Intercolonial to this branch railway and charging $300,000 for it. And it is taking 67-pound rails that have been almost worn out on the Intercolonial-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Who says so ?


Samuel Barker: We have heard from time to time from everybody who has discussed these estimates that the rails that were taken off the Intercolonial were to be sent to Prince Edward Island.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But who said they were worn out ? That is the point.


Samuel Barker: Well, I suppose the hon. gentleman is not taking up new rails ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But that is not the point. Who said they were worn out ?


Samuel Barker: I suppose they are not absolutely useless, but still they are secondhand rails. The minister is putting down railways for which he charges what price he pleases, using rails and bridges from the Intercolonial. And the result is that he gets a narrow gauge road which costs about $55,000 a mile, or, excluding the bridge, $28,000 a mile.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) has made his speech still more remarkable by saying that the rolling stock will be old rolling stock from the Intercolonial. I think it will take his ingenuity to show how you are going to take broad gauge rolling stock and use it on the narrow gauge railway.


Samuel Barker: Oh, that has been done over and over again.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know whether the minister answered my question as to the estimate of the cost of this bridge.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not aware of any other estimate than this one. If there is any other I will get it later.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, let the item stand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the item has stood long enough.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister is not prepared to give ns any information.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may be able to give it during the evening.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, the item should stand until he gets it. As well as I can under-Mr. BARKER.
stand there is a deal in this for some person. I think we should be told exactly what increase there has been since the original estimate, and we should have that information before the item passes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have just received information which may meet the hon. gentleman's question. The original estimate of the substructure was $605,274 with ten per cent for contingencies, $60,527. The original estimate of the superstructure was $275,000, making a total estimate of $940,801 at the time the contract was first made. The explanation of the increase given to me is that the bridge was lengthened 630 feet, with an enlarged water-way, necessitating two abutments and one pier being added. The four pneumatic piers were increased in size, increasing the cost of dredging, iron concrete and rip-rap. The earth approaches were added to the concrete. Schedule prices remain the same as in the tender and contract.


Samuel Barker: The minister expressed surprise when I spoke of the cost being increased by over 50 per cent above the estimates. The figure he has just given, showing the original estimate of this bridge at $940,000, as against the present estimate is a little more than 50 per cent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not what my hon. friend said. He did not say it was 50 per cent more than the estimate, he said it was 50 per cent more than the thing'should have cost.


Samuel Barker: It should have cost according to the estimate.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No-, if changes were afterwards made, it should cost its fair value.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman suppose that I know what the thing should have cost ? I have never been in Prince Edward Island. I was speaking of the estimates given by the Minister of Railways in this House, which were $940,000 for this bridge. To-day these estimates are up to $1,494,000, an increase of more than 50 per cent. That justifies what I said.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, it does not. If he was only thinking of the estimates it is unfortunate he did not say so. He said it was 50 per cent more than it should have cost. That was a question as to the value of the work in comparison with the price that we were paying for it. If he had said that it was 50 per cent more than the first estimate, that would have been a matter for discussion.


Edward Cochrane: When the minister comes down and tells us that the cost of a bridge is going to be so much, an ordinary mortal like myself naturally believes him.
I have seen so much of this thing that I think the time has come when it should

be called by its right name, and I cannot term it anything else but deception used by the Minister of Railways. Of course, 1 am not accusing the minister I am now addressing. But he must see that when a minister comes down to the House and tells us that a. bridge is going to cost $500,000,
I have always been innocent enough to suppose that that was what it was going to cost. But I am being undeceived this last session or two. We were told, and I accepted the statement in my innoeeney, that this bridge was going to cost about $500,000 ; it has cost $1,400,000, and the end is not yet. I think the minister should have his estimates prepared with more care.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: My hon. friend must be mistaken when he speaks of the minister saying that this bridge was going to cost $500,000.	'


Edward Cochrane: I think the ' Hansard ' will show it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 do not think so. From the beginning it has been known that this bridge would be expensive, and would cost very much more than that.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister tells us to-night that the reason of this increase is that the bridge has been extended 630 feet. Now when this bridge was projected does the minister tell us that the engineer in charge of that work did not know how long that bridge was going to be within 630 feet ? Now there is one reason I think why this bridge is costing a lot more money than we were told it was going to cost. I see by the estimates that the contractor for this bridge is getting $25 a cubic yard for taking out rock.


Samuel Barker: That is three times what it ought to be.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If that is correct it refers to rock excavation in about 90 feet of water, which is very different from ordinary excavation.


John Dowsley Reid: But I am informed that they are paying $25 a cubic yard for concrete work with the same rock that they are taking out of that excavation for which they are paying $25 a cubic yard.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am informed that that is not true.


John Dowsley Reid: That the same rock is not being used ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am so informed. The prices were fixed by public tender and competition, but I cannot go into details.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman tell us that they are paying $25 a yard for taking rock out of 90 feet of water ? What is the object of taking that rock out at 90 feet depth, if it is solid rock ? If it is loose rock, why should it cost $25 a yard ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is an engineering question. It is possible the engineers would be right.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman will see that if there is no blasting or any other work, it Is simply lifting up the loose rock, and $25 a yard is a magnificent sum.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract was given by public tender and competition, and $25 was the lowest price anybody would tender for it. I think probably the price would be a fair one.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I pointed out before recess that we had been paying on this Prince Edward Island Railway upwards of $3,000,000, and the minister replied that much of this consisted of revotes. Now I think some other explanation than revotes is required, because we find that in the estimated cost of this road by the Minister of Railways the substructure was to cost $375,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Where does the hon. gentleman get his figures ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: In the debates for 1901, page 4227. It reads :
Murray Harbour branch and Hillsborough bridge, P.E.I., $450,000.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The estimated cost of the substructure is $375,000. The cost altogether will be $450,000. Eleven and a half miles of road are under construction, and thirty-two miles have yet to be constructed. The eleven and a half miles have cost close to $43,000, and we estimate that the total cost will be $170,000.
Now that 40 odd miles of railway that we figured out this year has cost $28,000 a mile.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Does that say for 40 miles ? I thought the hon. gentleman said eleven miles.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The eleven and a half miles have cost close to $43,000, and we estimate that the total cost will be $170,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total cost of what ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: (reading)
Adding that to the estimated cost of the $450,000 will give $660,000. The $450,000 is what will suffice for the coming year.
There must be some grave discrepancy about this-$450,000 in 1901, $1,490,000 in 1903 and last year $1,100,000. I think there is some explanation due to this committee or we as well as the country will come to the conclusion that there is more engineering going on than the engineering being done by the engineers of the railway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot imagine that any such estimate as my hon. friend has quoted was given. There must be some misunderstanding. I prefer to look

into the matter before accepting that statement.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman will see that the estimate for 11 i miles was about $16,000 a mile which is not unreasonable although high. But, this $16,000 a mile jumped up to $28,000 a mile including the 11 miles. That is the result of the unusual method adopted by the government in letting out the contracts. It was on the basis of the 1TJ mile contract that they gave the contractors the next 32 miles and these contractors have managed by the yard measurements to get up the 43 miles to nearly $28,000 per mile. Then we have the bridge which was to cost, according to the minister, $375,000 costing three times that amount.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely the hon. minister must see at a glance that there must be something wrong. An estimate was made by the engineer, who I suppose is in charge of the work yet, that the bridge would cost $450,000, and that the railway would cost $170,000 more, making $600,000 and odd, and notwithstanding the fact that these works have cost $1,464,000 the hon. minister does not admit that this is sufficient to complete the bridge. Next year we will probably be asked to- vote half a million more for this bridge and an additional amount for the railway. Surely this committee are entitled to some explanation. Surely the hon. minister cannot force the item through without giving us some explanation even though, being the acting minister, he does not understand the situation.
. The MINISTER OP FINANCE. 1 do.


