1903-07-03

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 217) respecting penitentiaries.
Mi-. MONK. Will the hon. minister explain ?
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The Act is a mere consolidation of the existing law, the intention being to re-enact the clauses in a somewhat more practical form and to change the expression in some cases so as Hon. Mr. PREFONTAINE.
to carry out the intention of those who passed the legislation originally. The only real change in the Act is respecting the schedule which has reference to the salaries, and I may say that the re-arrangement of the schedule will result in an annual saving of something like $7,500 a year.


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


INCREASE OF SUBSIDIES TO THE PROVINCES-STATEMENT OF HON.


Mr. LEMIEUX asked :: 1.	Did the Honourable Mr. Scott, Secretary of State, speak in the name of the government and with its authorization, when he declared in the Senate, a few days ago, that no increase of subsidies would be granted to the provinces?
2.	If not, is it the government's intention to grant the provinces such increase as may be just and equitable ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I did not see any official report of the language attributed to Mr. Scott, the Secretary of State, but whatever Mr. Scott may have said on that occasion, he spoke for himself, as the government has not considered the question. To the second question, the answer is, that this matter will receive the careful consideration of the government at the proper time.



SUPPLY OF MILITIA TENTS.

['The grading will be 26 feet to the mile going east and will not exceed 52 feet going west. The curvature is very favourable but I cannot give the maximum.\nBill reported, read the third time, and passed.']
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: What is the price paid, or to be paid, each for the 2,000 tents being supplied on rush order by the James W. Woods Company, as mentioned by the Minister of Militia and Defence, on page 3804. ' Revised Hansard ' for 1903 ?
, The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden). Twenty-five dollars each. The material used is non-absorbent duck.



George Taylor: Has the government rented, or agreed to rent a new building, or a portion thereof, now being erected on Slater street by Mr. James W. Woods, or the James W. Woods Company, for the Department of Militia and Defence ? If so, what is to be the rental, and for what term ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: No. An offer has been made and it is now under consideration.


RENT OF BUILDING ON QUEEN STREET.
George Taylor: Has the government rented, or agreed to rent a building, or part thereof, on Queen street, from Mr. James W. Woods, or the James W.

Woods Company, for the Militia Department ? If so, what is the rental, and for what term has it been rented ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. .Tames Sutherland).: No.
transcontinental line-the


POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, 1 would ask the right kon. Prime Minister if the government is prepared to make a statement in regard to the aid which it is intended to grant to a transcontinental line. We have had, as the right hon. gentleman is no doubt aware, several statements in the papers in regard to the proposed aid which is intended to be granted to a transcontinental line. It is a subject which I think was adverted to in the speech from the Throne, and one which at present engages greatly public attention. We would like to know ; no doubt the public would also like to know, if the government has arrived at a conclusion upon that important point.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Mr. Speaker, the government is not prepared to-day to make a statement upon this subject.


RAILWAY ACT, 1903.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21). to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.-The Minister of Railways and Canals.
On section 296,
Every officer or servant of, and every person employed by the company, who wilfully or negligently violates any by-law, rule or regulation of the company or its directors lawfully made and in force, or any order or notice of the board, or of the minister or of an inspecting engineer, of which a copy has been delivered to him, or which has been posted up or open to his inspection in some place where his work or his duties, or any of them, are to be performed. if such violation causes injury to any person or to any property, or exposes any person or any property to the risk of such injury, or renders such risk greater than it would have been without such violation, although no actual injury occurs, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall, in the discretion of the court before which the conviction is had, and according as such court considers the offence proved to be more or less grave, or the injury or risk of injury to person or property to be more or less great, be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both ; hut no such fine shall exceed four hundred dollars, and no such imprisonment shall exceed the term of five years. 51 V., c. 29, s. 294 Am.
2. The company may, in all cases under this section, pay the amount of the penalty and costs, and recover the same from the offender or deduct it from his salarv or pav. 51 V., c. 29. s. 295.
Mr. INGRAM.: Is this an entirely new section ?
181*


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: No, but there are some changes in the present law which are not material.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is simply a farce, because there is no rule or regulation of any railway company in this country which is not wilfully and negligently violated. If this becomes law, it would simply be a farce as it hitherto has been, so long as railway companies are governed by rules and regulations such as they have now.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Suppose the injury resulting from the violation by employees of any of the company's by-laws or rules should result in death, would not this clause clash with the criminal law applicable to the case of manslaughter ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This law has been in force a number of years, and I do not care to change it. If an employee were indicted for an offence under this clause, his punishment could not exceed that which is provided in it.


Mr. LANCASTER.: There is a good deal in the contention of the hon. member for Yale and Cariboo. If a man committed the offence described in this section, he would be liable under the common law or the criminal law, even without this section. But the offence proved against him might subject him to a heavier penalty under the criminal law than is provided in this section, and that might cause trouble and confusion.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If an offence were committed which, in the opinion of the crown prosecutor, amounted to manslaughter, the accused would be indicted for that offence under the common law or the criminal code, and if convicted it would be in the discretion of the judge what sentence to impose.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But suppose he were indicted for manslaughter and his counsel should contend that he should have been indicted instead for the specific act mentioned in this section ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No doubt my hon. friend, with his experience of the criminal law, would argue that the accused was not indictable for manslaughter and therefore ought to be discharged. If on the other hand, he was indicted under this section, he could not be punished beyond the penalty therein provided. It would be entirely within the discretion of the crown prosecutor to decide for what class of offence he should be indicted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On section 290,
No company shall, either directly, or indirectly, employ any of its funds in the purchase of its own stock, or in the acquisition of any shares, bonds or other securities issued by any other railway company in Canada. 51, V., c. 29. s. 276 Am.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I desire to add a few words to this section. It has been brought to my knowledge that there are one or two companies which have been empowered to invest in the bonds and securities of other railway companies, which these companies have acquired; and in order to remove any doubt as to the legality of this proceeding, I propose to add these words :
But this shall not affect the powers or rights which any company in Canada now possesses, by virtue of any special Act, to acquire, have and hold, shares bonds or other securities of any railway company in Canada or the United States.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Mr. ROBINSON (Elgin).: As we are going back to sections already considered, I would like it if the hon. minister would agree to our taking up section 197, which has to do with gates at farm crossings. Great complaint is made in my neighbourhood in regard to the gates


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would inform the hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson) that that clause stands, and we shall be obliged to take it up later on.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, we will take that up at some other time, if the hon. member (Mr. Robinson) will agree to our going on with the other sections.


Jabel Robinson: All right.
On section 229-each day's violation of this Act, or order hereunder, a distinct offence,


William Alfred Galliher: As I understand it, an offence committed by an officer, receiver, trustee, &c., is to be taken to be the act of the company, and will subject the company to like penalty with the individual. That might apply in the case of a fine, but where imprisonment is imposed I do not see very well how you can imprison a company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It does not follow that because you cannot imprison a company, imprisonment should not be provided as part of the penalty. There is no difficulty about enforcing it as far as possible and, so far as it can be enforced, it is well to provide for enforcement.
On section 300, subsection 1,
Where any penalty, prescribed for any offence under this Act, is one hundred dollars or less, Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
with or without imprisonment, the penalty may, subject to the provisions of this Act, be imposed and recovered on summary conviction before a justice of the peace ; and where the penalty prescribed is more than one hundred dollars and less than five hundred dollars, the penalty may, subject, as aforesaid, be imposed and recovered on summary conviction before two or more justices, or before a police magistrate, a stipendiary magistrate or any person with the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace.


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to ask the hon. minister whether he thinks it prudent to invest two justices of the peace with power of imposing a fine of $500 either against a merchant or against a company or its officers ? It seems to me that this is rather extensive jurisdiction to give to two ordinary justices of the peace.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is always subject to review. And, of course, $500 is the maximum. I do not know of any other court of first instance to which you could well refer these matters.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would suggest that it be left to the county court judge in each county. I might say that, so far as Ontario is concerned, the justices of the peace are without professional qualification. They only qualify in regard to property, and they never do anything of consequence without consulting the Crown attorney or the county judge.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: In Ontario they have a superabundance of county court judges. With us, we have a county court judge for every three, four or five counties. To leave it to the county court judges would not always, therefore, be a very expeditious or convenient manner of enforcing the section.


Samuel Barker: I think it is a very dangerous power to give to two justices of the peace. The magistrates may be of a different class in other provinces from what they are in Ontario; they are a very respectable people with us, but I do not think the people of Ontario will be satisfied that two magistrates hearing a case should have power to fine a merchant $500.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is, as I said, an appeal to a higher court. But after all, I am not sure that you do not confer in some existing legislation equally great powers upon two justices of the peace in other matters. If you were to take the trouble to run over the liquor Acts you will find that very large powers compared with these are conferred upon two justices of the peace. Is it a greater power to enable a justice of the peace to impose a fine of $500 than it is to send-a man to prison ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: A man cannot be sent to prison by a magistrate unless he

consents to be summarily tried by the magistrate. There is no serious offence a magistrate can send a man to prison for, unless the accused has chosen to be tried by the magistrate. Under this section he can without consent. There are some very serious offences a magistrate can try a man for. The Minister of Justice will remember better than I do the crimes for which a magistrate can imprison a man in cases of burglarly and theft and others, but he could not be tried for those cases by a magistrate without his consent. But here there is no option, and there is a penalty of $500. The jurisdiction is absolute, it requires no consent from either party interested. Now the fact is that magistrates can impose a fine of $500, while they cannot put a man in jail for any very serious offence without he has consented to be tried by them instead of going before a higher court, which he would have a right to insist on. But as there is a county court judge in each county who is trying cases all the time in his county, I cannot see why it would not be better to leave this to a county court judge. As to the appeal, X am not sure, looking at this section hurriedly, that there would be the same appeal here there would be in ordinary cases. The only thing that would cause one to think so is that it says ' on summary conviction.' There is no appeal given in this section, yet you are creating a special offence that may not have been contemplated in the Criminal Code, which gives appeals for summary convictions in certain cases. But assuming that there is an appeal, the appeal would go to the county court judge, and why not have it dealt with by him in the first instance ? In regard to what I have said about magistrates, I except the county of Lincoln, where most of them are able and qualified ; but they may not be well qualified in other counties and I am told they are not.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has suggested that we should have the county court judge exercise this jurisdiction, and that it should be limited to him. That might apply to Ontario, but not to other parts of Canada. There are no county court judges in some of the other provinces, none in Quebec at all, and none I believe in the Northwest Territories. So you would encumber the thing very much if you undertook to set up different jurisdictions in different provinces.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Could you not use a description that would give jurisdiction to a judge of the lowest degree that is qualified professionally, I mean a judge of the lowest grade who has a legal education ? Could we not use some expression that would apply to that judge in each province ?


Samuel Barker: The judge of a court of record.


William Alfred Galliher: That would make it very awkward in the North-west Territories.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are various courts of record in the different provinces. I do not think it is so much a question of legal knowledge in these cases, as it is a question of good judgment, and good sense, and a disposition to do what is right; I think those are all the qualifications required. But what the hon. gfentleman has said respecting the powers of justices of the peace to deal with serious cases, does not seem to me to assist us very much in coming to a better understanding- of this matter. It is not a question of the gravity of the offence that has been raised by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), the question is as to the magnitude of the penalty which you are allowing a magistrate to impose. Now my argument was that magistrates are already authorized to imprison for a very considerable period, they are authorized to imprison now, for many offences, for three months, and in some offences for six months -I am not sure that in some cases the term does not go up to a year. I look upon it as being a much graver thing to have power to put a man in prison for a year, or six months, or even one mouth, than it is to impose upon him a fine of from $100 to $500. If the liberty of the individual may be taken from him at the discretion of two justices of the peace, I think you are giving them a very much less serious power when you say that the same magistrates may impose a fine of from $100 to $500. Now it is not an answer to the argument I made, to say that magistrates have no right to deal with serious offences without the consent of the person charged. My argument may be fallacious, but it is not answered by urging that proposition, because, as I say, whether the offence is serious or not, you have given, by your general legislation, to the same number of magistrates, or persons of the same status judicially, the power to do more serious things than to impose a fine. The Minister of Justice has placed in my hands some provisions of the Criminal Code which show just what magistrates may do. They comprise a large class of offences which the magistrate may try in a summary way, and over w'hieh he can exercise jurisdiction without requiring the consent of the accused at all. So that, you see, while at first blush, it may seem to be a somewhat large power to confer upon two justices of the peace, the law of the land confers upon one justice of the peace much larger powders and entitles him to impose more severe penalties.
On section 303-annual returns to be prepared,


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Was there not some question in regard to a tramway in British Columbia some six years ago which

was proceeded against because the company did not put in returns ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: It being held at that time that they were within the words of the section. The section was amended in consequence. Is it in that amended form now ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is in that form now.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: Mr. Chairman, would it not be wise to have the company send a copy of these returns to each member of parliament ? We are dealing with railways in this country and we want to know how they are getting along. I do not think the railways would object to it. I know that many of us would be glad to receive the annual returns from the railway companies. I know that there is a clause further down providing that these returns are to be presented by the minister to parliament and they are then our property, but it seems to me that it would impose no hardship on the railway company if every member of parliament was furnished with a copy. We may use it or we may not. I, for myself, would find it very interesting to know how these railway companies are getting along.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will think over it and we can return to it later on.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the hon. minister, if he should see his way clear to comply with the suggestion made by the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Ross) whether he could not send the periodical returns of the Intercolonial Railway to every member ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is a matter I want to consider before passing any opinion upon it. We are requiring under this Bill that the railway companies shall forward a great many papers and send in a great many returns. I think it would only be fair and reasonable that we should exercise some restraint upon ourselves in imposing these extensive duties upon railway companies. Some of the companies would not feel it seriously, but other companies find it very very hard to get along and make both ends meet. I think the committee would feel that we ought to consider that question in deciding upon a point of this kind. It would be very expensive, indeed, to have all these weekly returns distributed all over, in addition to it being a very laborious task.


Samuel Barker: We see every week in the newspapers the returns of traffic and working expenses with regard to the Grand


Robert Laird Borden: Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, but we never see such a return with reference to the government railways. I think it would be an advantage to the members of the House if the minister would let us see weekly his own returns of the amount of traffic and working expenses and the returns for the corresponding period in the previous year.


William Ross: We are not all shareholders in railways and it would be no trouble for the secretary of each railway to send to each member of parliament the annual printed report that goes out to the shareholders. If there is no objection I think the request of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) regarding the publication of the weekly returns of the Intercolonial Railway might very well be acceded to. We will then be able to see how the trade of the country is increasing all round.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will be very glad to consider that.
On section 305-semi-annual returns of accidents.