John Dowsley Reid: The committee should fully understand it and the hon. minister should not try to force it through. This is a very important matter. There are rumours that there is something wrong about this whole deal. We have grave reasons to suppose that there is when the minister who was in charge of the department stated to this committee that the whole cost of the bridge and railway would not exceed six hundred thousand and some odd dollars, and when the hon. acting minister now declares that the bridge will cost $1,464,000 and that 43 miles of railway will cost $28,000 a mile. It is most unfair that we cannot get a reasonable explanation of the whole matter from the hon. acting minister or some other member of the government. Therefore, I for one protest against this item going through until the hon. minister gives us the information we are entitled to. If he has not got it to-night I think the item should stand until he can get it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am sure the statement the hon. gentleman has made respecting the engineers estimate of this work at the figures he has named must be the result of a misunderstanding. I think Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
it is simply preposterous that any engineer could have given us the figures that he has quoted as being the cost of this work. I have given the hon. gentleman all the information I have received respecting the estimates which are given by the engineers in regard to this work. I cannot undertake off-hand to answer questions as to whtat the minister may have said four years ago. ,


Samuel Barker: Two years ago.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Two years ago. I can only state that on these points I will be very glad to get the information later on, but in the meantime I do not see that the public business will be advanced if we hold this item over. The work has to be done no matter what it costs. We are committed to it. The government and parliament have agreed to build that road and if mistakes were made { by the minister or by the engineers, which I am not prepared to admit without further inquiry, it will not alter the fact that we have to build the road. The hon. gentleman says that there are rumours afloat. He is too prone to mention rumours. He should not do that. If he has any reason to believe that there is anything about the contracts that is not fair or honourable he has had a seven months session of this parliament in which to bring his charges before the House, and if he has failed to do so until this last hour I am bound to believe that the hon. gentleman does not attach very much importance to these rumours.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been stated by the hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) that the minister in charge of the department at the time made the statement in this House that the estimated cost of this work would be so much. The minister made that statement on the authority of his department and the hon. acting minister is in a position to say to-night whether that statement was true or not. He can find out whether that was a proper estimate or not and inform the committee whether the statement was true or not. The hon. minister states that we are bound to complete the railway. There is no hon. gentleman on either side of this House but would be glad to see the railway completed, and besides that I believe that every hon. member wants to do all he can in the interests of Prince Edward Island. The opposition are not trying to prevent the building of this road, but they are trying to prevent the government from making an estimate of $600,000 odd as the cost of building the bridge and railway and then coming down here two years afterwards and informing us that $1,464,000 has been spent on the bridge and that $28,000 per mile, or another $1,000,000, would be spent on the railway. This will give the public reason to suppose that there is something wrong in this transaction. I know and I can prove to the hon. minister

that in other cases engineers have made estimates and that if the government had not given side issues to the contractors, the estimates would probably have been all right, but no sooner is a contract awarded than the whole thing is changed to suit the contractor as I believe it has been in this case and the contractor makes a good big pull out of it. I venture to say that if the acting minister will look into this contract as it was originally let and compare it with its present form he will see there is just as much difference between the two as there is between day and night. That is the reason this is costing so much. The hon. acting minister admits it when he states that this bridge is to be 630 feet longer than was originally intended. It is most unfair of the hon. acting minister to even hint that the opposition are objecting to this work. The opposition want to see this bridge and railway completed as they want to see any other necessary railway in Prince Edward Island built. While that is the case, they do not want to see three times as much paid for the work as there ought be paid, and I am sure the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) believes in his heart that this did cost three times more than it should.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I don't.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) has truly said, that the Conservative side of the House is willing that Prince Edward Island should get its full share of railway expenditure. We all know that the Island province has not had her share. From confederation up to the time of the building of this Murray Harbour branch, only a little over a million dollars was expended on our railways. We built the Prince Edward Island Railway in the first place, and it was charged to us at confederation in the sum of $3,144,000. That railway cost originally about $16,000 a mile; but according to the statement of the minister, this Murray Harbour branch is costing us $28,000 a mile. The people of Prince Edward Island should know why it is that this 42 miles of railway, through a country no more difficult to construct in than that through which the main line runs, should cost such an enormous sum. when railway construction ought to be 25 per cent cheaper now than when the main line was built. This money is all being charged against Prince Edward Island, and when we come to insist upon having these much needed branch lines on the Island, to which I have so often called the attention of the House, we will be pointed to the large expenditure which has already been made. We want railway facilities on the Island just as the other provinces have, but we want the work done economically. The very fact that the contract for the last half of this line was let to the contractors for the first half, without open competition, accounts.
no doubt, for the largely increased cost. We were told in the first place that this would cost $450,000, but now we are told that it will cost $1,450,000, and it is due to the people of Prince Edward Island that they should have some explanation as to where the difference went.


John Dowsley Reid: We find now that the total amount to be spent on this bridge will be $2,610,000, although we were originally told that it would cost only $1,009,000. There must be something awfully wrong when any engineer could make an estimate three times less than the work would cost. If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) were engaging in some work of this kind on his own account, and his engineer gave him such an estimate, I do not think he would keep that engineer long in his employment. I think this item should be allowed to stand until we get at the bottom of it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But we want to build the road. Give us the bridge and we will give you the information afterwards.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman will not give us the information first.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course I will, we have to get the bridge any how.


John Dowsley Reid: We are only too glad to build necessary bridges and railways in Prince Edward Island, and while we are willing to give the contractors a fair profit, we don't .want to make two or three millionaires out of a work like this. We realize the embarrassing position of the Minister of Finance in regard to these estimates, but at the same time there must be an explanation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will have to get another vote next year.


John Dowsley Reid: You will ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Most certainly. The hon. gentleman is mixing up the cost of the bridge with the appropriation of the present year.


Mr.   BRAIN@: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is certainly a misunderstanding somewhere. I am justified in saying that no engineer of the department ever estimated the total work at $470,000. It is not possible the minister could have been correctly reported, or else, he was only referring to some portion of the work. Nobody ever supposed

from the beginning that it could be done for $470,000.


Richard Blain: I find that the Minister of Railways further said that the cost of the railway line was estimated at $470,000, and that in addition to that, the estimated cost of the bridge would he in the neighbourhood of $800,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The previous statement was supposed to have covered the whole cost, but we now find in the same sentence, that the bridge would cost over $800,000, and that the $470,000 was for the railway only.


Richard Blain: What we complain of is that we have these varied estimates all through this appropriation, when it is being spoken of from year to year. 'When a bridge is to be built, I think the minister should be prepared to give us a reasonably close estimate of the total cost of the work. It is somewhat surprising to find the minister estimating a work at a certain amount, and afterwards to find it costing about three times that amount. Does the government of Prince Edward Island pay anything towards this work when it is completed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It pays between $9,000 and $10,000 per annum forever.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I think it would be well for the minister to inform the House of the reason of all these discrepancies. It will certainly cause the electors of the Dominion to look with suspicion on the government undertaking the construction of a transcontinental line of railway to find a work of this kind costing three times the estimated cost.
To increase accommodation at Charlottetown (revote, $24,800), $87,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What work does this vote contemplate?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are proposing to have a new station with covered platform, additional freight shed accommodation, additional land required for the purpose, re-arrangement of the yard, additional siding room, additional wharf accommodation, with dredging, and the usual allowance for engineering, inspection and advertising. The largest item is the new station and platform, $55,000 ; the next, the rearrangement of the yard, $11,000.


Samuel Barker: What is the percentage for inspecting and advertising ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A little less than 5 per cent.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: What is the station to be constructed pt ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Brick.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Has the contract been let for this yet ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Is it proposed to call for tenders at once.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As soon as we can make the necessary arrangements. There is a good deal to be done, and the season is far advanced. We will expedite it as much as possible.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I wish to call attention to the need of additional wharf accommodation. It is impossible at present to get to the railway station without crossing the town, as the railway only extends to the railway wharf, and the private docks are scattered all the way along the water front beyond that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The matter has been under consideration to some extent; but we think that with these improvements which we are making at Charlottetown this year, the people of that good city will be well content.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: In other words, the bon. minister does not contemplate giving them any relief for their docks along the water front ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We do not contemplate the water front extension at present.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would like to call the hon. minister's attention very seriously to this matter, which has been a long-felt want to the people of Charlottetown. It would certainly facilitate their business and give the merchants and shippers an opportunity of utilizing the private docks.


John Dowsley Reid: It is certainly very unfortunate that the members on the Liberal side of the House are not here to try to obtain justice for Prince Edward Island, but the work is left to the members of the opposition. I would like to ask the hon. minister if this station is to be built by contract, if the tenders will be advertised in the papers, and if the lowest tender will receive the contract?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
New station at Alberton, $3,000.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Has the contract for this been let ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, nothing done yet.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Will this be proceeded with at once ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will do our best with all these works; but it takes a little time to get them going.
To provide for a survey to Montague bridge,


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There was an item in the first estimates for a station at Richmond and Northam. I would like to ask

the minister if this station is going to be proceeded with at once, and if it is going to be made a booking station ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can only repeat the remark I made before concerning all these work, that we will do our best to have them constructed rapidly. It is not contemplated to have a booking station.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I called the attention of the minister last year to the need of a station at Kinkora, and he promised to put in an item for a station there, but I believe it is not contemplated to make it a booking station. It is a point on the railway between Emerald, on the main line, and Cape Traverse, or about midway on the branch line. They only have one train a day. That train leaves Cape Traverse at six a.m., and shippers, in order to get their goods on board, must be at the station at seven in the morning. The train connects with a train on - the main line coming from Emerald at any time between twelve and two in the morning, and people receiving freight have to stand out without any shelter, and have no opportunity of getting their goods unless they stay there nearly all night. Often they cannot get their goods until they go to Emerald and make payment there, and the goods are sometimes two or three days late. This section of country, which is quite extensive, is without communication by telephone or telegraph, and the establishment of a booking station at Kinkora would be of immense advantage.
To straighten line at Blueshank, $4,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This will complete.
Station and land at Albany, $600.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This will complete.
To compensate the following municipalities for loss sustained in consequence of the amalgamation of the Canada Central Railway Company with the Brockville and Ottawa Railway Company, and also owing to a change in the route of the Canada Central Railway :*-
Renfrew	  $22,500
Horton	 5,625
Admaston	 3,750
Total	$31,875


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These municipalities claimed that by changes made by legislation in this House their interests suffered and that they were entitled to be compensated. Some municipalities were compensated in previous years but others were not, and this is to carry out what seems to have been the acknowledged policy of the day.


Samuel Hughes: This is in virtue of bonuses given by these municipalities to this Canada Central, and I am very glad that the hon. minister has established
a precedent. Victoria county has given bonuses to the extent of from $350,000 to $400,000 for a system of railways and by legislation of this government, the competition which these bonuses produce was nullified and only one system of railway is now in control. I shall be pleased to ask the attention of the hon. minister to this, and I trust it is not too late-and we may prolong the session another week or two with new supplementary estimates coming down every day-for him to bring down a vote of $350,000 to recoup the municipalities of Victoria county for the sums they advanced to procure railway competition, which this House subsequently destroyed by legislation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We shall have to vote this amount without prejudice.


Aaron Abel Wright: As regards, this vote I would say that originally the counties of Lanark and Renfrew gave $800,000 to construct a railway from Brockville to Pembroke. The railway got as far as Sand Point and went no further. In order that the road might be completed, the town of Renfrew gave $30,000, the township of Horton $6,500, and the township of Admaston $5,000 to the company. Then the road was completed. We had to give this in money as the company would not take our bond. This was in 1872. Finally in 1878, the Dominion Parliament passed an Act amalgamating the Brockville and Ottawa and Central Canada Railway Companies and reducing the stock. This legislation placed these municipalities in the same position as ordinary stockholders of the company, upon whose shares little over ten per cent had been paid ; and the stock held by them was by the said Act reduced so that the town of Renfrew lost the amount of $22,500 and the other municipalities in the same proportion, and we think that we should be recouped, as that loss was caused by adverse legislation.
Cornwall-to complete electrical equipment tor operating lock-gates and workships, $56,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract is with Mr. M. P. Davis. He put the same equipment on the new locks and the work on the old was given him at the same rates.


John Dowsley Reid: According to the hon. gentleman's report, there were two locks into which this electrical power was put a year ago. What was the cost of those two locks ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot give information as to the cost of those locks.
Mr. REID (Grenville. What is the amount of the contract for lighting ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is not for lighting but for equipment.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman promised to bring down that information the last time.


Tne MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Tlie contractor for tbis light is Mr. M. P. Davis. He is also the contractor for electrical power. The lighting contract was given in 1900 and is for twenty-one years. I shall lay the contract on the Table. There was a previous contract fixing the rates for this service and this is the supplementary contract dealing wth the number of lights. The rate is thirty cents per light per night.


John Dowsley Reid: Are they arc lights ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The annual payment on the basis of the present contract is $21,930.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that include running the lights in winter when the canals are not used ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is for every night they are used. I suppose that would include 365 days in the year.


John Dowsley Reid: But in the winter the canals are frozen up. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract calls for 250 lights during the season of navigation and 100 in winter. The nights of navigation are estimated at 244 and the winter at 121.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the hon. minister tell us what it cost to light the canal before the electric light was used ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was no general system. Nothing but oil lamps at the locks.


John Dowsley Reid: The canals were all lit up previous to this. There is something wrong in this payment of $21,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think there is anything wrong. The rate per light was fixed some years ago-in 1896, I think.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. minister know of any other place in Canada where these lights are 30 cents per night ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract fixing the rate is one we are not particularly responsible for


Samuel Hughes: The lights are a good deal cheaper now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are responsible for the number of the lights used, but not for the rates fixed.


John Dowsley Reid: There are more lights used, and that ought to make them cheaper. Is this contract for twenty-one years for $21,000 a year 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So much per light per night, which would be about equivalent to that.


William Stevens Fielding: 


John Dowsley Reid: Would the hon. minister bring me down a memorandum before the further supplementary estimates come up as to the previous cost of lighting the Cornwall canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have already stated that I believe the only lighting was with oil lamps at the locks. But if the information is available I will bring the statement.


John Dowsley Reid: The superintendent passed the accounts. There is no question about the information being available. Is it the intention of the government to light up the Williamsburg canal between Morris-burg and Cardinal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no present arrangement.


John Dowsley Reid: If the government undertake it, and will offer the same rate per night, I think they will have no difficulty in making a contract. But there is one thing about this lighting of the Cornwall canal. If the hon. gentleman would take a trip on the Grand Trunk at any time during the winter he would see the Cornwall canal lighted from end to end, even when it is covered with two feet of ice. I suppose we pay for these lights. There cannot possibly be use for 141 lights used on the canal during the winter time, and I defy the minister or anybody in his department to show any need for 141 lights in the winter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: One
hundred.


John Dowsley Reid: Well one hundred. There is no use for them. Every light must be paid for, and I would like to know why one hundred and forty lights are used.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: One
hundred.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, one hundred lights.


George Taylor: Are they used ?