William Ross: I presume this refers to human life. Does it refer to animals killed upon the track.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It covers all accidents of every kind.
On section 309-returns to board of assets, liabilities, &c.,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move to insert the following subelause :
Whenever by any Act or document a railway committee of the Privy Council is given any power or authority or any duty is cast upon it in regard to any company, railway, matters or thing ; the power or authority so given or the duty so cast upon it may or shall as the case may be, be exercised or performed by the board.
In some cases the duty is emphatically cast, and in others it is discretionary. I want to leave it in that form, but I want them to say that they must either do one or the other in accordance with what the Railway Committee of the Privy Council orders.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 310-repealed Acts,


William Alfred Galliher: Is it intended by this section to repeal all the Acts of parliament relating to railways except such as are therein reserved ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


William Alfred Galliher: And any particular section reserved will be included in tbe Consolidation Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, the reserved sections will go into the consolidation.
On section 44,


Samuel Barker: This relates to the subject of appeals from the decisions of the board. The hon. minister has been kind enough to furnish me with a copy of amendments which he proposes. These amendments are very important, and I see them now for the first time. I would ask the hon. minister if he would have any objection to giving us time to consider these amendments before proposing them to the committee ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) sees no present objection to the amendments, I would ask him to allow them to pass. If he wishes, later on, I should be glad to agree to a re-opening of the discussion. What I wish to do is to get the Bill through as quickly as possible, reprint it and lay it in re-printed form before the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: May I ask the minister if he has amended section 24 in accordance with the notice I gave some time ago ? I was absent for some time when the Bill was being considered. The amendment had reference to the minimum number of men to be employed on the trains.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have introduced the substance of the hon. gentleman's amendment as an amendment to section 212.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the word ' minimum ' used ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, but the board has power to regulate the number of men to be employed on all trains.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The leader of the opposition suggested an amendment to section 66. As he is not here, perhaps that section, might stand.


Samuel Barker: The point the leader of the opposition raised was that you might have to prove the signature of the secretary, and he wanted to provide that the seal of the company should be affixed, and that that should be considered sufficient proof.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: To meet the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, I propose to insert the words ' sealed with the company's seal ' after the words ' minute book ' or ' minute books.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 71,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved :: That the words ' absolutely in his own right ' be struck out.
He said : A great many persons who are acting as directors of prominent railway companies are trustees and not the absolute owners in their own right of shares. That is the usage. The matter is rather one of domestic concern than otherwise. It does not concern the general public and I see no objection to Striking out the words ' absolutely in his own right-.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Samuel Barker: I think the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) raised some question about the residence of directors. I suppose that will be open for discussion when this Bill is reprinted ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
On section 196,
Every company shall make crossings for persons across whose lands the railway is carried, convenient and proper for the crossing of the railway fqr farm purposes. In crossing with live stock, the same shall be in charge of some competent person, who shall use all reasonable care and precaution to avoid accidents. 51 V., c. 29. s. 191 Am.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) had one or two amendments to propose to this section. He is not here, but he will be here to-morrow. I .think in his absence it would be hardly fair to go on with the section.


Mr. COWAN.: On section 196 I have an amendment to propose to meet the requirements of the recent case of the Ontario Lands and Oil Company vs. the Canada Southern Railway Company, which is to be found in volume one, Ontario Reports, 1901, and in which the words ' is carried ' in section 196 are commented upon. It is there held by Mr. Justice Meredith that the words ' is carried ' refer only to railways constructed subsequent to the passing of the Act, and if the section is left in its present form in this Bill the words ' is carried ' would refer only to railways, according to this decision constructed after the passing of this Act. I therefore beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand and Monck (Mr. Thompson) :
That the words * is carried ' be struck out and that the following be inserted in lieu thereof: ' Which at any time has heretofore or shall hereafter be carried.'
This is to meet the suggestion made by Mr. Justice Meredith, one of the members of the divisional court, whose decision will be found at page 222 of the report previously cited.


Mr BARKER.: Would not that alter the liability of a railway company where the railway perhaps has been constructed for twenty years and where the crossing may have been paid for ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: Of course, that would be subject to agreement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will allow this section to stand and I will consider it.


Mahlon K. Cowan: There is another point that I would like to draw f,lie attention of the hon. minister to and it refers to the case of a farm that has been sold or transferred after the construction of the railway. In this section it says :
Every company shall make crossings tor persons across whose lands the railway is carried.
If a person had not owned the land prior to the construction of the railway, of course, the railway could not be carried across his land. Therefore, it should be so worded as to apply to the present owner.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You are using the words 'is carried ' in the sense of their meaning when the road was first constructed ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: No, I am not using the words ' is carried ' at all. The section uses the words ' is carried.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You are interpreting them ?


Mahlon K. Cowan: I am not interpreting them, but I simply stated the interpretation put by the divisional court upon them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will allow this section to stand.


Jabel Robinson: Section 197 says :
The company shall erect and maintain, upon the railway, fences, gates and cattle-guards as follows :-
(2.) Fences, of a minimum height of four feet six inches, on each side of the railway, and swing, or sliding gates.
I would like to have the words ' sliding gates ' taken out. The swing gates are all right, but we do not want sliding gates twelve feet in length or shorter, because, when the snow comes in the winter time it is almost impossible for a man and much more for a boy or a girl to open these gates. If they are made to swing on hinges any child can open them, and it is no trouble to shut them, but it is almost impossible for children to open or shut these gates *even in summer time. I would beg of the minister to strike out these words ' or sliding gates.' If he does that he will oblige the people in our section of the country very much.


Mahlon K. Cowan: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am afraid that the hon. gentleman will not find a consensus of opinion in that direction. I know that some people prefer the sliding gates to the swing gates.


Jabel Robinson: Perhaps they have not so much snow in your part of the country.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think we have more snow than you have. I never heard any one complain down our way of a shortage in the supply of snow.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This sliding gate is an old-fashioned arrangement, and I do not think it would be any imposition on the railways to make them put proper gates that would swing. Generally the younger members of the family are in charge of the cattle and it requires too much physical force to open and shut these sliding gates. I think the suggestion of the member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinsou) is a good one and I would urge the minister to consider it.


Andrew B. Ingram: When the cattle guard commission was in St. Thomas the leading farmers of the county of Elgin were summoned to meet them, and these gentlemen objected very strongly to the sliding gates and were as strongly in favour of the gates being put on hinges.


Mr. FRASER.: I always considered that the sliding gate was the better gate for the summer, and even when we have snowstorms, if there is a bank of snow against the swing gate you will have to shovel it away before you can open the gate, whereas there would be no such difficulty with the sliding gate.


Jabel Robinson: If you were a practical farmer you would know better than that.


Mahlon K. Cowan: The snow never botters us in Elgin.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We will let the matter stand until Tuesday.
On section 275,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I wish to call the attention of the committee to an amendment which I intend to propose, and I would be very glad to hear if there is any objection to it. This section provides that the railway company shall furnish free transportation on all their trains to the members of the board and such officials as may be indicated by the board, and I propose to add that the same free transportation shall be afforded to members of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada. As a matter of

fact at present I think tliat members of this parliament enjoy free transportation pretty generally if they care to take it, and those who do not enjoy the privilege do not enjoy it because they refuse it, thinking that if they accept it might compromise them in some 'way. As it is done pretty generally and as it would be done universally if all would accept, I think it is desirable that we should state in the Act that this privilege shall be as a matter of right for Senators and members of parliament, so as to remove any feeling of obligation which would otherwise arise. Moreover, we have in the Bill a clause which restricts the giving of passes and the offering of inducements for traffic and all that sort of thing, so that unless we included in some portion of this clause the right that members of parliament should have transportation they might be prevented from getting it. From both these points of view I have been led to suggest to the committee that the clause be changed by adding to the word ' trains ' on the second line the words * for members of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not know whether the minister has considered the members of the provincial legislatures. I think they are in possession of the same privilege if it is a privilege, and for the reason the minister has stated they may be prevented from getting free transportation in future.
I mention that as the minister may have forgotten it.


Jabel Robinson: I have to compliment the minister on placing that clause in the Bill. You may remember that a few years ago I introduced a resolution on the same lines, believing that it was only the right of members of parliament to come to this House of Commons on a pass to discharge their duties. I believe that when we take a pass from the railways we are not under any obligation to them, and I believe that we should get it as a right and not as a matter of grace. However, I think that we should go further and declare that no mileage shall be paid to the members. I hope the minister will find it possible to insert a provision in the Bill that members who come here on passes shall not accept the mileage allowance from the government. Some of the members perhaps will not like this, but I think it would be only fair and just to the country if you would provide that when we get passes from the railway companies we shall not charge mileage to the country.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It would be very hard on some members ; take the member for the Yukon, where there is no railway at all.


Jabel Robinson: You could pay his expenses if there is no railway ; you can provide for him, but you should not
pay a member who travels on a railway on a pass.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: You draw the distinction then.


Jabel Robinson: Yes.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I think that so far as the local legislatures are concerned the custom is that the members of the cabinet get free passes. I understand the hon. gentleman's position to be that if we get a pass there should be no mileage.


Jabel Robinson: That is right.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I take it that any gentleman who believes that, does not charge mileage when he takes a pass; we must be consistent.


William Ross: The objection to free passes on the railways is the temptation to hon. members to absent themselves from their parliamentary duties from time to time. Many of them leave Ottawa on Friday night and return Tuesday morning, while others, whose homes are too far distant to enable them to do this, are here all the time. The time of the session is thus squandered by hon. members availing themselves of the privilege of running away from parliament when they ought to be sitting here attending to public matters.


Jabel Robinson: The reference made by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) with regard to members getting mileage does not apply to me. I think that every hon. member should get his actual travelling expenses. If he has to pay passage on a steamboat or even a railway, which does not give passes, he should be refunded the amount paid. As far as I am concerned, ever since I have been a member, I have only charged my actual expenses coining here, and I find from the reports I get. that there has only been one member of this House who ever did the same, and that is Lord Stratlicona, so that I am in Lord Strathcona's class.
The MINISTER OF ItAILW'YS AND CANALS. Does the hon. gentleman feel like forgiving Lord Stratlicona ?


Jabel Robinson: I forgive any man who does right.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he sees any objection to including members of the provincial legislatures among those entitled to passes, because, as the Bill stands, we prevent passes being given to them. We should at least allow railway companies the option of giving passes to members of the local legislatures if they choose.


Mr. GERMAN.: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the provision compelling : railway companies to carry members of

parliament free, compels these companies to carry them free all over the country. Why should we pass legislation compelling the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway to carry a member of parliament, say from Kingston or Welland to the Pacific coast for nothing, when not engaged on parliamentary duties. It is all very well to compel a company to carry a member of parliament free to his parliamentary duties, but why should it be compelled to carry him all over the country on his own private business ? I may have private business in Abincouver or in any other part of the Dominion, and I fail to see why a railway company should be compelled to carry me free simply because I am a member of parliament. I think it well enough that there should be a clause providing that a railway company should be compelled to carry a member of parliament from his place of residence to the capital. Or, take It, as, for instance, with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which issues passes good for lines east of Port Arthur, or the Grand Trunk Railway, which issues passes for its lines in Canada. The Grand Trunk Railway has a line extending to Chicago. Surely, it should not be incumbent upon the Grand Trunk Railway Company to carry me or any other member of parliament to Chicago on my private affairs free of charge.
I think the suggestion is going too far, and it might very fairly be changed. I have no interest in railway companies, but I do not believe in stipulating that a railway company shall be under obligation to carry me over their whole system because I happen to be a member of parliament.


Mr. BENNETT.: I have listened very carefully to the hou. member for Welland (Mr. German), and in reply I think a very apt quotation in his case would be : ' Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.'


Andrew B. Ingram: There may be something in the contention of the hou. member for Welland (Mr. German). But it seems to me that, instead of the free use of their passes by members of parliament in travelling about the country being a matter of complaint, a great deal of the time of this House would be saved if hon. members would travel more, and so understand better the subjects that come up here for debate. Many of us are ignorant of large portions of the Dominion and its actual resources, and not in a position to discuss intelligently questions arising in connection with those localities. It is all very well to assume a high tone of morality and all that kind of thing, but let us get down to common sense. If we do, we shall use our passes and gain a greater knowledge of the affairs of the countrv. so as to be able to discuss to fetter advantage questions coming before the House.


Mr. GOURLEY.: If I were not a democrat, I would move that the railway eom-Mr. GERMAN. [DOT]
panies should be compelled to furnish members of parliament with private cars, but being a democrat, I do not do so. I am surprised, however, that hon. gentlemen should talk of members travelling on passes on their private business. The railway companies should provide passes, not only for members of parliament, but for members' wives also.
On section 205,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I move that this section be amended by striking out the words * in the case of a railway not subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but ' and inserting the following : ' in the case of any railway, whether subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada or not.' I think that the substitution of these words is necessary to make it perfectly clear. And the principle it seems to me to be a sound one-that if a railway company, whether subject to the legislative authority of this parliament or not, receives a subsidy from this parliament in aid of its construction, the acceptance of that aid should be taken as a covenant with the Dominion of Canada that the erection of stations shall be under the control of the board. And I may say that I have embodied a clause to this effect in every contract that has been made within recent years, so that these railways are already bound. But it seems to me well to put it in the Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Blair) will pardon me the suggestion that if the railway is not subject to our legislative authority, it must be subject to the authority of the province, and the question naturally arises whether a railway company subject to the legislative authority of the province can contract itself out of its obligation to be subject to the law of the province, and virtually make a contract to conform to the law of this parliament.


Samuel Barker: This clause would not prevent the provinces insisting upon stations being built under their direction.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Then, you would have this delightful condition-the province might say : You shall have a station at this point; while the federal authority would intervene and say : You shall fix a station for the same locality at this other point. So, the company would have two stations for the same locality.


Samuel Barker: It would cause inconvenience, but all I meant was that this would not prevent the province exercising its rights.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is within the power of this parliament to make the enactment, I believe. These companies, as I have said, as

a condition of receiving subsidy from this parliament allow tbe government of the Dominion to indicate where the stations shall be built. That being a matter of contract, we only embodied a clause in this Bill to name the tribunal by whom that jurisdiction or authority of the Crown may be exercised, and we name the board as that authority. It does not affect the status of the road in any particular. The railway, company have power to make such a contract. They have received the consideration in respect of which it is made, and we only say that the board shall represent the Crown in the enforcement and carrying out of the contract.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Let me make myself clear. As between the railway company and the government, if the company have received a subsidy subject to this obligation, we can, by legislation, give legislative effect to that obligation. But that is not particularly what I wished to say. If the company is under the legislative control of the provincial legislature then the provincial legislation would apply with respect to the location of the line and the location of the stations. But if the company enter into a contract with the Dominion government, so far as the company itself is concerned, it would be binding on the company, but it cannot be binding upon the provincial legislature. So the result would be that you will have two authorities to consider. You have the provincial authority, which undoubtedly has a right to determine the location of the stations ; then you have the Dominion authority exercised by virtue of this con-tractural obligation with respect to the same subject matter. I submit this point to the Minister of Railways, though there may not be much in it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think any inconvenience is likely to result, because the provincial government may have given a subsidy and many have an interest in the railway. There will be nothing to prevent a railway company from entering into a binding contract with any provincial government or any private individual by which that government or individual will make a contribution ami give to the company some money or other consideration on condition that the company will contract to locate and maintain a station at some particular point on their line which may be named by the person who has contributed. In that case the contract can be enforced against the company and no question can arise. The company lias chosen to make such a contract, believing it would be more to its advantage to receive this subsidy encumbered with that condition attached to it than not to receive tin-subsidy and to be free from the condition. All we desire to do is to indicate that the board shall be the tribunal which shall execute the will, the declared intention and the purpose of the government in that regard.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It might be doubtful whether the board could enforce that decision. Supposing that the company might not like the decision and wanted to resort to every means it could to get out of complying with that decision, no doubt the case would ultimately have to go before a court. The provincial legislature, for instance, might have made an order to comply with the very subject matter that this board was trying to force compliance with. The board would say :	We want you to comply with
this matter in such and such a way. While the provincial legislature would say : You must comply with the matter in another way. Now that is a question affecting the same station, not two stations, one and the same question that both parties are dealing with. Now the legislature might say that was not a sufficient compliance with the contract, or the railway commissioners might say it was not sufficient in their opinion. In that case the question of jurisdiction would ultimately be forced into some court for decision. In any case which is sought to be covered by this section, it seems to me the court would be obliged to decide that thei provincial authority should govern, and that the order of our board would be nugatory.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Where a railway company makes a contract with the government which gives a subsidy of so much in aid of the construction of the railway on condition that the government name the places where the stations shall be located, that is wholly a matter of contract.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would you not have to have the provincial legislature agree to that ? They may have control of that railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know whether the provincial government could make such conditions ; but supposing they did, we are not concerned about that. It is our business to see that they carry out their contract with us, and it is the business of the provincial government to see that they carry out their contract with them ; and if the provincial government have made an improvident contract is not our look-out. I do not think a conflict is likely to arise, even from a con-tractural point of view. I do not think the board would unreasonably insist upon a location which was satisfactory to every body else.


Mr. SCOTT.: I wish to propose an amendment to the Bill, a notice of which lion, gentlemen may find in the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, 8th June.

Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.l. An amendment to what section ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I will leave it to the minister to say to what section it should he added. The amendment is intended to compel railway companies in the prairie country to tire-guard their lines, and thus prevent the spread of prairie fires which, from year to year, have, since the opening of that country, done serious damage. Wo have discussed at great length in this House the cattle-guard question, which is recognized as of great importance to the agricultural community ; yet I venture to say that every year as much damage is done in the Northwest Territories by prairie fires breaking out along the lines of railway as is done in five years throughout the whole of Canada by reason of defective cattle-guards. Now the subject of this amendment was discussed at considerable length towards the end of last session, as lion, gentlemen will see who care to look up the second volume of ' Hansard,' page 4582. I trust it is not necessary for us at this time to go into the subject as exhaustively as we did then. The proposed amendment obtained last year a favourable reception by a considerable majority of the members of the House, but on account of the late date the matter came up, and upon the suggestion of the right lion, the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, the amendment was withdrawn at that time. The amendment I propose now is the following :
1.	Every railway company owning or operating a railway in the North-west Territories shall, on or before the 31st day of July in each year, provide a fireguard on each side of the line of railway upon any uncultivated or unoccupied land not covered by timber adjoining such railway, consisting of a strip of ploughed land at least eight feet in width which shall at all times thereafter during the year be kept free from grass and other inflammable matter.
(2.) The fireguard shall be distant at least three hundred feet from the centre line of the railway, and the company shall cause the grass to be burned off between it and such centre line not later than the 1st day of August in each year.
(3.) The company shall, when causing such grass to be burned, have present sufficient persons and appliances to prevent the fire from spreading.
2.	Any company neglecting or failing to comply with any of the provisions of the foregoing seotion, and the officers and directors thereof, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty of $1,000 for each day of such neglect.
3.	For the purpose of complying with the provisions of section one hereof the company may enter upon any land not owned by it, and no claim for damages .shall be maintained against the company for any act done in compliance with the provisions of the said section one.
This amendment follows in principle the legislation that has been adopted in the North-west legislature on the subject of prairie fires, so far as that legislature has Mr. SCOTT.
jurisdiction ; that is to say that every individual and company, in that part of the country, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the legislature, is obliged, when using fire in any way, to take precautions against the spread of the fire. This is such a serious matter out there that the ordinary provisions throwing the liability upon parties for damage from fire are not deemed sufficient, and specific safeguards are provided which every person must use or be liable to punishment for failure to do so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why does the hon. gentleman confine this amendment to the North-west Territories ?


Thomas Walter Scott: The amendment only covers the North-west Territories. I think it will only be found feasible to apply it iu a part of the country where the settlement is very sparse. It will not be feasible where there is any considerable settlement and where the land is cultivated alongside the railway. The North-west Territories comprise practically all of what is known as the semi-arid country, the purely ranching country and that is the only part of the country where probably provisions such as these are practicable.


The MINISTER OE THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word in corroboration of the remarks of the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) as I did when he brought the subject before the House at the last session of parliament. I do not think that the hon. members from the eastern provinces can realize the 'enormous extent of the damage which has been done in that particular section of the country which he represents by fires arising from sparks spreading from railway engines The fires have in many cases been of an extremely destructive character, not only in so far as the private property of individuals has been concerned, but the damage has been of such a character at times that immense grazing areas upon which large herds of cattle have depended have been entirely destroyed. So that, not only has there been private damage but there has been damage to the community. My own recollection of the law in the province of Manitoba on the subject of fires- I speak subject to correction as I have not looked into it for some time-is that practically it amounts to this that any person who kindles a fire or allows it to spread is liable not only to an action for civil damages, but he is also liable to a fine and to a heavy penalty. What has always struck me as being a most remarkable and indefensible anomaly in our law is that the one institution which is most likely to set fire and which, as a matter of fact, does most of the damage, should practically be put in such a position that it is impossible that any penalty could be applied and it was practically impossible that damages

could be recovered. The lawyers in the House are familiar with the fact that when an action) for damages is brought it is necessary to show there has been negligence, and if that cannot be shown substantively, if it cannot be shown that the railway company did not have the latest and best appliances for preventing sparks from spreading! from the engine the complainant fails. As a matter of fact, lawyers all know that it is, in the great majority of cases, quit*? impossible to prove any such thing, and in four cases out of five when an aggrieved person goes to a lawyer for the purpose of getting advice, he is advised that he will save time and money by not bringing any action. I have known in my own constituency of most grievous cases in which the entire property of individuals has been destroyed by fires set out by sparks from engines. It might appear to be a hardship to some extent that railway companies should be obliged to pay damages in all cases, but I am prepared to say, speaking for myself, that I think they ought to be liable for damages resulting from fires in any event. But, the hon. member for West As'siniboia does not, in his amendment, ask to go so far. He simply asks that the House should say that if the circumstances are such that by a small expenditure of money the setting out of fires can be prevented the railway company ought to be compelled to do that. It seems to me that proposition ought to meet with the approval of the members of the House without exception. I suggested to my hon. friend a moment ago, when he mentioned the amendment to me, that there were places where in all probability the amendment which he suggests would not apply. He has referred to the fact that in thickly settled districts where the farms are alongside the railway, and are occupied, it would be impossible to carry out the provisions of this amendment. Some other provision would have to be devised for such cases, but there are great stretches of country where this provision might be applied without practically any difficulty and at a comparatively small expense. It seems to me that in such a case the House ought to require that it should be applied. I suggested to my hon. friend that the question as to where fireguards should be required should be placed within some such authority as the railway commission which ought to be placed in a position to decide that point so that the railway company; would not be put to unnecessary expense and it would see that the intention of the amendment was carried out.


Mr. DOUGLAS.: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the House for a moment, but I simply rise to express my appreciation of the amendment which has been submitted for your consideration. As I represent a prairie riding and four railways will be passing through the entire length of my
constituency, and as I have had considerable experience in cases such as the hon. minister-


Peter Macdonald: This is intended to stand.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The subject will be up again.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY-GUARANTEE OF SECURITIES.
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 209) respecting certain aid for the extension of the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-The Minister of Railways.
On section 6-control of tolls on all lines of company,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS [DOT] CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair). I propose to ask the committee to add to section 6 the following words :
Provided that the rates or tolls to be charged shall not in any case be higher than the rates or tolls which may be fixed in the contract to be made between the government of Canada and the Canadian Northern Railway Company under this Act.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I do not under-tands that clause. Does it enable you to fix any rate you choose, and that the board of commissioners shall not have any control over it ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The board of railway commissioners will not be able to make the rates any higher. After they are fixed by contract with the government the board will not be empowered to make them any higher.


Thomas Walter Scott: I presume this clause is introduced in accordance with the suggestions made at an earlier stage in regard to maximum rates. May I ask what kind of goods these rates will be fixed for ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There will be certain general commodities that undoubtedly the contract will make provision for-grain, lumber, mill stuffs and coal. We can name these four at present, but there may be something in addition.


Samuel Barker: Can you give the House any idea of what you propose to do in this contract which you intend to enter into ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We propose to have the tariff placed on as low a basis as we feel we can properly place it, having regard to other roads and the tolls that are imposed. I cannot -enter into the matter with more
,5787

particularity at the present moment. We had some suggestions from the gentlemen who represent the district through which this road will run and our intention is to provide for the covering of these four specific classes of goods. I would not limit ourselves as to that, but we are prepared to go that far as to these four. I could not indicate the precise tariff at the present moment.


Samuel Barker: In a large portion of the country through which this railway would be built there is an established rate on other railways at the present time. Do you intend to take these rates as the maximum ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Oh, yes; we do not propose to allow anything higher than the rates that exist,


Samuel Barker: Do you propose to cut the rates very much below these ? Have you formed any opinion upon that point, because it is rather important. You see, you are going into that district from which the Canadian Pacific Railway is now carrying grain. If you propose to take ten per cent or twenty per cent off these rates that will immediately affect the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. If you say that you will take the Canadian Pacific Railway rates as the maximum we will know somewhat what the government proposes. I should think the government would not enter into a contract by which the Canadian Northern Railway should be allowed higher rates than those existing ; but if the government stipulates that this company must have lower rates than are now asked by the other companies, that would mean of course a reduction by those other companies at once. I presume the government would not have decided upon such course without very careful consideration, and I think they should be prepared to tell the House now what the result of that consideration is.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I cannot do that. It would be quite impossible for us without proper consideration to determine what these rates will be. In a general way, I can, I think, state with confidence that we would not propose to allow any higher rates than the rates which now obtain. As to whether it would be found impossible to establish any lower, or much lower rates, I cannot say at the moment. I should think myself- of course it is for the government to determine and I can only speak my own mind on the subject-my own impression would be that we would rather recognize the zone basis for the different distances of say 100 miles each, perhaps more, perhaps less. The rate should be at such a figure and so on covering the entire territory which this road traverses up. to Edmonton. As to whether there would be any reduction below the ex-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
isting rates is a matter which must be gone into very carefully and can only be decided upon after mature consideration, and no one in the government has as yet been able to address himself to the matter sufficiently to enable him or them to make a statement oil the subject.


John Graham Haggart: Let me see if I understand clearly what the effect of this .clause is. The government intend to make a rate with the Canadian Northern Railway on these four items, and that rate can in no case be exceeded by the railway commission, but they may fix lower rates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have discretion.


John Graham Haggart: There is a rate agreed on at present between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern Railway as to the carrying of grain from Winnipeg and points in Manitoba. The rates fixed by this government will not be higher than these rates at present agreed upon between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern Railway. Am I right ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think probably that the hon. gentleman is as nearly correct as one can be. The territory to which these rates will apply will be territory outside of the limit covered by any existing arrangement between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Manitoba government. There would no doubt be a disposition on the part of the government in settling a rate, to be guided very much by the existing arrangement as far as it will apply, and to make it applicable as much as possible to the territory beyond.


Robert Laird Borden: It will work out in rather a curious way when you come to fix through-rates. You will have a portion of this system which will be controlled by the government of Manitoba in their agreement confirmed by the legislature of Manitoba and further confirmed by this parliament, over which the government of Manitoba has power to fix rates over a line which may be a portion of this general system. How will that work out in the result V You will have that authority acknowledged by this parliament as an authority having power to control the rates and that will extend over a portion of the line. Then you will have the authority designated by this parliament in the proposed board of railway commissioners which, within certain limits fixed by the contract referred to, will have the power to control the rates over the system beyond the confines of Manitoba. I do not myself see very clearly just how that is going to work out in the result. I have no doubt the minister has given consideration to it, and perhaps he will be good enough to say a few words in regard

to the matter, so that we may clearly understand.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not see any difficulty In the working of it at all. So far as the control of the rates is concerned-I am using the word ' control ' in its widest signification- the control rests in the government of Canada and would rest in any tribunal which the parliament of Canada would constitute for the purpose. While there may be contractual arrangements between the government of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway, which would be enforcible I presume as against the Canadian Northern Railway by that government, it is only because they have made a contract and not because of legislation which they may themselves have passed, that they have what they call a control. All the same, the government of Canada could allow higher rates or could reduce them to a lower figure, and so far as this allowance of the larger rates is concerned it would be only subject to the restrictions which this Act imposes, and the discretion of the commission which is given under the Bill. The fact of the government of Manitoba having an arrangement in their territory, must enter very largely, and no doubt will enter very largely, into the determination as to what would be the rate which would govern beyond. That is not because the government has made any arrangement with the Canadian Northern Railway, but because the Canadian Northern Railway are bound to make certain rates over a portion of their territory. As certain rates are fixed on a part of their line, I apprehend that the government will feel at liberty to enforce a particular rate on the part which is outside and beyond Manitoba. In the practical working out there will be no inconvenience or difficulty. We prepare a schedule for the different distances. They are all through-rates very largely, as far as these particular articles are concerned, and not purely local rates, for small distances. What the people are most interested in is the long haul.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite agree with the hon. minister as to one view he expresses. Speaking off-hand and without precise recollection of the terms of the contract between Manitoba and the Canadian Northern, I would think that this government might fix a lower rate within the province of Manitoba than that which has been fixed by the Manitoba government. But this government could not, without practically repealing the statute of 1901, which confirmed the contract between Manitoba and the Canadian Northern-and to do so would be a breach of faith-legalize within the province of Manitoba higher rates. I dare say that this government, in virtue of the power it can exercise over railways. might fix a lower rate, but I do not
think, as against the government and people of Manitoba, that it could fairly fix a higher rate and authorize the company to charge that rate, because to do that would be to repeal the statute we have already passed confirming the bargain between the Canadian government and the government of Manitoba. When you come to fix through-rates, are they not fixed over a long haul, say from Edmonton to the Atlantic ? Would they not be supposed to be fixed on a somewhat different basis than over a shorter haul.