John Dowsley Reid: Except to keep the canal lit up all winter.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I think the lights are quite properly used in the winter months. It is only right that we should understand the subject thoroughly. The Cornwall canal is twelve miles in length. We have large locks and water-power supplying the Canadian Coloured Cotton Mills Company, the Cornwall Woollen Manufacturing Company, one or two very large grist mills, and other plants on that canal. I think it could be shown that these lights are necessary during the winter months in order to enable those in charge to regulate the water supply. I agree that there is no use for lights apart from the locks, hut there are a large number of locks on the canal. There are not less than three in the town of Cornwall, and these have to have lights during the

winter and summer. West of these you have other locks, until you come to the guard lock. As to the contract, I do not know anything. about the price. X understand that when the contract was entered into the price was reasonable, and was not higher than was charged in Montreal and other places for lights of a similar description. I know that the lighting of the canal has been an immense improvement to navigation. 1 think the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) was perfectly right in bringing this matter to the attention of the committee and bringing out the information he has done. But I think I am justified in saying that the light is a great improvement and that the government would be well advised to put the same class of lights on all our canals. Only the other day, 1 happened to be on the Cornwall canal. I got on one of the Wol-vin steamers passing through to see how they would get through the locks under the present system. These steamers are so large that they leave only a few inches on either side going through those locks. I found the locks worked by electric power and worked easily and expeditiously.
In regard to the power, I think the government made a mistake in not putting in a complete new system instead of applying power to the old locks which were in the canal. If they had put in a system similar to that which they have now in the Sou-langes canal it would have been a great improvement. But dealing with this item before us, for the expenditure of $56,000, I would like to know how much of that is for workshops and what is the necessity for these workshops. How much is for the improvement of the electrical apparatus on the canal ? While I am speaking on this matter, I would like to ask the acting minister if they have ever considered the advisability of having a lock immediately east of what is known as the Sheik's Island dam, in the river St. Lawrence. I understand from those who are engaged in navigation that a saving of an hour or two could be made by having a lock immediately east of the Sheik's Island dam, which would let vessels into the St. Lawrence river without going down through three locks to the eastern end of the canal ; and it would also permit all vessels to come up and enter the canal just at the foot of the dam and go through the Cornwall canal in a very short space of time. Vessel owners have told me that it would be an immense saving if that lock were put in, not only a saving of expense, but a great saving of time in passing through the canal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The matter has not been presented to me, but I am informed a proposal of that character was made some years ago, but up to the present time it has not been deemed expedient to undertake the work.
engaged in that business in the town of Renfrew, and we charge 25 cents a light where they run to midnight, and 30 cents where they run all day and night-an arc light of 2,000 candle power.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the government should pay for all the lights they use in the winter. Will the minister tell me where these hundred lights are situated ? I do not believe there are a hundred lights used on the Cornwall canal.	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the exact points at which they are used. A portion of the canal lies alongside the public highway, and that would require lighting.


John Dowsley Reid: The public highway is entirely separate from the canal, and it was never lighted up before. These lights are away on the other side of the canal and have nothing to do with the main road. There cannot possibly be a hundred lights used on these locks.


Edward Cochrane: It appears to me absurd that we should pay for lights along the canal if they are not necessary. If it is necessary, light a lock where there is a water-power, that is all right. But the minister must see that we should not be called upon to light the highway. I have travelled highways in our section of the country without any other light than the light of my countenance. I do not see why we should be required to pay for these lights unless they are used where water-power is developed.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Perhaps I may be able to throw, a little further light on the subject. Every one of these locks requires lights during winter and summer.


John Dowsley Reid: Why ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Because there is a constant change in the flow of the water occasioned by the usage of that water by the different manufacturing establishments. The water has got to be let from one level to another level of the canal. There are at several locks what is called a by-wash or sluice-way, and that has got to be regulated. Apart from that we have a bridge about the centre of the town which crosses the canal, and which requires to be lighted. The bridge leads to a number of manufacturing establishments. Then in the eastern portion of the town we have what we call a small canal. It is a large sluiceway which furnishes power for different mills. That also requires to be lighted both summer and winter. I do not know how many lights there are, but it does seem to to me that a hundred lights is not an unreasonable number to be used in the winter months.
. , Mr. REID (Grenville). It is strange that Mr. WRIGHT. I may say with reference | on other canals where the levels are being to the price of electric light, that we are ' lowered and raised, lights are not required.

The lock-master is the only man in charge. He simply watches the water in the evening. He goes with his lantern and the level Is there to he seen. But all the lights are kept going during the winter along this canal frofn Mille Roches to Dickenson's landing. The hon. minister has stated that this is for the purpose of lighting up the road, hut the road is on one side of the canal and the lights are on the other. That is really an excuse, and it is an absurd one, as my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) says. Is it the intention of the government to continue the lighting up of this road, or is it the intention to keep these lights simply where they are really required ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I will have to look into the matter. I could not give the hon. gentleman the information now.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria. Is it an ordinary
operation to make a twenty-one year contract for any such thing as this ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There have been such cases.


Samuel Hughes: Is there anything in the contract whereby It may be cancelled ?


George Taylor: If I understand this matter correctly some years ago under the reign of the late government as it was the policy of the government to do all they could to aid navigation, the then. Minister of Railways and Canals entered into this contract for lighting.


Samuel Hughes: Not this contract at all.


George Taylor: He made a contract with Mr. Davis for lighting the Cornwall canal. The number of lights were not specified. I have travelled through the canal before the lighting was commenced, and I have been oii a vessel which had to lie in the canal all night. The canal is twelve miles long. On dark nights steamers had to lay to, but since the adoption of the system of lighting by electricity it is as clear as day from one end to the other. I think the late government deserves every credit for having inaugurated this system for the benefit of navigation. I do not know but what it was the intention of the late government to extend this system to all the canals but this canal, being twelve miles long, is quite different from any other canal on the St. Lawrence except the Lachine canal, and that has always been lighted. Passenger steamers going up on dark nights require to be lighted through. I understand that the late minister entered into a contract for the purpose of lighting this canal. The contract has been renewed and the number of lights specified, but the contract was originally made by the late government and I think they deserve praise for having inaugurated the system. I hope the present Mr. REID (Grenville).
government will extend it to the other canals. All the marine men travelling the St. Lawrence are loud in their praise of the way in which these canals are lighted. I do not know whether it is necessary to have them lighted in winter time or not, but I should think that on a canal having as many water-powers as there are on this canal it would be absolutely necessary to have a certain number of lights kept going.


Mr. GALLERY.: I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) to state that the Lachine canal is not lighted. I would inform him that the Lachine canal is lighted.


George Taylor: I said that the Lachine canal was lighted.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the hon. gentleman tell us who has the contract for lighting the Lachine canal V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Canadian General Electric Company.


John Dowsley Reid: How much do you pay per annum for lighting the Lachine canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract is for the supply of the machinery and the government provide the light themselves.


John Dowsley Reid: They furnish the dynamos ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contract is for the equipment.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the consideration of the contract with the Canadian General Electric Company ? I asked the hon. minister to get that information.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I gathered a lot of information in answer to questions but I do not find that one, and I do not remember that my hon. friend asked it. I will have to bring the information down at a later day.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the hon. minister tell us how many lights there are on the Lachine carnal and how many on the Cornwall ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, I have no vote for the Lachine canal and I have therefore no information about the lighting of that canal.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. minister state that 250 lights are used during the summer on the Cornwall canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is what the contract provides for.


John Dowsley Reid: And 100 during the winter ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: And it figures out to $21,000 V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it the intention of the hon. minister to keep the lights going in winter where they are not required ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the general tendency of the discussion is that they are required.
Galops canal-enlargement, $125,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to pay the final estimate of Messrs. Larkin & Sangster on their contract for the Iroquois section. The work is completed.