Samuel Barker: A lesser rate per mile.


Robert Laird Borden: Then you see that the rate fixed by the government of Manitoba, within its own boundary, might not be of much assistance when fixing a through-rate from Edmonton. Here you have a Bill giving you power to fix through-rates over the entire system, and you have a portion of that system controlled by this parliament and another portion controlled by the Manitoba legislature. With these divided authorities, how are you to control the rates ? Suppose you desire to fix through-rates from Edmonton to Fort William ; over a portion of that line the legislature of Manitoba has the power to fix the minimum rate and over the rest of the system, from the confines of Manitoba westward, you have the railway commission controlling the rates, subject to the limitation fixed by this statute ; how is that to work out practically ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. It must be borne in mind that the powers given the province of Manitoba to fix the rates are not confined within the limits of the province, but extend from its western limit down to Lake Superior, in the province of Ontario; and as my hon. leader has just said, it would be a bad feature if this Bill would interfere with the powers of the local legislature by giving power to the railway commission to increase the rates which might be fixed by Manitoba. In that contract with the Canadian Northern, the province of Manitoba assumed a very large responsibility. If the road is not a paying institution, the province becomes liable for the interest on the bonds which it has guaranteed, and as this power to fix the rates has not been given without consideration, I think we should look twice before we interfere with it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not interfering with the legislature of Manitoba in the slightest degree. The hon. gentleman will admit that this Bill recognizes and declares that the existing rates shall not be increased.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What will happen if the province of Manitoba should think proper to lower the rates ?


Tlie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the rates should be lowered, that would be certainly a matter which the Governor in Council would have to consider when fixing a schedule, under this contract to be entered into with the Canadian Northern. I am unable to see the difficulty or trouble which my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Borden) anticipates. I do not see how it could possibly arise. The further west you go, the longer the haul to Lake Superior; and the necessary result would be that in fixing the rates from the western boundary of Manitoba to Lake Superior, any change must be in the way of reduction. When you double the distance of the haul you reduce the rate per mile.


Samuel Barker: Supposing you choose to fix rates on traffic passing through the province of Manitoba higher than the province of Manitoba contracted for ? I presume that, under this Bill, this company would have authority to do that. Otherwise the Act would have no force.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is the other way.


Samuel Barker: Would it not be necessary to make this Bill subject to any contract this company has lawfully entered into ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


Samuel Barker: If the province of Manitoba has the right to define what the rates shall be in its territory and the board has the right to fix a higher rate, for this company, the question will be which is to govern ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It seems to me that the very reverse would be likely to follow. I do not want to enter into any discussion as to the ethics of the question, but I am under the impression that what legislation was passed by this parliament in respect of that contract was only of a confirmatory character. All that parliament did was to say in effect that the legislature of Manitoba had full power to enact the contract as it did. We did not commit ourselves as a parliament to the adoption of that contract. We did not appropriate the contract to ourselves. All we said was that it is a legal contract, so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned. It did not curtail In the slightest degree the power of this parliament to control rates in that country-not in the legislative point of view. That is the view I take. Whether or not parliament would, in the face of that arrangement, declare that the rates should be higher is quite outside the question in connection with this Bill. It becomes a mere academic question. If it were to be discussed, it is a thing that parliament could freely do, if it saw good reasons for doing it, without any charge of Mr. LaRIVIERE.
violating any contract or going outside of what would be fair and proper legislation. But the question does not arise here at all. It cannot arise, for the very simple reason that this amending clause provides that, in any schedule the Governor in Council may-insert, if it comes to a matter of contract between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Crown, the rates shall not be higher than those which exist to-day.


Samuel Barker: Which are contracted for?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Which are contracted for. We may hope that they may go lower, but they cannot go higher. If there is any change at all, it must be in the way of reduction. And I take it that, so far as the rates in Manitoba and the district west of the lakes are concerned, the whole will be less per train mile relatively than they are to-day, if the rates are to be mad& in the usual way having regard to the greater distance.


John Graham Haggart: I understand the hon. minister to say that, as this is a matter of contract between the government and the Canadian Northern Railway, for the present it is their intention, in entering into the contract, not to interfere with the decision of the Manitoba government in reference to this railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have no such intention.


John Graham Haggart: The government only seek to make provision, with a contract, for the section of country outside of Manitoba-that is the North-west Territories. That is, that the present rate, as fixed by the Canadian Northern Railway with the Manitoba government would be premised by the present contract


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, no, it would be an element that would have to be considered.


John Graham Haggart: You do not intend to confine it to that, then ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not say that, Mr. Chairman. All I can say is that we shall be bound to consider it, but whether we shall regard it as controlling consideration is a matter that will have to be thought out.


John Graham Haggart: Then, if you do not acknowledge that as the premise-that the Manitoba government have the right of fixing the rate-you have the power to fix the rates in Manitoba, notwithstanding the agreement of Manitoba- with the Canadian Northern Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We contended that when the matter went through.


John Graham Haggart: This is a matter of contract, and we are anxious to know

what the contract will be for the carriage of freight. Am X to understand that the premise of the contract will be the present arrangement with the Manitoba government for the carriage of grain for that country, and that outside of Manitoba the government will be guided by the short and long haul ? We want to know what the contract is likely to be. If it is to be premised on the contract with Manitoba that now exists, we know very nearly what it is. But if the government were to take power under the Bill to make any contract they like with the Canadian Northern Railway, we ought to know specifically what contract they intend to make.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It is quite clear that the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Haggart's) anxiety and concern is lest we make the rates too low.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, no.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There is no other inference to be drawn from what he says. If the hon. gentleman is afraid that we are going to make the rates too low, I can only say that we do not propose to make them lower than will be reasonable and proper. What will be the basis is a matter to be considered. No doubt, this contract with the government of Manitoba is a very important matter to be taken into account. I am not ready to say that it will control, but with all other proper considerations, which enter into the fixing of rates-it will have its effect in governing the government. The whole conditions must be studied before we can decide just w'hat the precise rates shall be for this portion of the line.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to correct the observations of the hon. minister that I am afraid he will fix the rates too low. My argument was the very contrary.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We cannot make them higher.


John Graham Haggart: Higher than the Manitoba rates ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS Higher than the existing rates


John Graham Haggart: That is what 1 wanted the hon. minister to state specifically. He tells us now that he cannot make them any higher than the Manitoba rates now in existence, and that under the contract he intends to enter into with the Canadian Northern Railway, the rates for freight carried outside of Manitoba will be in proportion to the present rates in Manitoba. If that is the hon. minister's intention, it is perfectly satisfactory to me.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: It does not seem to me that my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) apprehends the exact 182
legal effect which the amendment of. the Minister of Railways has proposed. This is an amendment to clause 6, and provides that the rates or tolls to be charged shall not in any case be higher than the rates or tolls which may be fixed under the contract to be made between the government of Canada and the Canadian Northern Railway.


John Graham Haggart: In Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The clause to which it is proposed to make the amendment, is a clause which gives expressly the control of the rates upon this railway to the tribunal appointed by this parliament. The effect of the amendment, therefore, is that, after the commission is made and constituted, the commission cannot raise the rates higher than they are fixed in the contract. That is the only effect. If this were not put in, the position, so far as rates are concerned, would be that the company could not charge any rates upon its line-as my hon. friend understands, until its schedule of rates was approved by the Governor in Council. So, instead of having a maximum schedule of rates approved by the Governor in Council in the ordinary way, we are simply going to provide that this maximum schedule, so far as certain things are concerned, shall be in the contract. So, that is not changed at all, so far as fixing the rates are concerned, for we would fix them by Order in Council in any case. We propose to specify certain rates in the contract. But, as a matter of precaution, for the purpose of protecting the future, it is provided that after the commission is constituted they cannot raise the rates.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) perhaps does not understand that we are discussing the whole clause, and not the amendment alone. This is the first discussion we have had on this clause. The difficulty about it, notwithstanding what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. (Hon.; Mr. Blair) says, is that we do seem" to have a question of divided authority because of the contract between the province of Manitoba and the company, providing that the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall, from time to time, fix the rates to be charged by the company for carriage from all points on the company's lines in Manitoba to Port Arthur and from Port Arthur to all points in Manitoba and from all points on the company's lines in Manitoba to other points onj the said lines in Manitoba. The difficulty I have had is altogether apart from the amendment proposed-it is the question of divided authority under the statute of a few years ago and the section of this Act which we are now discussing. And I do not yet see why that difficulty should not arise. Suppose you were fixing a rate from Winnipeg to Ed-



monton, in what way will you listen to the government of Manitoba ? In what way will they have the right to exercise the power given by the company to Manitoba under its contract to determine that only a certain rate shall be charged ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to argue that because we declare by an Act of parliament that the legislation and the contracts which were entered into by the province of Manitoba with the Canadian Northern Railway were legally entered into, we thereby abrogated our control and authority over the rates of the railway ?


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. minister allow me to answer him ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: No more than by passing this statute, we abrogate our rights to impose other conditions upon the company. But, inasmuch as a statute of this kind will be regarded as a contract between the railway and the country, it would not be usual to do that. Parliament would have the most absolute power to do it the very next session, but it does not usually exercise the power. I am simply applying that principle to the contract between the province of Manitoba and this company, and I am merely saying that, inasmuch as this legislature confirmed that contract, it would stand with regard to it, so far as the sanctity of the contract was concerned, precisely as this country would stand with regard to a company with which it had entered into a contract expressed in an Act of parliament.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman has not answered my question. He knows there is all the difference in the world between the two conditions. We annex,this amendment to this clause for what reason ? Because we are constituting a commission which shall have full power to say what the rates shall be upon any railway in Canada. Now we are creating that commission, and in doing so we want to have that commission instructed, and we say to the public who will be using this railway, to the company which is constructing it, and to the people who are going into that country to settle along that road, that the commission shall have no authority to raise the rates .any higher than they have been contracted for between this company and the Crown when this contract is entered into. I say we have by no legislation abrogated our power to control rates in the province of Manitoba. The object that every government has in view in taking any authority over the rates of a railway, is to keep them down. There is no danger of any quarrel


Robert Laird Borden: to get them up. So no practical question arises. If a company agrees-I do not care if they only agree with a city, I do not care if they only agree with individuals-if they agree with an individual to make the rate so much, and it becomes a matter of public knowledge that these rates are lower than should obtain, then the commission will be justified in saying :	You are bound
by these rates, because yon have yourselves declaimed that you will be prepared to carry traffic at these rates, and youi cannot complain if we fix them. So it will be with regard to the state of affairs in Manitoba. We are not interfering with Manitoba, we are not surrendering our control, we are exercising and continuing our control; we are saying that not even the commission may take control of the rates out of the hands of the Governor in Council, because we make it part of the contract that the rates shall be so, and shall not be increased.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What will be the position if the commission raise the rates in the province of Manitoba over the rates fixed under the agreement the government of Manitoba have entered into with the company ? What if your committee fixed a higher rate ? Which of the two authorities would prevail in that instance, the commission or the Manitoba government ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It will be open to the commission to reduce the rates to any point they please, and their jurisdiction is not interfered with by this amendment. -	'
Mr. LaRIVIERE. But supposing they do not reduce the rates ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then that is the rate that would obtain. If the commission made a rate less than the rate in this contract-
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I am not speaking of this commission, I tun speaking of the Manitoba government that have power to fix tile rates under their contract with the Canadian Northern. Supposing they further reduced the existing rate-and you say the existing rate will he taken as a basis-supposing they further reduced this rate, what will the commission do '! Will the commission be bound to reduce the rates or will they keep them at a higher rate, and then which authority will prevail ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think probably the commission will do their full duty in the matter.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What is that ?
The! MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. How can any person say what they will do ?


John Graham Haggart: Supposing the rate fixed in the present contract is higher than the present rate with the Manitoba government, or supposing the Manitoba govern-

ment exercised the right to make a lower rate, which is to prevail ?


Thomas Walter Scott: It seems to me the difficulty spoken of does not enter into this particular question at all. We are dealing with rates upon the 720 miles of road which is being aided, and the Manitoba government has nothing at all to do with that, and will not pretend to fix the rates upon thh't line.


John Graham Haggart: I beg your pardon, they have to do with it, they have to do with the parts of the road, they have to do with the road from Winnipeg. Except that part which is in Minnesota, they have to do with the whole of the Canadian Northern Railway from Winnipeg to Lake Superior.


Thomas Walter Scott: Then I am under a misapprehension. It is my opinion that the Manitoba government will have nothing to do with fixing the rates, for instance, from Edmonton to Port Arthur.


John Graham Haggart: Inside Manitoba.


Thomas Walter Scott: It is the 720 miles of the line we are proposing to aid that it is proposed to fix maximum rates upon.


Samuel Barker: No, we are dealing with all the line.


Thomas Walter Scott: in that event I am under an entire misapprehension. But in any event, with regard to the maximum rates there cannot be any of the difficulty that is spoken of, because we simply fix maximum rates, which either the commission, or the Manitoba government, or the railway company itself may, if they choose, vary in the direction of lowering them. It is provided that these maximum rates cannot be increased neither by the railway company or by the commission nor by the Manitoba government.	'


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member forgets that it is illegal to charge any lower rate than the rate approved of in this contract, or by the! commissioners.


Thomas Walter Scott: It will probably be illegal for the company or for any other authority to seek to fix a lower rate than is fixed by the commission. But in the .particular rates we are dealing with now, they are upon lines over which the Manitoba government will have no authority.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. No.


Thomas Walter Scott: Certainly, except they may have authority over the sixty-five miles of the extension from Grandview to the boundary line.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. From the western boundary of the province down to Lake Superior, the Manitoba government have power to fix the rates; and that is more than sixty-five miles.
182$


Thomas Walter Scott: We are dealing with rates on lines west of Grandview. Let me remind my hon. friend that two or three years ago the Crow's Nest Pass contract was made. Did he argue that the contract then made dealt generally with rates over the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway ? The contract only dealt with the rates on the main line of the Canadiau Pacific Railway to that certain extent specified with regard to the traffic, either originating on the Crow's Nest line or that which was destined to points on the Crow's Nest line; and to that extent only. Except asi was specifically contracted for with respect to certain commodities, with regard to the reduction of the wheat rate, and certain other reductions, that contract had no reference to the rates on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In the same way the rates we are dealing with have no reference at all to the rates on the liues that are under the control, to some extent, of the government of Manitoba. Now I fail to. agree with the idea of the leader of the opposition that there may be doubt as to the conflict of authority, I do not think there ik any dispute about that. I think that was laid down very plainly two years ago when we were dealing with the contract the Manitoba government made with the Canadian Northern. I remember distinctly that the Minister of Railways stated time and again, and the representatives of the Manitoba government and of the Canadian Northern Railway who appeared before the Railway Committee, stated their perfect understanding to be that the contract was not intended in any way to invade the authority of this parliament; and that while it was not a likely thing to arise, still it was quite within the bounds of possibility that this parliament might interfere with the minimum rates, with the lower rates that the Manitoba government might seek to establish on the lines under its control.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Of course my hon. friend opposite has in his mind the mileage which is now being contracted for. But I must acknowledge that he is in error with respect to the scope and the effect of the present clause. You cannot fix a rate for carrying the freight, grain or any other western products, from Edmonton to the lake without you regulate also that portion of the line which passes through Manitoba and goes to the lake as well as that portion which passes through the North-west Territories. And so with respect to freights on products going westward, you have to regulate the freight over the whole. Therefore the two districts are necessarily and inextricably mixed up together.