John Dowsley Reid: How much has been voted this session for this canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was in the main estimates for the Galops canal an item of $128,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that include the Iroquois canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. That item we have now is for the Iroquois canal.


John Dowsley Reid: There have been items voted for the Cardinal section. Does this finish the whole work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I am advised that the estimates of the current year are expected to cover the whole expense.


John Dowsley Reid: I asked the hon minister to make inquiries about the employees of this canal. The work is finished as far as they are concerned and I know for a fact that some of these men are working in some other positions and yet they are being paid by the government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did have the information on that point, but I cannot find it for the moment.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, the engineer and his assistants have to be employed to make the final estimates ; but there are a large number of men there who are drawing their salaries, and some of them are doing other work. The work is finished, and if you want to keep them on for charity's sake, I can understand it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Does the hon. gentleman refer to the engineering staff ?


John Dowsley Reid: There is an engineer in charge and he has one or two assistants to prepare the final estimates, but in addition to that there are probably a dozen men who would be employed when the work was in progress in measuring the material excavated, or inspecting stone, but they have nothing to do now. The work was completed a year ago. They are paid from $60 to $85 a month, and they are simply drawing their salaries, although some of them are filling other positions. Is that fair ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It certainly is not right, and I shall get information about it promptly.
To complete north channel (revote), $20,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. I wish to amend that item by adding the words, ' And dam between Galops and Adams islands.'


John Dowsley Reid: Will this complete the Cleveland work on the north channel ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, that is the report of the engineer.


John Dowsley Reid: And the dam, too ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, we are so advised.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish the minister would state now that he would abandon that other Galops work until next season.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say that.
Installing electrical appliances for operating gates, weirs and bridges (revote), Lachine canal, $1U,UU0.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total expenditure on the electrical installation when completed will be $105,000. The amount already expended up to the first of July was $89,235.


John Dowsley Reid: The government will then own the whole lighting plant other than the power ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: What does it cost to furnish the power ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We use our own power.


John Dowsley Reid: You also own the electric light system of the Soulanges canal.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We own the apparatus.


John Dowsley Reid: Why do you not do the same on the Cornwall canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because we found a contract made many years ago by the late government giving the work to Mr. Davis.
Lachine canal, lock gate protection, $11,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to provide a protective device invented by Mr. E. A. Manny for protecting the lock gates against collision by vessels. The appliance was tested on the Beauhamois canal last year, and was found to be satisfactory. It is now proposed to apply it to the Lachine canal. There are ten locks at $900 each; cost of installation, $2,000 ; making in all $11,000.
To pay Geo. Goodwin for work in sections 4, 5, 6 and 7, Soulanges, $55,717.80.
To pay Geo. Goodwin interest at 5 per cent, $18,108.28.


George Taylor: What is this ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The claim of Mr. Goodwin was delayed in payment for some considerable time, and ultimately he obtained a judgment, and this is to pay it.


Richard Blain: Did this gentleman have a suit over this matter ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As far as my recollection goes, this is an amount that was due to Mr. Goodwin as a balance on a contract entered into and executed previous to 1896. He took an action against the government for a portion of his claim, and it was resisted. The result was that judgment was obtained in his favour and he was paid. This item was deferred until such time as judgment was rendered in the case of Stewart, the payment of this amount being contingent on the settlement of the question that was raised in the Stewart case. After judgment was rendered in the Stewart case, the Department of Justice decided that this amount should be paid.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Did the court allow interest in Stewart's case ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The practice now is, when a judgment is rendered in the Exchequer Court, to allow interest. We have strenuously contended at all times that the crown is not liable for interest; but the practice has been to allow interest, not owing to a judgment, but to the intimation given by the court that it was proper for the crown to pay interest; and since that time interest has been paid.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Was interest paid from the time the suit was instituted, or from the time of the breach of the contract ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: From December 31, 1896, the date of the estimate, to June 30, 1903.
Murray canal-to purchase house from W. H. Johnson, $750.


Edward Cochrane: I want to draw the minister's attention to this item, which I think is worthy of his serious consideration.
1 would like to ask him how the department arrived at that amount. I speak feelingly in regard to this matter, because it was one of the most cruel things that any government could have done to an official on the canal, and it requires the minister's sympathetic consideration. There were two gentlemen on this canal, who built houses on the canal with the consent of the previous government, and with the understanding that they should be allowed the same rent if they built the houses as they paid when their houses were rented. When this government came into power, they turned these men off the canal, although there was no accusation or complaint against them of any kind, political or otherwise. This man Johnson got a position on the canal be-1


William Stevens Fielding: cause he was delicate. He had a piece of land, but he was so delicate that he could not make a living from it; and he sold the land and put the proceeds into this house. There was another case, that of a man named Goodrich, who also built a house on the canal. He was removed out of his own house and placed on a bridge and another man was put into his house. This man, although he was allowed $5 a month for rent, only paid the owner $3 a month. Mr. Goodrich remained on the bridge for one year until the local election was over. He was told that if he would vote for the Liberal candidate-there is no hearsay about this, for I heard it from the gentleman's own mouth-he would be retained on the canal. But after he had sold his birthright, and after the election, he was turned off too, and was treated in a most cruel manner. The government said they would purchase the house for what it was worth, and he obtained an estimate of its value from a contractor in that part of the country; but Mr. Goodrich was refused the amount that gentleman decided he should have for the house. The matter was dilly-dallied along until last summer, he took $300 or $400 less than he should have got for it. This house has been kept in first-class repair, and could not be built for double the amount of money the owner was paid. That man should have the full value of that hobse. I think the minister will see that it is his duty to see' that he is paid the full value of that house, because he was allowed to put it up on the understanding that I have stated. I want to ask the minister if he got the information in reference to the superintendent of that canal and the salary he receives ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I obtained the information, but I cannot find it at the moment. I will give it to the hon. gentleman later.


Edward Cochrane: I gave the minister notice, so that he could be prepared to give some reason why the superintendent was teated in such a partial manner. The old superintendent was turned off. and a gentleman was appointed whom I knew very well. I have nothing to say against him, only he is a cheese-maker, and does not know anything about the canal. There was a W. Bens-ley appointed superintendent of that canal from the back part of the riding. He gets a liberal salary, $1,000 a year, and he has $5 a month for house rent and $5 a month for office rent. Perhaps the minister does not know what the salaries are, but I think I am safe in saying that there is not a high school teacher in the riding who gets an equal salary. I see that Mr. Bensley went twice to Cornwall and charged $3.50 a trip. He went down to the canal, 255 trips, for which he charged $1.50 a trip. 'Why should we pay a man $1,000 a year and give him besides $5 per month for house

rent and liis travelling expenses from Brighton ? He went three trips* to Trenton, which is just at the eastern end of the Murray canal, and charged $3.50 per trip. Then he went six other trips to Trenton for which ihe got $2 per trip. Then he went down to Morrisburg nine times, and charged $8.25 per trip. He got $12 for postage, and for sundry expenses $7.75, amounting in all to $441 besides his salary. I am satisfied that that canal is not open the number of days he charged and that there is a fraud perpetrated all along, not only in connection with the superintendent, but with other gentlemen as well. We have 408 hours charged for Sabbath work. That work was never done. This water-way is between two inland waters, and is not used for anything other than pleasure trips in fine weather. Steamboats go through it on pleasure excursions. It was never intended to be used for navigation until the rough season in the fall, when vessels come to Presqu'ile harbour and take this inland water down to Kingston. We have also a charge for marine caps, five at $2.50 and four at $2. Why should these gentlemen be given marine caps and why should we pay for these caps ? 1 am satisfied that not half a dozen vessels went through that canal this summer on a Sunday. I trust that the hon. minister will investigate these matters, and also that he will see the justice of allowing Mr. Johnson a fair amount for his house, more especially as Mr. Johnson was dismissed from the canal without rhyme or reason. There was no accusation against him of having taken part in politics. But on the bridge now there is one of the worst heelers in that riding. There was not a man more offensive, or who spent more time canvassing against me, than the bridge-tender on that bridge. Under the late government there never was an official turned out in that riding that I remember. The riding was represented alternately by Liberals and Conservatives, until I had the honour to be elected. Under Mr. Keeler or Mr. Bigger there never was a man dismissed. There were men there who had been appointed by the Mackenzie administration, and kept their positions until their death. In fact, there never was a man turned out until this government came into power, and they acted most inhumanly towards one man. Owing to infirmity in his limbs, he was unable to do any other work, and yet they dismissed him from the canal, and to-day he is almost dependent on his wife for his living. He was put on that work just because he was weakly, and could not earn his living in any other way. I am confident that Mr. Johnson's house could not be built for double the amount in the estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not prepared to discuss the matter with the hon. gentleman; because I have not a knowledge of the facts. So far as the hon.
gentleman's remarks go to show that certain officers of the government receive pay-and do not render any service, that should be inquired into. I will have it inquired into ; and, as for the other portion of the hon. gentleman's address, I cannot answer it, not knowing the facts.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. minister compel the man to pay back what he illegally obtained ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will find out.


Edward Cochrane: It does not depend on my saying so. It is all here in the Auditor General's Report, other than the value of the house, and what was paid for it.


George Taylor: No superintendent of this canal is required. Yet, this man draws $1,615 for salary, rent and trips. This is all in the Auditor General's Report, and it is idle to take the people's money and have an investigation of whit is already known. As I say, the canal does not require a superintendent. This officer has no duties except to draw his salary.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no objection on this side of the House to the item going through. But, as to the statement made by the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), surely the government would not be unfair, but would give the man actually at least what this house cost. Could not the minister agree to have the actual cost of the property ascertained by satisfactory evidence, and would not the minister agree to recompense the man for his actual expenditure ? I do not think the people of this country want to take advantage of one in the position stated by the hon. member for East Northumberland. Could not the minister assure the hon. member that the amount will he paid if the owner will produce satisfactory evidence as to the cost of the property ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we take the man's house, of course, we ought to pay a fair amount for it. The question is what is a fair valuation. Our information is that this is a frame house, 18 x 30, in good repair, and the officer who made the valuation put it at about $700 or $750.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the officer ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Ml. Stewart.


John Dowsley Reid: He is superintendent. Of course, the minister will agree that Mr. Stewart has no experience to enable him to estimate the value of this property. The government should have a valuation made by Mr. George Pope.' He valued all the properties in our vicinity and settled with the people for the properties taken over by the government. Will the hon. minister



allow Mr. Pope to place a fair valuation on this property ? Even if it means that a littie more has to he paid, it cannot amount to much. I am satisfied that Mr. Stewart is not at all qualified. As I mentioned the other night, when he was given this important position, one of the most important positions on the river, a position the occupant of which should know the marine interest thoroughly, he was a school teacher in Glengarry. I do not believe he ever saw a canal before he was placed in this important position-he was the financial agent -1 will put it mildly-of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell).


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the valuation made by Mr. Stewart. If he was a school teacher that is evidence of intelligence, and if he was financial agent for the hon. member for Glegarry, that is further evidence of intelligence. Of course, as I say, we should pay a fair value for tlfe house. I will not say that I will make arrangements for a valuator, but I will have inquiry made, and, if the value is not a fair and reasonable one we can have another vote at a future session. But we can only pay what is put down here.


Edward Cochrane: Let the hon. minister go to any contractor or builder whose opinion on such subjects is worth having. The hon. gentleman has not stated the size of the house. A part of it may be 18 x 30, but the house is built in the shape of an L. And I will venture my reputation that no contractor will undertake to build such a house for double the amount of money that this is valued at. But, is there no consideration outside of that ? When this poor delicate man was turned off that canal, without any charge against him, he was compelled to walk from this house and to go to Trenton, where he has work which does not call for great physical exertion. Is there not reason for a good liberal allowance 7 One thousand dollars for the house would be $500 less than it could be built for. It would be a shame to have this man's house taken away from him for $750.


Samuel Hughes: Is it built on government land 1


Edward Cochrane: Yes, on the canal reserve. When the man was appointed on the canal he supposed, of course, that he would be allowed to remain in the position so long as he behaved himself. I think it is the duty of the minister to see that this man is not harassed as Mr. Goderich was harassed in collecting his rents. Does the minister think it is right to pay the superintendent a dollar and a half every time he goes down to that canal, When he gets a salary of $1,000 a year ? Why should we pay him for travelling from Brighton ? If he wants to live in an aristocratic style in the village of Brighton, let him go there and Mr. REID (Grenville).
attend to his business at his own expense. That man is getting more than he could earn in any other position that he is qualified to fill. He wants to live in Brighton, and he wants the electors of this country to pay him for living there, and then pay him for driving down to the canal to attend to his business. He does not want an office on the canal any more than I do. What has he to do with an office down there, for which you are to pay $5 a month rent, besides $5 a month for house rent, and then give him $1.50 a day to drive down from Brighton to his business on the canal, and $5 or $6 for every trip when he goes around the country ? Why did the government want to send him down to Cornwall and Trenton ?


John Dowsley Reid: At the last debate on these estimates the minister promised to bring down a return of the amount the canal tolls would have yielded if they had been collected at Cardinal from the 1st of May last up to the present month.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The deputy informs me that he has not got the information, but I will bring it down.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to find out, because this gentleman's duties are simply to drive up to his office once a month and draw a salary. I do not think that he ever keeps any return. It is absurd to keep this man in that position. I hope the acting minister, if be_ continues to occupy that position for some time, will look into that matter thoroughly.
Welland canal-to deepen portions of long level (or summit level), $50,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That matter was also mentioned in a previous discussion on the main estimates. The deepening already done has proved a great benefit to vessels using the canal. Dredging will have to be continued until all the shallow places are deepened. This work is necessitated by fluctuations in the level of the water in Lake Erie. It is to provide a 14-foot navigation at all stages of low water in Lake Erie. The total estimated cost of the work is $400,000. It will be completed in the next fiscal year.
To complete rock cut, Port Colborne to Humberston, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to continue the blasting and dredging in the rock cut. The deepening is necessary for the purpose already explained. The work is under contract to Messrs. Hogan and Macdonald. Total estimated cost, $85.000.
To provide electric lighting plant, $45,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for lighting the Welland canal. The total cost will be $100,000. In the main estimate we had $55,000, and we are asking for $45,000 more.

To lower mitre sills of guard-gate, $11,000. Mr. BLAIN. Is that work under con-contract?


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not yet. It will be let by contract and public tender.
To provide elevator foundations at Port Col-borne, $40,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a work the necessity of which I am sure everybody will recognize. The operations at Port Colborne are now advancing, and we are looking forward to the necessity for an immediate construction of elevators so that the trade which is now going to Buffalo may be diverted to that place. As the committee is aware, two elevators have been constructed at the entrance to the canal. While for ordinary purposes they are sufficient, the foundations are not sufficient. This is a proposal to make the foundations upon which to construct elevators. It is contemplated that these piers will be leased to the transportation companies, under conditions which will properly protect public interests, and they will themselves erect the elevators. The work will be done by tender.	'[DOT]
Williamsburg canals-to provide a gate-lifter,


John Dowsley Reid: There is a gate-lifter there now.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, there is no gate-lifter on these canals now. There is one at Cornwall, but there is none on the Williamsburg canal, and never was one.