Thomas Walter Scott: Only with regard to the traffic either originating it or destined for points on the other portions.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But all the same it is being carried over the other portions of the railway and therefore as I have said


John Graham Haggart: There is no restriction! even in that.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS The hou. gentleman had in his mind the rates in the North-west Territories and the freight on products that are sent out of those territories to the east, and what the charges shall be. There is no doubt that we propose to take control, and that we do enter into a contractual arrangement with the company as to what the rates shall be from the lake to Edmonton. On that point the section is abundantly clear. My recollection is that when this Manitoba arrangement was under discussion it was stated explicitly that the government of Canada in no sense abated one tittle of its boundary to control the rates.


Mr. DAVIS.: Did not the Manitoba government undertake to fix the rates in Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If I understand the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite, it is this :	That when we
ratified the contract between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern Railway Company we thereby took a position which precluded us from saying that we now have control of these rates. Or if our hon. friends do not go that far, they suggest the idea that if we have c'ontrol we ought not to exercise it. Now this subject was brought before parliament at the time the Bill referred to was before us. In that debate I myself called attention to what had taken place in the province of Manitoba, for the purpose of showing that the representatives of the Manitoba government were under no misunderstanding in regard to the position, but that they perfectly understood that the contract which they had made did not interfere, and was not intended to interfere, with the right of this government to fix a maximum rate. In the debate I quoted from a speech which was made by a gentleman who was then and is now Attorney General of Manitoba and speaking in that capacity officially on this subject he must be held to have expressed the view of the government of Manitoba. Referring to some remarks which had been made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), he made the following statement :


Robert Laird Borden: Whose language is the hon. minister quoting ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The Attorney General of Manitoba, Mr. Campbell. I quoted it in the debate when the Bill just referred to was before this House, and I am calling attention to it now for the purpose of showing that this state-Mr. SCOTT.	4
ment was not in that debate controverted but was accepted by the House without dispute, that we acted at that time upon this assumption, that we had that understanding at that time and no attempt to dispute it or in any way detract from the force of that position being taken has occurred either on the part of the federal authority or on the part of the provincial authority. This is what the Attorney General of Manitoba said at that time when this very subject was under discussion and before this House had ratified the contract:
We have no objection to the Minister of Railways or the government at Ottawa, if they think fit. to make a lower tariff than we suggest ; the people will have no quarrel with them-


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, he would not object to a lower tariff.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am quoting the whole of it, and the hon. gentleman will see the point when I get through

-because we will receive the benefit of whichever is the lowest tariff.
A great deal has been said about the Dominion government not allowing us to encroach upon their rights under the Railway Act. We do not desire to encroach upon the rights of the Dominion government, and I believe when the Dominion government come to ratify this contract, as they will be shortly called upon to do, they will say, as it is proper for them to say, that they reserve to themselves to fix any amount that they like, and if the amouni is less than the amount we fixed, no harm is done.
It will be seen from the words used by Mr. Campbell that he clearly contemplated that the only condition upon which this parliament would ratify that contract was the condition that the power of parliament to regulate rates over a Dominion railway should remain undoubted.


Samuel Barker: To make a lower rate '!


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: The present legislation before this House confirms that position and it does not in any way whatever infringe upon the principles which were laid down at that time when this Bill was before the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Chairman, I do not regard remarks of that kind as having very much effect upon the question which we are discussing. Otherwise, the view which undoubtedly was taken on both sides of the House when the Canadian l'a-c-ific Railway Bill was passed would have affected the action of parliament in regard to taxation of the lands of the company in the North-west Territories. It was proved pretty distinctly in this House by extracts from the speeches of Mr. Blake and other gentlemen in the opposition of that day, and by remarks made by members of the government of that day that they had the impression. when the Bill had passed, that it would have a certain effect in regard to

the taxation of the company's lands ; but when this statute came to be examined later on after the expiration of twenty years it was found that the view which they had entertained was not the correct one.


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. Blake's view has turned out to be correct.


Robert Laird Borden: Not in all respects.


Thomas Walter Scott: Very largely.
next year. I was endeavouring to put the two contracts on somewhat the same basis and to suggest that parliament, having confirmed the contract between the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the legislature of Manitoba, should not afterwards give that company power to change higher rates in violation of the contract so made by it with the government of Manitoba and confirmed by the legislature of Manitoba and also confirmed by this parliament.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), spects.
Not in all re-
Mr. SCOTT, as lower ?
Why not higher rates as well


Thomas Walter Scott: Practically.


Robert Laird Borden: That does not make the slightest difference in regard to my argument. The country is bound by the terms of the contract as embraced in the statute and it is not bound by the view which hon. members may entertain as to its meaning.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) suggest that I was arguing that a speech changed the meaning of legislation ?
I was not arguing anything of the kind. We all understand the effect of the law as it stands at the present time. We have the right to control rates on a Dominion railway. If I understand aright my hon. friend and his friends were endeavouring to suggest that that right should not be exercised because of the contract that was entered into, and I showed what was the understanding of the parties to the contract at that time.


Robert Laird Borden: There is nothing in the remarks of the Attorney General of Manitoba, read just now, that deals expressly with the point which we have been raising. The position of matters is this :	The province of Manitoba made a
contract with the Canadian Northern Railway Company under which that company undertook that the government should fix the maximum rate over certain portions of the company's line part of which was within the province.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is what we are proposing to do now.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what was done by the statute of 1901 passed by the province of Manitoba, confirming that contract. This parliament also confirmed that contract by an Act passed the same year. When this parliament gave its sanction to that contract, it expressly declared that the Canadian Northern Railway Company had power to make that contract and power to so bind itself, but parliament did not denude itself in any way of the power to modify that statute in any respect. Neither does parliament, by passing the statute which is now before the House, denude Itself of the power to change all these terms


Robert Laird Borden: The question of lower rates is the one which is important to the province of Manitoba.


Thomas Walter Scott: If the hon. gentleman would


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend will permit me; I do not think he is assisting the argument by the suggestion he is making, because I do not think he understands my point. The Railway Bill provides that when the rates are fixed by the railway commission, the company shall uot charge lower rates. If the railway commission, under the terms of this section, or under the terms of the General Railway Act, fixes certain rates which are higher than those agreed to by the company with the legislature of Manitoba, it will, as a natural and logical result, free the company from the terms of its contract. That is a difficulty that I find. I do not say whether or not that difficulty will arise. Let the company have its rates fixed by the government of Manitoba under the contract and let the railway commission fix higher rates which it may do under the terms of the general Railway Act, coupled with this section, and does not this result follow that the lower rates fixed bv the government of Manitoba will be rates which it will be illegal for the company to observe.


Thomas Walter Scott: I very much regret that my hon. friend's opinion is that my views upon this question are of no value to the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon ; I said nothing of the kind.


Thomas Walter Scott: Of course, I very cheerfully accept the apology. I asked whether if this government had the right to vary the rates by way of reducing, why it would not equally have the right to vary the rates by way of increasing them 1 The province of Manitoba might have just as much complaint to make in reference to the enforcing of a lower rate than that which was fixed by the province on the Canadian Northern as to the enforcing of a higher rate, because Manitoba has to pay the shortage if too 1 low rates are fixed upon the railway.


Robert Laird Borden: If the terms of this contract were such as to prejudice the effect of the contract between the government of Manitoba and the company, I think the same result would follow. I quite agree.


Mr. OLI  VER@: I would like to ask if hon. gentlemen opposite are taking the position that Manitoba has the right to hold up the North-west Territories on a question of railway rates because the province of Manitoba happens to lie between the North-west Territories and the ports ?


Robert Laird Borden: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) would gather anything of that from any remarks I have made, I think his imagination must be very luxuriant.


Thomas Osborne Davis: If this commission has not power that virtually happens.


Mr. OLIVER.: If that is a fact they are attacking the wrong Bill. I find that section 3 of the Railway Bill is the following :
This Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways (other than government railways) within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and shall he incorporated and construed as one Act, with the special Act, subject as herein provided.
And further on, in section 200, it says :
The standard freight tariff or tariffs, where the company is allowed by the board more than one standard freight tariff, shall specify the maximum mileage tolls to be charged for each class of the freight classification for all distances covered by the company's railway.
That clause of the general Railway Act has passed the House with the approval of the hon. member. If the power taken under that Act is not identical, and as far-reaching, and if it does not apply just as fully to the Manitoba bargain as this clause does, then I do not understand the meaning of words.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suppose that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) would understand that in contending for lower rates, if they are lower rates fixed by the government of Manitoba, as against higher rates, if they should be higher rates fixed by the railway commission, full justice and every advantage would be given to the North-west Territories, for it can hardly be imagined that one class of rates would be charged in Manitoba and another class in the North-west Territories.


Hon. Mr. HA GO  ART@: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) imagine that that clause of the Act applies to the railroad which the Manitoba government has a contract with.


Frank Oliver: Well, I can take only the reading of it, and it says :
This Act shall apply to all persons, companies and railways, other than government


Thomas Walter Scott: railways within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
These railways are under the legislative authority of the government of Canada, and there is no exception in regard to contracts entered into between these railways and the government. I think the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) should go back to the general Railway Act, for as I take it this provision merely states what is already contained in the clauses of the general Railway Act which have been passed. I repeat: Is it to be understood that the Manitoba bargain is to be considered as a hold-up upon other arrangements that it may be possible to enter into for more favourable terms ; that it may be possible to enter into between this parliament and any railway company in regard to traffic to, and through, and from the Northwest Territories. If that is so then certainly that bargain looks in a very different light to me from what it did when it appeared before this parliament. I thought it was a good bargain for the province of Manitoba and I supported the endorsatioii of this bargain by parliament. But, if I had had an idea that that bargain was going to be used as a means of holding up the North-west Territories or as a means of holding up this parliament from making better arrangements on behalf of the Northwest Territories, I certainly would have been very far from tying my hands in any such way. However, I will be very slow to accept the dictum, even of my hon. friends opposite, that such was the case. Surely, if parliament has the right-as has been conceded on both sides-to change its position from session to session, it has also the right not to be tied by the action of a provincial parliament in a contract made with a railroad company. Would the hon. gentleman suggest, that supposing the Grand Trunk Railway came to-morrow to parliament with a proposition to run a line through Ontario, Manitoba and the Territories, and that it was the will and pleasure of this parliament to 'give that company aid under certain conditions; would they suggest that the Manitoba bargain would hinder this parliament from making these conditions. It seems to me that would be the logical conclusion of the hon. gentleman's contention, because unless the aid that is to be given by this parliament is given, the Canadian Northern Railway cannot build through the Territories. It is for the purposes of aid a separate institution from that part of the railroad in Manitoba, and if this parliament is not to have a free hand in legislating for the benefit of the people of the Territories in regard to roads that they are heavily subsidizing, I must confess that I am glad that it is the gentlemen on the other side of the House who are taking that position and not the gentlemen on this side.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) mistakes the argument made on this side of the House. Our endeavour is that no rate shall be fixed or placed in the schedule which is a greater rate than at present in force in Manitoba; or, taking the Manitoba route into consideration and applying the long haul and short haul to the Territories or outside of Manitoba, it shall not be greater than the rate at present in force in Manitoba. That is what we want carefully guarded and embodied in the Act. We want a statement from the Minister of Railways and Canals to that effect and we have not got it yet.


Frank Oliver: I hope you will not.


John Graham Haggart: All I ask is that in the schedule attached to this Act the present rate which is in force in Manitoba shall be taken into consideration in applying to roads in the North-west Territories, plus the short and the long haul. As a matter of fact we are carefully guarding your interests.


Frank Oliver: Thank you.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: If the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has given us a correct statement of his views, there is no particular necessity for him having any dispute with the members from the North-west Territories, because I do not fancy that my hon. friends behind me are anxious to have higher rates in the North-west Territories than there are in Manitoba. The amendment which the Minister of Railways and Canals has suggested is for the express purpose of enabling the people of the North-west Territories to feel that for all time to come the rates which are adopted in connection with this contract are the rates which they can depend on having. I fancy that the views of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) are as near being carried out as he can expect.


John Graham Haggart: Will the government do it ? Will they insert a clause saying that it will be exactly as I stated ?


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I am not prepared to say to my hon. friend that we will allow him to say that the rates shall be so and so. because when the rates come to be fixed I suppose that my hon. friend will understand that under any and all circumstances we would have to take into account the rates which are existing in the province of Manitoba, and he must see that the effect of the amendment that the minister has suggested is to enable our friends in the North-west Territories to feel that not only for the next year or two, but for all time to come they are going to get the benefit of that rate.


John Graham Haggart: Will you even give us a promise of that without putting it into the statute.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: As a matter of fact my hon. friend knows perfectly well that there is no dispute between him and the gentlemen on this side of the House so far as that point is concerned. The remarks of the leader of the opposition indicated, that I quoted the statement of the Attorney General of the province of Manitoba as indicating what is the effect of the legislation passed by this House. I presume that it will be unnecessary for me to explain that I had no intention of suggesting any such meaning. The quotation which I made in that connection, was for the purpose of showing that there was not any misunderstanding on the part of the members of the Manitoba government in regard to the effect of our legislation ; but, that when the Act was passed by this House it was with the full understanding of the legal effect which I maintained to be perfectly clear and unimpaired, namely, that we retain the right to fix the maximum rate and that we did not impair our power in anyway whatever by passing that legislation.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The gentlemen on the other side of the House admitted it.


Mr. McCREARY.: It seems to me that there is more consideration given to this question of rates now than was given to it at the time the Manitoba Bill was passed. It is my recollection that when the Manitoba legislation first came up in the local House, it was discovered that they, the company, required auxiliary or enabling legislation to enable them to make such a bargain with the government of Manitoba. The question of rates was not at all under consideration, and it did not assume that phase until it came down here. The speech which was then made Mr. Campbell, the Attorney General of Manitoba, and part of which was read by the Minister of the Interior to-night, was made more for political purposes than as dealing practically with the Bill. If we wish to quote some of the utterances that were made on this Bill, I think we might take those of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) who is one of the oldest parliamentarians here, a gentleman who has a good deal of experience in matters of this sort. After quoting from the speech of the Attorney General Campbell, he said
That is the statement of Mr. Campbell, and it will be observed that he states plainly that the Dominion government may fix maximum rates But he does not state that the Dominion government may increase the rates, that it may override the action of Manitoba in any direction or in a,ny manner that it may deem advisable in the public interest , and he does not state that the putting of rates below a reasonable figure, while it would benefit the people of Manitoba so far as freight rates are concerned, would leave tne * people of Manitoba to pay the deficiency

which was caused by putting rates below a proper figure.
Again :
And he does not say to the people of Manitoba that these rates that he is talking about, which the Dominion government may revise, which the Dominion government may increase, and which, if lower than a paying rate the government of Manitoba must make up indirectly'if not directly-he does not say that these rates are, in any event probably higher than the actual natural rates charged for business will be within two or three years, when other railway lines are completed, and when Manitoba is enjoying the benefits of competition that will come without guarantee, without liability, without incurring the obligations he would recommend. Again :
Yet in return for that obligation she was getting absolute control of rates, when the truth is that she has not such control, the Dominion having paramount authority, the railway committee of the Privy Council can treat these rates in any manner it chooses-if the public interests require it the rates can be raised as well as lowered.
Here is the point I want bon. gentlemen to observe.
The interests of Ontario against discriminating rates can be protected by raising them.
The point was then taken that the province of Manitoba had not the power to revise the rates in the province of Ontario, and lion, members opposite will not contend that it has. A portion of this system runs beyond Manitoba. The hon. member for Provencber (Mr. LaRiviere) has said that the province of Manitoba had control of the rates from Winnipeg to Fort William The idea is preposterous. The Dominion goi eminent can raise or lower the rates between Fort William and Winnipeg. Suppose there should be a failure of crops for two years in Manitoba, and that province would have to pay this $673,000 annual interest due. This road would not be able to pay that interest, and the province would have to do so. And suppose the railway promoters stood in with the provincial government and said : Do not lower those rates, let the debt accumulate on the province. In such an event, the government of the Dominion might possibly have to come to the assistance of the province to help it out of its difficulties. It would never do lor this governmont to divest itself of control over the rates, either bv lowering or raising them. The full power of controlling these rates is just as much with the Dominion government now as when the Manitoba bargain with the Canadian Northern Railway was passed.


William Manley German: If this section should Pass. as It stands, it will put it within the province of the Railway Commission to render absolutely nugatory the agreement entered into between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern Railway. Mr. McCreary.
That contract gave the control of the rates to the Manitoba government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You are speaking of the original section without the amendment.


William Manley German: 
Mr. PRINGLE.: 1 do not intend to enter into any discussion concerning the agreement between the Canadian Northern Railway and the province of Manitoba, nor do I intend to discuss the question as to what legal power the province of Manitoba has, under its agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway, to fix rates ; but as this discussion touches the question as to whether the province of Manitoba has any power under that agreement to regulate the rates, it seems to me that there should be a rider added to this section No. 6. I have drafted a very short one, to which I would ask the consideration of the hon. the Minister of Railways. I would propose to add these words :
Subject, however, to any rights which the province of Manitoba may haVe, under its agreement with the Canadian Northern, to fix rates.
There is nothing in that rider which admits that the province of Manitoba has jurisdiction to fix the rates ; but if it has, then there would be nothing in this Bill which would prejudice that right. I merely throw this out as a suggestion.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can see very serious objection to adding those words. I venture to say that there is not any gentleman learned in the law in this House who will express the opinion that the Dominion parliament has divested itself of the entire and absolute control over the rates on railways through Manitoba and any portion 'of the territory that the Manitoba agreement may effect. There was no lawyer of any standing who expressed that opinion when the Manitoba contract and legislation were under consideration.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Why were not those clauses in that Bill struck out ? Why were they left there ? And why did this parliament ratify and confirm that agreement ? It is only under that agreement that any question can be raised as to the power of Manitoba to fix the rates.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There could be no question in my mind. I have not heard yet any lawyer of standing express the opinion that our legislation in respect of Manitoba robs us of any portion of our power or control over the rates. All we did was, as far as our legislative sanction went, to legalize the legislation which had been passed by the Manitoba government, a portion of which was clearly passed by a body incompetent to legislate fully and properly in that direction. They came to us and said : We have asked the Canadian Northern Railway to make an agreement with us to allow us, as between ourselves and them, to control the rates-not as between the Crown, as represented by the government of Canada and the Canadian Northern Railway, but as between the Canadian Northern Railway and the Manitoba government. We said :	Go
ahead. We will say, if you wish, that you had power to make such a contract; but we did not thereby divest ourselves of the legislative power that resides, and resides only, in the parliament of this Dominion. The ex-Minister of Railways did not hesitate to declare that we were not giving away our legislative power, that we were not surrendering any power, and other hon. gentlemen affirmed the same thing. That Act passed with the fullest knowledge that we were just as free to pass any legislation we might deem proper regarding the control of rates in that territory as if the Manitoba Bill had never become law. But my hon. friend (Mr. Pringle) asks us to add words to this clause which would recognize that the province of Manitoba and the entire district that comes within the operation of that contract are withdrawn from the control of this parliament. He is asking us to surrender our control and to say that neither the Railway Board nor any other tribunal we may establish is competent to deal with this question and that, therefore, we will
hand it over to the Manitoba government. He asks us to add these words : ' subject, however, to any rights which the province of Manitoba may have, under its agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway, to fix rates.' Of course, my hon. friend might say, if they have not the power, this does not give them any. But is it not the legislative recognition of a doubt at least ? Is it not tantamount to a parliamentary declaration that we believe they have such control . under the legislation we passed a while ago, and, therefore, we must re-affirm our own power ? I could not accept this amendment for that reason. I can not, for the life of me, understand what this discussion means. I cannot see the point or relevance of it. There is no question but that the power of the parliament of Canada is today as full and ample as ever it was. Then what reason is there for us to say that we ought to denude ourselves of it either in whole or in part ? As to this discussion having a practical effect, I fail to discover a trace of it. Every body knows that the only question that can arise is with reference not to raising but to lowering the rates, and the whole effort of the people is not to get the rates up but to get them down. And when parliament says that no commission which may be constituted, or the Governor in Council, when it comes to deal with this question, its efforts will not be to get the rates up, but to reduce the rates. Now the third clause of the Act passed by the parliament of Canada which we have been discussing provides that nothing in (his Act or in the indentures or schedules made in pursuance of it shall limit the rights and powers existing in the parliament of Canada, the Governor in Council, the Railway Committee of the Privy Council or other commission or authority. 'Does not that settle it, if there was any question about it before ? Then what is it we are debating ? Why it is not even an academic question, for my hon. friend himself will not say that there is any doubt in his mind as to the full power of this parliament to legislate as it pleases. He has not said that and he will not say it.


Robert Laird Borden: I have said exactly the contrary over and over again.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then if he has stated the contrary, what is the point in the suggestion that there will be some conflict ? There will be no conflict if we have supreme powers. In working out all these things there may be difficulties, but it is tiio business of those working them to overcome those difficulties. We do not wish to get into unpleasant conflict with the government of Manitoba, nor would any commission wish to do so. But their effort will be to get the rates down. That is what the people want, and the commission will not wish to antagonize pub-

Ho opinion, nor will the Governor in Council. Wlvat, then, is the use of talking about the question when we are all agreed ?


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister has said that I stated that the Bill passed by this parliament with reference to the contract made by the Manitoba government did not abrogate our power. Every one agrees to that. We have full power to abrogate any contract we enter into without compensation to the individual.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman say that we entered into a contract ?


John Graham Haggart: I say we entered into a contract. Why what are the facts ? The two parties come here to get the provincial legislation confirmed, for they had not the power to confirm it themselves, there being a reserve power in the Dominion government. We are the empowering party. To the extent that we ratify that legislation, we are a consenting party.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We did it with all sorts of reservations.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister is too good a lawyer not to know that that is mere surplusage. We had all these powers without reserving them in an Act of parliament. In this respect we are in the same position as we are in with regard to a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other company. We have the power to break any of those contracts tomorrow without indemnifying the parties concerned to the extent of one cent. There is no one who doubts our power. But what we argue is that, having, as empowering party, given our authority to this contract, we are bound by the contract and are bound not to interfere with it in any manner without sufficient reason and without indemnity. That is all we maintain. The hon. minister asks what we are fighting about. The hon. minister loftily looks at members on this side as though to say : You poor fools, you have been talking for a long time, but you do not know what you are talking about. Why, suppose the commission fixed a rate of twenty-five cents for carrying grain in Manitoba, while the bargain between Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway called fqj a rate of twenty cents. The superior power is with the Dominion government to fix the rates. What then would he the effect, but to abrogate the contract between the Manitoba government and the company to that extent. All we ask of the minister is that the rate fixed in the schedule shall not be higher than the present rate charged in Manitoba by the agreement between the Manitoba government and llie Canadian Northern Railway. He refuses to consent to that.
Hon. Mr, BLAIR.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not refuse to consent to it.


John Graham Haggart: He refuses to consent to anything. He reserves to himself the power to put in the schedule rates which will give the Canadian Northern Railway a different bargain from the one they have with the Manitoba government.


James Moffat Douglas: Why not ?


John Graham Haggart: Because it is bad faith. We empowered the Manitoba government to enter into that contract with the Canadian Northern Railway by confirming the agreement. And now, we break the agreement.


Thomas Walter Scott: This Bill does not interfere with the Manitoba arrangement.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member (Mr. Scott) seems to differ in his interpretation of the clause from all the rest of the House. The hon. minister told us a little while ago that they have the fixing of the rates in the North-west and from Manitoba to Lake Superior, and lie might have gone further, and said that under this clause he has the fixing of the rates in Manitoba itself. The hon. minister will not deny it.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is not being granted by this Bill. It exists. It is set forth in the Railway Commission Bill and is already the law.


John Graham Haggart: Then, what does the hon. member (Mr. Scott) say to the contract we empowered the government of Manitoba to make with the Canadian Northern Railway ?


Thomas Walter Scott: My contention is that this Bill does not interfere with it any more than it has been interfered with by Dominion legislation for the last two years.


John Graham Haggart: Dominion legislation does not interfere with it. But under this Bill the hon. minister takes the power specifically to fix the schedule rates. It was never interfered with before. He takes the power under this Bill to fix the prices they shall charge.


Thomas Walter Scott: Not on traffic originating in Manitoba or destined to points in Manitoba, but only originating on or destined to points on the line we are now aiding which is nearly all outside of Manitoba.


John Graham Haggart: Further, 1 have put forward the argument that, with regard to certain railroads under provincial jurisdiction, in Manitoba, I doubt whether the Commission Bill would apply. The hon. minister says it applies to all railways. He says, further, that when the commission fix rates, the railway companies cannot charge less.


Thomas Walter Scott: That is not new law.


John Graham Haggart: It is new law ; it never was in force before.


Thomas Walter Scott: The power has always existed. We are simply creating a new tribunal to exercise that power.


John Graham Haggart: I can tell the hon. gentleman that it never was law before.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is right. It was always the law. May I ask the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) a question ?


John Graham Haggart: Well ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Will the hon. gentleman say that, in this clause or any portion of it, the government is asking parliament to give it any more power than it would have if the clause were not in the Bill ?


Robert Laird Borden: I will tell the hon. minister what might be urged very well with regard to that. There is a principle well known to the hon. minister, but, perhaps not so well known to my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), or to my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. 'Scott). It is that a general statute does not ordinarily repeal a. special statute. You may very well! argue that the provisions of the general statute would not interfere with the Act of two years ago. But in dealing in this special Act with the same railway, section 6 might have an operation by way of repealing that Act which the general statute would not have.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does my hon. friend say that the legislation which was passed in connection with the Manitoba Bill, took away or diminished in any particular the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada to control rates ?	*


Robert Laird Borden: I told my hon. friend over and over again that so far as the technical power is concerned it certainly does not ; neither does the passing of this Act take away our power, the technical power of parliament, hereafter to modify any of its provisions. The passing by this parliament of an enactment that the lands of the Canadian Pacific Railway should not be taxed until after a certain period, did not take away from parliament the technical pdwer to repeal that provision the next year if it wished. Every one understands that, it is not necessary for the hon. gentleman to emphasize that, we have not denied it, we have affirmed it over and over again.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Does the hon. gentleman say that by enabling the Canadian Northern to make a contract with the Manitoba government so that it would be legal as between the two parties, we thereby deprived ourselves or surrendered tbe general control of parliament over the rates on that line that we formerly possessed ?