John Dowsley Reid: That is news to me, because I know there has been one there all the time, and it has always been used.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is stated here positively that there is no gate-lifter on these canals. It is the Cornwall lifter just moved up.


John Dowsley Reid: I know there is one there and always has been one there, entirely separate from the Cornwall gate-lifter. I want to know what has become of that gate-lifter ? There is what is called a buoy boat, which is used for lifting these gates, taking them up and putting them in. The steamer 1 Scout ' was intended to be used as a gate-lifter. It is now in the possession of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the bon. gentleman says there is a gate-lifter, the deputy minister says positively that it is an error. The gate-lifter for Cornwall is the only one which, to the knowledge of the department, has been there.


John Dowsley Reid: The Williamsburg canals always were operated separately from the Cornwall canal. There was a working scow and there was a buoy boat with what is called a gin for lifting gates and putting them in place. For twenty 443}
years the former buoy boat and the present one were in charge of Robert Armstrong. He had his crew living on the boat. I have seen this buoy boat there for years. I have seen it lift up gates and put gates in, and 1 know this gate-lifter was built specially for this purpose. I know exactly what I am talking about. I have lived at Cardinal for twenty-five years and I have seen this gate-lifter moored at Cardinal every night unless it was taken away to put a gate in or lift one out.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In view of the hon. gentleman's statement the item might stand because it is a positive statement on his own personal knowledge.
Item allowed to stand.
Williamsburg canal - to build overseer's house, $3,000.


Samuel Hughes: If a house costing $750 on the Murray canal is sufficient, this house costing $3,000, is rather luxurious.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is for a man of somewhat different rank. This is to build a brick house 30 by 40 feet, two stories high. We will let it stand as I have not the information.


John Dowsley Reid: As I may not be here when this item comes up again I would ask the hon. minister where this house is to be built ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not sufficient information about it. I want the item to stand.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. acting minister will know that there is a nice brick house on the canal at Cardinal that was taken by the government when it expropriated the property for the canal. This house is nicely situated, and in the right place for an overseer's house. I would like to know if that could not be used instead of building another house ? Is this item to stand ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Stands.
Item allowed to stand.
Farran's Point-enlargment (revote), $6,700.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the balance due to the Canadian Construction Company.
Rideau canal-to provide for a swing bridge over canal on line of Concession street, Ottawa, $8,500.


George Taylor: This is in the city ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


George Taylor: Will you let the work by contract ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will be done by contract.
Murray canal-to provide for a wire fencing and land plan, $3,000.


George Taylor: Explain that.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: This canal was not fenced when it was built People have been complaining of the absence of fences, and this vote is to provide for fences, and to provide for the engineer's time spent in making a plan of the land.


George Taylor: How long is the canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Five miles.


George Taylor: That is $600 a mile for fencing ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The work is to be done by the staff. Nothing is yet expended.


George Taylor: If the farmers had to put up fences at such a cost as this they would not put up many.


Samuel Hughes: Who furnishes the estimate-the superintendent of the canal V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Edward Cochrane: Would the hon. minister give us any information as to what style of fence it is going to be ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. The report says wire fencing, but it does not give any further particulars.


Edward Cochrane: Of course the superintendent of the canal may not know any more about wire fencing than the rest of us. If it is necessary to have along the canal as expensive a fence as some farmers put up where they want to keep pigs from getting through, a very close wire fence, I do not think the estimate is too high. I know some residents about there were complaining because the property was not fenced. I sent a letter myself to the hon. minister regarding the fencing of the canal.
Chambly canal-to macadamize two and a quarter miles of road, providing the municipality undertakes to maintain it afterwards, $3,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the main estimates there was an item that was held over, and I desire that we should strike it out and that this one should be substituted for it, I therefore move :
That item No. 103 in the main estimates,
' Macadamizing tow path, $6,000,' be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Now we have the item :
To macadamize two and a quarter miles of road, providing the municipaiity undertakes to maintain it afterwards, $3,000.
This road is almost impassable during wet weather. During the construction of the canal, the earth was removed from the site of the road and used in building the tow path, with the result that in some parts there is often a foot or two of water on the


George Taylor: road. The highway is on government property.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister utilizing cement in building culverts ?
I think the department has found that cement is much cheaper than ordinary stone.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes ; we are using concrete.


Uriah Wilson: Does the government maintain all the bridges over tbe canals ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The general rule is that the government keep up the highway bridges over the canals.


Samuel Hughes: I understand Ihe rules to be, that if the bridge is over a river which had been navigated before the canal was built, the municipality has to maintain the bridge, and if not the government maintain it. In my own county the municipality of Fenelon has to maintain an enormous bridge.


Uriah Wilson: I know that on our own river we have to maintain a swing bridge.


Tbe MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the case of a canal tbe governqieut creates the water-way and disturbs tbe natural condition, and I think there is much to be said in favour of the government maintaining the bridge.


Samuel Hughes: I am delighted to hear that, because it will be very handy in Victoria county.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Agaiu I speak without prejudice, but that is the rule.


Uriah Wilson: I asked this question some years ago, and the Minister of Finance was not quite so clear.


Samuel Hughes: At Kirkfield the government built and maintain the swings, and the government maintains the swing on the Rosedale bridge, but tbe rest of the bridge which was there before the canal was constructed, has to .be maintained by the municipality. The Bobcaygeon bridge is maintained by tbe government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That was there before the canal was constructed, and the construction of the canal imposed no obligation upon the municipality.


Samuel Hughes: That is the very principle I laid down.
Lake St. Francis-to complete dam, $2,200.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The dyke extends a distance of three miles along the shore of Uake St. Francis, and it is intended to prevent the flooding of lands.


Samuel Hughes: Are the floods caused by government work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes ; the water of the lake was raised by government work.


Samuel Hughes: I cannot understand tliat. Lake St. Francis is a natural extension of the River St. Lawrence ; it is not a canal.	,


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The government work created the danger of flooding the neighbouring lands.


Samuel Hughes: Were there any claims for damages ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to prevent claims for damages.


John Dowsley Reid: The Beauharnois canal has been built for many years.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This work was begun years ago.


Mr. LOY.: In explanation of this item, I may say that after the Beauharnois canal was built, it was found that the water at the entrance of the canal was not as deep for navigation as before the canal was built. They found afterwards that they were obliged to build a dam between what is known as the Grand Isle on the mainland, which had the effect of raising the water about four feet. This caused the flooding of the dam, and this dyke is built along the south shore of the St. Lawrence in order to protect the land on that side and prevent the water overflowing the land.


Samuel Hughes: 'Did the farmers never apply for damages ?


George di Madeiros Loy: I think they were paid some damages. However, it has taken away the natural drainage of the land.


Uriah Wilson: How much of a dyke is there now, and how far does it extend ?


George di Madeiros Loy: I think this will likely complete it. It is nine or ten miles long altogether.


Uriah Wilson: Is any portion of this for repairs, or is it all for extension ?


George di Madeiros Loy: I presume it is all for extension.
Lachine canal-to complete work of paving Mill street, $33,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mill street, Montreal, is a part of the canal property, but has been used as a public street. It is owned by the government, and there have been negotiations respecting the transfer of this street to the city. The government are not prepared to give the city an absolute transfer of the property. We propose to give them a lease during pleasure. The city say that under these conditions it should be put in good condition before they take it over, after which they agree to maintain it in good order.	.
Soulanges canal-to repair breach in bank between locks 1 and 2, $15,000.


George Taylor: Will this be done by contract or by government supervision ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The work is now being done. It had to be done on a rush, and is being done by day labour.
Williamsburg canals-to build a working scow, $2,000.