Robert Laird Borden: If I have not made my position clear, I fear it is hopeless to attempt to do so any further. It is the case of any two parties who required a contract to be confirmed and who come to this parliament to have it confirmed. Parliament has the right to repeal such a statute or to modify it in any way it sees fit ; but it does not usually do so without having the consent of the parties.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We simply state to the Canadian Northern Railway and to the province of Manitoba : We will allow you to make this contract between yourselves, and since you cannot make it without our coming to your assistance, we will give you the authority to make it. But we do not divest ourselves or limit ourselves temporarily or otherwise in respect of the rights which we possess as a parliament over the whole subject.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would have no objection to adding to the clause something like this :
' Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall repeal, modify or affect the provisions of the Act, 1, Edw. vii, chapter 52, entitled an Act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway.' Then you are making it clear that you are not by this statute repealing the statute of two years ago or modifying it. That is not open to the objection' the hon. gentleman raised to the proposed amendment of my hon. friend from Cornwall. Now, with regard to the observations of my hon. friends from the North-west Territories with respect to any remarks that I have made, I have no doubt that they did not intentionally misconstrue them ; but I must insist that I shall be bound by what
1	have said with regard to this matter rather than by any construction which they have seen fit to place upon my remarks, which was not in accordance with my intention. I should unhesitatingly regard any observations I have made as tending to the advantage of the people of the Nortli-west Territories.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: So far as the statute is concerned, it was very clear under section '
2	that the Canadian Northern Railway Company were given pretty full powers. Among those powers was the power of entering into this contract with the province of Manitoba. Now with regard to the contract itself, the whole gist of it is that in consideration of the guarantee of the said bonds the assignment of the said lines, &e., the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall from time to time fix the rates to be charged or demanded by the company. Now I apprehend there is no question that the Canadian Northern Railway would be bound by their contract, it having been declared in this Act that they had full power to enter into

that contract with the province of Manitoba, and the whole gist of this contract being the guarantee of these bonds, the consideration being that the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Manitoba had power to fix the rates. Now if the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Manitoba fixes the rates with the Canadian Northern Railway, I understand the minister's contention is that while it might be binding on the Canadian Northern, it is not in any way binding on the Dominion of Canada, that is, the Dominion of Canada can override anything that is done by the province of Manitoba. But would it be fair, when the province of Manitoba guaranteed these bonds on the sole consideration that they would have the power to fix these rates, that this parliament should override these rates so long as they are fair and equitable ? Now the clause I proposed to add did not in any way commit this parliament to the position of taking away from the Manitoba government the power to fix these rates. I was very careful in my language not to put it in that form. I simply said :
Subject, however, to any rights which the province of Manitoba may have under their agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway.
Now it seems to me it is only reasonable that that language should be added to that clause. But I do not apprehend that this Bill, so long as the rates were reasonable, would in any way interfere with the agreement made by the province of Manitoba with the Canadian Northern Railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that either the amendment moved by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) or that moved by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) ought to be adopted. They are both very objectionable. The argument of the member for Cornwall, it seems to me, is one that bears strongly against his own proposition. He claims that the government of Manitoba were authorized by that Act to fix the rates upon the Canadian Northern within their territory. Now what does that expression mean ? It means that they are authorized by this parliament to make these rates as high or reduce them as low as they please. Now stop and consider, this is not a thing from which you can logically escape. Does the hon. member seriously think that, from any moral point of view, from any ethical point of view, from any view that ought to affect the conscience of parliament in trying to do what is just by the province of Manitoba, that we should hand over to the province of Manitoba the right to make the rates in that territory as high or as low as they please V They have great interest in making the rates high because they had assumed large obligations. They had undertaken to pay a tremendous amount of money every year, 5000,000 or $700,000 a year in the event of Mr. PRINGLE.
default by the company, a small province, with a small revenue and a large obligation. Now if we had power to cut the rates down but did not have any power to put them up, my hon. friend would be the first to argue that in cutting down the rates we are taking away the only security the government of Manitoba had to guarantee the repayment of their loan and to relieve themselves from their indemnity. Now can it be seriously argued in this House that we must stand with our hands tied helpless while the government of Manitoba are making the railway traffic pay just as large a figure as they choose ? My hon. friend made use of the words ' just and fair.' Who shall determine what is just and fair ? If his argument holds good, in ratifying this legislation we ought to say : We will allow you to exercise this power if you do it fairly and justly. It is too late for us to say that we ought now' to step in and revise or repeal or modify our legislation. We are not doing that, we are proposing to occupy the ground we have always occupied. By this Bill we take nothing away from Manitoba that w'e gave them, and we are not assuming any more authority than we have ever had since the Manitoba Bill was sanctioned by this parliament. It did not need any more legislation to say what the rates should be upon that line, even though these rates did not conform to the rates which the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern had agreed upon. I must ask the committee not to accept either of these amendments. We ought not to recognize the surrender of w-hat we know we have never surrendered. We ought not to make any qualification which involves the suggestion that w'e have surrendered that jurisdiction either in law, equity or from any other point of view'.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. minister says that w-e have never surrendered that either in law, equity or from any other point of view.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If we had the power to prevent that bargain being made and after looking into the merits of the bargain and concluding it was one that ought to have been made, and after giving our sanction to the bargain, does the hon. minister think that we would be justified in doing something that would contradict the bargain that we sanctioned ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I say unhesitatingly that we have not abandoned anything. We gave nothing in anyway, no pledge or guarantee, nor did w'e commit ourselves to the merits of the Bill in the slightest particular. So far as I am concerned I voted for the Bill, not because I believed in the merits of it; I-thought it was a very onerous undertaking

for the province of Manitoba to assume, but they could not legally execute it because the railway with which they were contracting Was a railway outside of the jurisdiction of the legislature of Manitoba, and therefore they could not make a contract with it. But I did not feel that this parliament should stand off and say :	We are better able to
judge as to whether you should enter into this contract or not. We will use the power we happen to possess and we will decline our aid in ratifying the contract you desire to enter into and would have entered into without any arrangement with us if it had not been that the railway company was a creature of this parliament. That was the sole reason. If you look at this Bill you will see, as I read it at all events, that parliament took the utmost pains to say that it was not giving up anything in conscience or in law in the way of power or authority or jurisdiction. It was just as free after this Bill was passed as before. We could repeal. I suppose, this legislation, although it is in the nature of a contract between parties, but I do not think we ought to repeal it. Then we would be open to the charge of having gone back upon an engagement we had entered into. But we retained all our powers unreservedly and without qualification when wre introduced this clause.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If there is no intention to repeal what is the objection to the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Because, it is altogether unnecessary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It may be unnecessary in one view but if we agree that there is no intention to repeal that is all the amendment of my hon. friend provides for.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My objection to it is that it may be said that parliament, in putting in that amendment, entertains doubts and that we were reiterating our authority. That would be putting parliament in a false position. We entertain no doubts because we have no doubt whatever that we have the power.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Mr. Chairman, it seems a very peculiar position for the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to take. He tells us that there was no merit whatever in this agreement, that the agreement was one by which the province of Manitoba might involve itself in an extraordinary liability and in great danger, that he saw nothing whatever in that agreement that was meritorious-


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not say that.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: 
Thomas Osborne Davis: A portion of the road that the Manitoba government is supposed to exercise control of 'lies outside the province of Manitoba and is in the province of Ontario. Supposing that the Manitoba government, having, according to the statements that these hon. gentlemen have made here, the right of raising the rates as well as lowering them, undertook to raise the rates in Ontario, where would the people of that portion of Ontario go to get relief ? Where would they be represented ? The hon. gentleman's argument is ridiculous.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They cannot have the power to reduce the rates unless they have the power to make them.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) has asked a question as to a matter which is not in this discussion at all.


Thomas Osborne Davis: It is in this discussion.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: It is not. In so far as I am concerned, I said that I was not discussing the legal aspect of the matter. The absolute power of controlling rates still remains with the Governor in Council and this parliament.


Thomas Osborne Davis: This railway, when it is constructed, will run from Edmonton to the lakes. A portion of it lies in the North-

west Territories and a portion in the province of Manitoba. If the hon. gentleman could have his ideas carried out there would be one rate existing in Manitoba which might be a great deal higher rate than that in the North-west Territories. How are you going to arrange that ? Are you going to have a division of authority as to railway rates all over the Dominion ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Davis) was present during the full discussion of the Bill confirming this agreement between the province of Manitoba and the Canadian Northern Railway Company. He is perfectly well aware that the consideration of this contract was that the province of Manitoba should be able to enter into an agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway Company for the fixing of rates. I admit that it was understood in the discussion that the rates should be still subject to the control of the government in clause, but he supported this Bill and this very contract. The province of Manitoba has given a very valuable consideration to the Canadian Northern Railway Company for what ? Simply for the concession that the government of Manitoba could arrange the rates as between the Canadian Northern Railway and the province of Manitoba, subject, if you will, to the higher jurisdiction of the Governor in Council here. But, what I say here, as opposed to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, is that there certainly is a moral obligation upon this parliament to support any arrangement that is made by the province of Manitoba with the Canadian Northern Railway Company under this agreement, and it is ridiculous for the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to take the position that there are no merits in this agreement.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I did not say that.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: And that although it was dangerous to the province of Manitoba he voted for it.


Thomas Osborne Davis: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if, when the government of Manitoba made this bargain, they had not their eyes open ? They knew that any rate they made would be subject to the control of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if when parliament passed this legislation it had not its eyes open.


Thomas Osborne Davis: A portion of the Act which has been read by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals shows that we retained all these powers.


Thomas Walter Scott: I contended before and I contend again that we are discussing a difficulty that does not exist in this matter Mr. DAVIS.
at all. A question I would like to have answered is with regard to this 720 miles of railway that we are dealing with in this Bill. What control does the Manitoba government contend that it has, or what control has it, or can it possibly have in regard to this proposition we are dealing with ? Has the government of Manitoba any control over it ? These 720 miles of new road are not affected at all by the bargain made between the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Manitoba government two yeans ago.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: This is all outside of Manitoba.


Thomas Walter Scott: Y'es, we have the matter clouded to some extent by the fact that there is a general provision for the control of rates by the commission.


John Graham Haggart: I will inform the hon. gentleman what portion the province of Manitoba have control of under this Bill. They have control from Port Arthur to the crossing of the Rainy river, from Winnipeg to the southerly boundary of Manitoba, from Gladstone to Winnipegosis, from Sifton Junction upwards on that part that is iii Manitoba; they have control over the Emerson branch and from Beaver to Gladstone.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Is this government guaranteeing any of these S


John Graham Haggart: These are the roads which are included in this Bill, and the Manitoba government have control over them under their contract.


Thomas Osborne Davis: We are dealing with 720 miles of railway which are not yet built.


John Graham Haggart: Y'ou have not read the Act, Sir.


Frank Oliver: You have read a schedule of the property that is going to be mortgaged by the Canadian Northern Railway for the money advanced.
Mr, SCOTT. Will my hon. friend from Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) indicate what control the Manitoba government have over these 720 miles ?


John Graham Haggart: That is in the agreement which was confirmed by this government.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There was never anything confirmed about that 720 miles.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: The leader of the opposition has answered all that, and I' do not wish to take up time discussing it.


Thomas Walter Scott: We are discussing a difficulty which does not enter into this at all. Suppose we strike out clause 6 entirely, then the position or the law with respect to public control of rates is not changed in the least.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Does not the provision that the control of all lines owned by the Canadian Northern Railway shall be in the Governor in Council; does not that cover portions of the Canadian Northern Railway which are in the contract between the Canadian Northern Railway Company and the province of Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OE RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Would you like to have that struck out ?


Thomas Walter Scott: What I say is that if you wipe that out altogether it does not make any difference. We have this matter mixed up with the Smendment which the Minister of Railways suggested regarding certain maximum rates. I may say, without any breach of faith, that it was upon the representation made by supporters of the government from west of Lake Superior that the provision for maximum rates lias been suggested by the Minister of Railways and Canals. These maximum rates, so far as I can understand, are not intended to refer to any traffic originating upon the line under the partial control of the government of Manitoba, but entirely with regard to traffic originating upon this 720 miles of railway that has not yet been built, and that the government of Manitoba has nothing to do with.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Suppose we agree to strike out all the portions of that clause that are so offensive to lion, gentlemen opposite, will they let the Bill pass and let us get on with some useful business ?


John Graham Haggart: Oil, you can put it through without any amendment or anything else.
The MINISTER OF; RAILWAYS AND CANALS. My hon. friend says that, because he knows that his whole contention is without foundation and is an absolute waste of time.


John Graham Haggart: What is your suggestion ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let it read :
The rates and tolls to be charged for the transfer of freight and passengers upon the lines of railway so aided shall not in any case be higher than the rates and tolls which may be fixed in the contract to be made between the government of Canada and the Canadian Northern Railway under this Act.
If this clause be amended in that way, and if you strike out all reference to the other lines owned' by the Canadian Northern Railway and strike out the statement that they shall be under the control of the government of Canada it is all the same tiling. If my hon. friends opposite think it will alter the matter, and that it will suit them, and they will let the section through, I am perfectly willing to strike these words out.


John Graham Haggart: The minister still does not provide that it shall be in the direction of preserving the contract between the Manitoba government and the Canadian Northern Railway.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS, AND CANALS. What business have you to put that in ?
.Mr. LANCASTER. I cannot see for the life of me why the amendment of the leader of the opposition should not be accepted. If the minister is going to do anything that will have the result of repealing any agreement which this House has sanctioned, it is a most extraordinary thing. Could the province of Manitoba in equity repeal that bargain that they have made with the Canadian Northern Railway ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They made the bargain.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That bargain would have no legal effect unless it were endorsed by the authority of this parliament, and in equity we are in the same position as the province of Manitoba.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then we should not have passed, the Act ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Not at all.


Frank Oliver: Would, the hon. member allow me to give him an instance ? My attorney in Edmonton sends me a legal document to transfer land, for my signature and I sign it. I was a party to the bargain, but it had no effect until I got a notary public to certify to the signature.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That has nothing to do with it, but I will give a parallel case. Suppose my hon. friend is an executor of an estate and his consent is required to the sale of land belonging to the heirs and the heirs selling does he mean to say that after he gives consent he can turn around next year and say that he had power to repudiate it ?


Frank Oliver: It is not the same tiling at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is exactly the same. Here is a contract between the province of Manitoba and a railway and it is no earthly use to that railway unless the Dominion parliament sanctioned it. The parties come to the Dominion parliament and get it sanctioned, and can the Dominion parliament turn around a year or'two afterwards and try to reserve their right to break it ? If there is any equity in the matter at all this parliament should stick to the bargain which it endorsed. As the leader of the opposition has said we may have the power in strict law to break that bargain, or we may have power as a parliament if

we wish to use it, to do a most inequitable thing, but there is no court of equity or uo court of conscience which would rule that we could break a bargain which we solemnly entered into.


Frank Oliver: Did the hon. member give his support to that endorsation by this House ?


Samuel Barker: What difference does that make ?


Frank Oliver: It does not make any difference as a matter of fact.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This parliament did it as a whole.


Frank Oliver: At the very time we gave that endorsation to that bargain and as part of that endorsation we said :	We do
not change our attitude or our control. That statement was as much a part of the endorsation as the other part of it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In equity that could not amount to anything more than our waving our specific right to deal with that particular matter about which we were legislating, but still retaining our rights generally. We must have meant something when we passed that endorsation, and what we did was to preserve our rights generally in regard to similar matters, while we waived our right in that particular instance.


Frank Oliver: If the exception was intended surely the exception would have been stated, but as a matter of fact, no exception was made and the wording covered everything as far as the English language could be made to do so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman mean that we were not confirming anything that had been done by Manitoba ? Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the exception was so wide that although we passed an Act concerning a certain agreement we did not mean anything ?


Frank Oliver: It means just what it said. I claim that the endorsation of that agreement meant exactly what we said.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What was that please ?


Frank Oliver: That we gave effect to that agreement without prejudice to our right to control, whenever we chose to exercise it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That you gave effect to the agreement without prejudice to breaking it the next day.


Frank Oliver: Precisely; that was precisely the meaning of the words; that was the argument made in the Railway Committee; that was the understanding that was arrived at; there is no doubt about it.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister promised to give us an account of the char-Mr. LANCASTER.
aeter of the road which is to be built, the gradients running west and east, and a general description.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The grading will be 26 feet to the mile going east and will not exceed 52 feet going west. The curvature is very favourable but I cannot give the maximum.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Department of Public Works-contingencies, further amount required, $7,500.
['I apologize.\nBill reported.']
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: When the vote of $10,000 in the main estimates was taken, it was found that there was an expenditure of over $8,000 yet unpaid, and it wras necessary to provide this vote in order to make up the amount required for the current year.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose this is not paid yet ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The principle amount due is to the stationery department for printing, &c.