John Dowsley Reid: There has always been a scow for the repairs on these canals, and the total amount that used to be spent every year was $8,000, which included keeping the scow. Now the annual vote is $14,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is only a small scow there now of 18 feet by 55 feet. It is too small for the work. This is for a new and larger one, 70 feet long, which will be equipped with a steam hoist and derrick.
St. Ours canal-to complete landing wharf a, $4,400.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the State of New York is spending some $13,000,000 in improving what they call the Champlain canal leading up to Lake Champlain and on down by Fort George ? I do not know whether there is any danger of it lowering the level of the water of Lake Champlain so that it will flow down the Hudson river the same as Lake Michigan now flows down the Illinois. There is no harm in the department taking it up. I believe the enlargement and betterment of the American canal would aid the St. Lawrence.
To provide for expenses in connection with investigations into railway accidents in Canada, $10,000.


Samuel Hughes: Is it intended to appoint a permanent officer ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I question whether I should press this item now or leave it to be dealt with by the Railway Commission. It is desirable that a permanent officer should be appointed, for we lind it difficult to get a capable man to undertake the work when we need one. in the case of an accident recently, we applied to the gentleman who had previously performed similar work, but he was not able to attend. This work will come under the control of the Railway Commission, and more than one man may have to be employed. He will require to be a railway official of good standing.


George William Fowler: I quite agree on the necessity of such an appointment. The investigations, so far as they have come under my attention, have been perfect farces. Take the investigation into the Belmont disaster, in which five or six people were killed, the inquiry was perfectly ridiculous. It is very necessary to have some competent man make a complete investigation and fix the .blame on the persons really responsible.


George Taylor: Have the commissioners been appointed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


George Taylor: How many will compose the staff, what will he their salaries, and who is likely to be appointed chairman ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid my hon. friend is too curious. No appointments have yet been made. It would he necessary to have a capable staff, and we have not yet worked out a plan as to how many officials will be required. The ex-Minister of Railways said he thought not less than $100,000 would cover the cost, but we are asking less as we do not want to begin too liberally.


Uriah Wilson: Is the salary of the secretary fixed ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it is fixed by statute at $4,000.
To pay to the widow of the late W. P. Brown, a gratuity equal to two months' salary, $140.


Samuel Hughes: I have no objection to the widow being compensated, but there must be other widows who have an equal claim on the Intercolonial, and I want all to be treated alike.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is quite a number of votes to be found in the estimates for others.
Farran's Point-to equip with an acetylene gas jjlant, $4,050.


Richard Blain: Is this a new plant ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it is to light the canal. This is the total estimated cost, and the work will be let by contract.


Samuel Hughes: In the old country harbours, they have gas buoys and acetylene gas plants to light up the channels, and it would be a good idea to have the St. Lawrence lighted all through.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is being lighted by gas buoys.
Compensation to George Heath for clothing destroyed, $15 ; medical attendance, $15, and time lost in connection with injuries received in digcharge of his duties as lockman, from May 25 to July 20, 1903, 56 days at $1.50-$84, $114.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This
man was injured while on duty.


George William Fowler: It seems to me you are treating this man much better than the victims of the Belmont disaster. These men not only had their clothing destroyed, but were seriously injured. I pointed out the case of one man a brakeman, who was laid up for eight months unable to work,


George William Fowler: and received neither pay nor compensation- was not even paid in full for that day because he did not make the full trip. I press upon the minister the desirability of giving these men some compensation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Was not the case covered to some extent by tlie insurance fund ?


George William Fowler: To the extent of $3 a week. But the man had to pay for that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the government contribute $8,000 a year to that fund.


George William Fowler: But the man himself would pay about $1.30 a month.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It may be argued that the insurance fund is not the best way to compensate. But, if you have tlie insurance it would hardly do to have other compensation beside.


George William Fowler: But what the man gets is very little. Take a man with a wife and five or six children, as every man who is doing his duty to his country ought to have, and this is a very small amount for their support. There is nothing for it but the man must run in debt, and, in eight months he would accumulate debts which would be a burden upon him for years. He was injured through no fault of liis own. I have no objection to paying this man Heath, but if he is paid, much more should the sufferers in this Belmont case be paid. The accident was due to the gross carelessness in the Truro yard. I state that, and I state also that the investigation held into the case was a pure farce. The pilot of the engine became loosened and fell off at Belmont, derailed the engine, the result being that tlie train was telescoped. This was the cause of the accident.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Is that not disputed ?	.


George William Fowler: It may be disputed as many truths are. The engine was supposed to be examined at Truro, where the engines are changed. But the pilot was defective before it went out of the engine shed, or it became defective before it went on its journey. That must be absolutely clear to any man. There were, I believe, seven people killed in that accident, and this man to whom I refer was severly injured. The accident arose from some cause to which he did not contribute and over which he had no control. He is a far more deserving case for compensation than this we are now discussing. I hope the hon. minister will not merely give a formal promise but will actually look into the matter and see to it that this man is compensated.	[DOT]
Carillon and Grenville canal-to pay Henry Tucker services as commissioner re charges against Superintendent Simpson in February, March and April, 1898, $600.


George Taylor: Why was this not paid in 1898 V


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: He
thought we were not paying him enough and refused our previous offer.


Samuel Hughes: Who is Mr. Henry Tucker ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He
was a commissioner appointed to investigate.


Samuel Hughes: What is his business, is he a labourer or a lawyer ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: A lawyer.


George William Fowler: What was Mr. Simpson charged with ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Political partisanship.


Samuel Hughes: And found guilty ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No-a Scotch verdict.


George William Fowler: He must have been an honest commissioner.
Lachine canal-to pay a gratuity equal to two months' salary to the family of the late Mr. Edward Guilbault, paymaster Quebec canals, $216.66.


Samuel Hughes: In connection with this item, would the minister say if the widows of the men who were killed in the railway accident at Belmont have been given a gratuity ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, all claims in connection with the Belmont accident are still under consideration.


Samuel Hughes: I trust the minister will see that not only the relatives of the men in high positions are compensated, but that also the widows of evftry employee, every labouring man, who was injured shall also be compensated.
Canals generally-to provide for an Increase of 25 cents per diem to the wages of loekmas-ters, loclimen, bridgeiuen and ferrymen of the various canals, $37,000. '


Daniel Gallery: Are the motormen on the various bridges included among the recipients of this increase ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If they are now receiving lessi than $1.50 per day, they will be increased to $1.50. This applies to all canals except the Welland and the Sault Ste. Marie canals, the men on which had previously received an advance.


Daniel Gallery: The motormen are labourers, and are entitled to an increase to $1.50 a day.


Uriah Wilson: Would the minister tell us at what rate of wages per day these people are paid ? What is the maximum and minimum of their salaries ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This applies to men whose wages, as a rule, on these canals have been $1.25, and they will hereafter be $1.50, except on the two canals I have mentioned.


Daniel Gallery: These men receive 12J cents an hour, and work 12 hours a day. Would the minister say what he is going to do with the motormen ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If this does not provide for an increase to the motor-men, we cannot give it to them under this item. We will have to take them into consideration separately.


Daniel Gallery: The merchants and manufacturers in! Montreal are not well pleased with the Wellington street bridge, commonly called the Curran bridge, and it is their intention later on to ask the government to put a tunnel there. If I am here next session the government may hear from me about it.


Samuel Hughes: I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that the system of letting water in and out of locks is very tedious, speaking of the minor canals, and not of the main water-ways. It is very easy to adopt a much more expeditious mode of opening and shutting the gates than is now in force.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will continue Supply, various items that may be left on the Order paper. I understand there will be a motion made on going into Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When will the railway resolutions be taken up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would like to be able to give some time to them. I should think on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Satubday, October 17, 1903.