John Graham Haggart: That seems an enormous sum out of the whole vote of $18,000 and nearly all in the Stationery Department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Year after year the vote has not been large enough to meet the liabilities. At the end of the year 1901-2, there was a balance of $8,376 of an overdraft.. That was at once deducted from the amount of the vote of $10,000, leaving only a small sum for the year's service. [DOT]


John Graham Haggart: I suppose the hon. gentleman has the contingencies remaining unpaid, what are the principal ones ?


Peter Macdonald: I find that this item wras voted the other night and consequently there is nothing before the House.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Has the hon. miuis-ter made provision for the full payment of these contingencies in the estimates for next year, or will he again come down with supplementary estimates ? It would be better to ask for an amount sufficient to cover the appropriation required for 1903-4, so that the House will understand how much really is required by the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My instructions to the officers were to make up accounts in full, and next year I shall take particular care to see that the necessary amount required for this service is procured.

River Kaministiquia, dredging, $24,706.15.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is this under contract 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This money has been all spent and is due for dredging on the Kaministiquia river. The amount still due is $24,706.15.


David Henderson: Is this not an extraordinary proceeding-first to spend the money and then ask for an appropriation 7 I gave warning a year or two ago, when an item similar to this came up, that in future I would move that the item be struck out. I do not think that we are here simply to register the acts of the government in the expenditure of public money. We are here to consent to that expenditure, in the first place, aijd I hope that the hon. minister , will takfe ample provision for all he requires in the future and not ask parliament to be simply a registering body. I take no exception to the expenditure, because the Kaministiquia river is one of the most important harbours in the country. With the possible exception of Quebec and Vancouver there is no harbour more important.
An lion. MEMBER. And Halifax.


David Henderson: No, Halifax isn't in it. A great deal of money will probably have to be expended on the Kaministiquia in the future, because the country will demand it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection to take to the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Henderson). This is undoubtedly one of the great works of the country. As the department has not sufficient money appropriated, perhaps, it was justified in spending more than was voted. However, I do not say there is any reason why we should be again in that position. It is far better to ask for the amount required. As to this particular work, I have asked the officers of the department to make full provision in the estimates, so that parliament may be seized of the exact amount we intend to spend.


William Humphrey Bennett: The appropriation for 1902-3 for dredging was $35,000. Has this amount of $24,700 been spent in addition 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was another case of paying out of appropriation what was spent the year before. The full amount was not intended for the current year. My desire was to find out exactly how the accounts stand and make provision in the supplementary estimates, and to take a vote for next year for all that will be necessary.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: I did not understand the hon. minister to answer the question asked by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). Was this work done by contract or by the yard 7 Who were the contractors 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work has all been done at fifteen cents per yard. 1 think the amount is principally due to the Great Lakes Dredging Company. I have here a full plan of the works which I will lay on the Table.
Trails, roads and bridges-Yukon Territory- To pay account of Trading and Exploring Company, Limited, for transportation of men from Hutchiku on the Yukon river to Lake Labarge, in September, 1899, $481.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay the travelling expenses of thirteen men, as stated in the item, being at the rate of $37 per man. The amo. nt has not been paid sooner, owing to the delay in procuring a properly certified account to be passed by the Auditor General. These parties live in Dawson, and it was a matter of communication between the department, the Auditor General's Department, and the parties having the claim. The account duly certified having been received, the vote had lapsed. This vote is to pay the amount.
Telegraph lines-Quesnel-Atlin section of main line and Port Simpson-Hazelton and 150 Mile House-Quesnel Forks (Horse-fly) branches -additional amount for construction, $20,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to settle outstanding accounts in connection with this telegraph line. The deputy minister informs me that lie believes this will pay the construction accounts in full. If the committee desire, I can give the details of the amounts to be paid.


Samuel Barker: Is this another case of the previous year's estimate being exceeded, or is it a case of paying one year's expenditure out of the following year's appropriation 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Both statements might be partly correct, but I do not understand either to be wholly so. An appropriation was not taken for the amount necessary, but this particular vote is to pay accounts which did not come in in time to be paid out of the vote.


Samuel Barker: Is this under contract 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These are unpaid accounts under contract.


Samuel Barker: Did any portion of these items relate to the year 1901-2 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think they were all contracted for in that year.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the hon. minister will have no objection to their going before the Public Accounts Committee 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, if there is to be an investigation, I think all these accounts ought to go.


Mr. BLAIN.: Are extensive repairs going on upon this line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, only the usual repairs.


Richard Blain: What is the condition of the line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The information received by the department is that the line is in fairly good condition.


Richard Blain: I notice an item in the western papers that a party of men has been sent out to reconstruct the line at different points.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is not correct.


Mr. EARLE.: By whom are the repairs being carried out 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a staff of line men located along the line.


Thomas Earle: The damage to the line is reported as being very serious, and, as the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has said, it is reported that a party of men have gone out to make extensive repairs. It was suggested by the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that one portion of the line it was almost impossible to keep in repair, and it was proposed to overcome the difficulty by laying a cable. It was reported in the western papers that a party had gone out under the direction of the gentleman who constructed the line, to make repairs. Is there anything in that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I have said, there is no knowledge of it in the department. There is no foundation for the statement.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister give us the receipts of the line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There will be an item later, on which that will more properly come up, and I have promised to give a full statement of the details.
Public works-chargeable to income-public buildings, Nova Scotia-Arichat public building, $4,800.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has this building been completed V	*


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. This is to pay the balance of the contract.


William Humphrey Bennett: What has been the cost of the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Including heating and fittings, $8,813.65.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have no recollection of this vote having been up before, but it seems the money was voted in a preceding year. Though it may be a little late to


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: protest, it is well to let the public know what is being done here. At this place, Arichat, in the county of Richmond, the population I think is under 600. The total receipts of the post office are $772, and the business is so insignificant that the Post Office Department would not allow the postmaster a single cent for the premises. Now the Department of Public Works are erecting a building at a cost of some $11,000 or $12,000. Would the minister tell us what purposes are to be served by this office, and [DOT]what remuneration will be paid to the caretaker ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC! WORKS. The building has been completed. The revenue of the post office is $772.75, and the customs revenue is $1,520.74. I suppose this is the chief town in that county, and the trade seems to be considerable. While the revenue from the post office seems small compared with that of larger centres, the amount of money orders issued was over $45,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will there be a caretaker appointed for this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: An arrangement has been made with the postmaster to take charge of this building. A very small allowance, if any, will be given to him.


Mr. FOWLER.: The minister says that the revenue from customs was sufficient to justify this expenditure. Does he consider that an income of $1,500 a year is a considerable income for a customs house ? As a matter of fact, that would represent the duty on about $6,000 worth of goods, an amount which an ordinary business man would bring in in one importation. And yet the hon. gentleman is putting up a building costing $11,000 or $12,000-$8,000 up to date, and $4,000 to be added.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the building is completed at a total cost of $8,813.


George William Fowler: Well, even $8,000 is an outrageous cost. Besides, there is the salary of the caretaker. The expenditure is out of all proportion to the amount of revenue received at that place.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I understand that the previous government had a building there which became useless.


George William Fowler: Because you own a small piece of land in the town of Arichat, worth perhaps a couple of hundred dollars, is it necessary to utilize it by putting up a building at a cost of $8,000 or $9,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There had been a building there before owned by the Dominion government.


Mr. MATHESON.: I can give the committee a little information. In 1882, the

Conservative government bought a piece of land, and an old hardware shop about seventy years old for a post office. After that had been used for some time as a post office, we thought it was time to build a new one. We did not build it very large, and we built it to suit the requirements of the place. There should be no objection to it unless you want to use the old building for another seventy years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population of the place ?


Joseph Matheson: You can find that out by the census.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The population of Aricliat and of West Arlchat are about 2,000.


George William Fowler: Is the post office in Arichat or in West Aricbat ?


Joseph Matheson: There is' a mail going to West Arichat from the Arichat post office.


George William Fowler: How far apart are the two places ?


Joseph Matheson: About four miles.


George William Fowler: So this post office at Arichat cannot accommodate the people of West Arichat. The government built a post office at a little place with a population of 590 souls simply because at one time they owned a lot of land there and a wooden building.


Richard Blain: When was the first vote voted ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In 1901-2, $4,000 was voted.


Richard Blain: I think this is a case where the opposition have a right to object. The government come forward and ask for an appropriation of $4,000 for the purpose of constructing a public building in that town, and before the building is completed we are asked to vote more than double that amount. I ami of the opinion that when a building is to be constructed the department should tell us what it is likely to cost before they ask us to undertake its construction.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was not stated in the beginning what the total cost of the building would be, because it was not known. But so long as parliament is made aware of the amount o'f the obligation that is quite sufficient to justify parliament in voting the money. _ There are many works undertaken by this department as well as others for which the full amount is not asked at first, but so long as parliament is told what the estimatea cost of the work would be, that is usually considered a sufficient reason for undertakingthe work. In this case the amount of the contract was $4,400.


Richard Blain: I suppose it is fair to assume that that is the amount the govern-183 i
ment intended to expend upon the building. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would tell us how it is that the extras are more than the first contract.


Joseph Matheson: The estimates of three years ago were less than the estimates of the same work would be now. Lumber has almost doubled in price.


Samuel Barker: The most of this work was done two years ago, $3,000 of this was spent in 1901-2. It is not the present prices we are dealing with.


Joseph Matheson: The money was voted then, but it was not spent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that my statement that the contract was $4,400 is somewhat misleading. The amount of the contract for the building was $4,400, but then there was heating, which cost $1,038, fittings and letter boxes, which cost $2,074; fencing and sidewalks, $200, and incidentals $157.20.


Richard Blain: What proportion was done by contract out of the full amount ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The whole of it was done by contract.


George William Fowler: What kind of heating is there in this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Hot water.


George William Fowler: The difficulty is that when coming before parliament and asking for a vote the statement is made by the minister that a building is to cost only so much money, and then when complaint was made that it is costing more, the answer is : We have spent so much money and we must finish it. We had a glaring example of this in the Grande Vallee expenditure. In that case the first amount asked for was $5,000. It was supposed by the committee that that .was all that would be required, but the expenditure since has amounted to over $60,000. If the officers of the department are competent, as I believe they are, because I do not think the fault lies with them, when an expenditure is asked for we should have before this committee an exact estimate of the final cost of the building or work upon which the money is to be expended. As far as the enhanced price of building material is concerned, it is certainly not sufficient to account for the difference between the sum asked for and the sum expended in this case. It is true that building materials have advanced in price, but not more than 25 per cent, although the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Mathesom told us that in his part of the country they had advanced 100 per cent in price.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no reason to know that this estimate was not given when this vote was asked for. The practice in the department is that

the chief architect always furnishes the minister, when the estimates are sent down, with an estimate in detail as to what in his opinion the work will cost. There is no reason why that should not he submitted to parliament, and I quite agree with the principle contended for by the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would like to ask the hon. minister why the government finds it necessary to expend $8,000 for a public building in a village with population not quite 600 ? Is the government prepared to adopt that as a policy ? If it is, we have in the province of Ontario hundreds of villages with a greater population than that mentioned here in which there are no public buildings. Is it because the hon. member, representing this particular constituency, has a special pull that the public fund should be spent in this way? Is it the intention of the government to pursue this course in the future ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps this government, to a certain extent, is treading in the path of its predecessor. The hon. gentleman must know that when his party were in power there were cases of this kind.


William Humphrey Bennett: There were no cases as bad as this.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is that the best justification the hon. minister is able to offer for an expenditure of $8,500 for a public building in a place of this kind ? The fittings that have gone into this building must be most palatial, because we find that $2,000 have been spent for letter boxes and fittings. I believe if you go through the province of Ontario you will find no such buildings as this even in towns with 4,000 inhabitants ; yet no expenditure in the province of Nova Scotia is considered too large to keep this constituency politically safe.


George William Fowler: WTiat are these fittings ? With a population of 600 in the village it is costing $4 per head to put up this public building. What do these fittings consist of ? Have you furnished rooms in this building for the population ? And is there a ball room there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The fittings are the usual fittings to be found in public buildings throughout the Dominion.


George William Fowler: Would it not strike the hon. minister that these fittings are a little above the usual class of fittings when it cost $2,000 to fit up a post office, the building of which cost $4,400 ?


The MINISTER . OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The fittings and the furniture would be very much the same as they would be in a much more expensive building, unless the building was a very much larger one. I Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
think this is a very fair proportion having regard to the expenditure of the building.


George William Fowler: How many boxes are there ?


Joseph Matheson: There is a bonded warehouse in the basement, and there is a place for the collector of customs.


George William Fowler: Have you anything in that bonded warehouse ?


Joseph Matheson: Yes, the necessary fittings.


George William Fowler: What necessary fittings would be in a bonded warehouse ?


Joseph Matheson: Then, there is the savings bank department, and the janitor's room.


William Humphrey Bennett: This is a very extraordinary expenditure. Figured out it means that for every head of the population in that town of $600-and it is a little village if the hon. gentleman will pardon me for calling it a village, because in Ontario it would be considered a very small village-this country is bribing that village, and incidentally the whole riding with an expenditure of $15. The hon. Minister of Public Works can figure it out, and if he is going to proportion the bribe to the whole Dominion with public buildings, it will only cost $00,000,000. I am going to ask the hon. minister to consider an application from the town of Midland for a public building. Its population is 4,500, and on behalf of the hon. Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), and in pursuance of an old promise, I am going to ask for cold justice for the town of Owen Sound. The hon. gentleman will perhaps recollect the promise made in his behalf that if he was elected in the riding of North Grey they would get a post office building. They have not got it yet.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett), says that this expenditure was made to bribe a constituency to secure it for the government, and then he says that we should bribe Midland in his riding, I suppose, so that the government might carry it, and that we should bribe Owen Sound, so that my hon. friend who represents it now (Mr. Thomson. North Grey) may not come back. Is that the hon. gentleman's logic ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am quite willing that the hon. gentleman should go into the constituency of East Simcoe and expend all the money they wish, because some of the expenditures they have made in that constituency I have protested against on the floor of this House. You wasted three or four thousand dollars of public money on a dock in the village of Hawkestone, and you so disgusted the decent Liberals there that I had a less majority against me than ever before.


Joseph Matheson: The government the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) supiiorted bought an old hardware shop In Arichat when they were in power, and they promised to give us a post office but they never did so. I do not see why the gentlemen from Ontario should be so jealous of a little money being spent in Arichat. Arichat was a flourishing town before Midland had a man in it civilized enough to wear clothes.


David Henderson: I am afraid that the minister is being so hard pressed that I shall be obliged to come to his rescue. In bygone years I advocated the construction of post offices in towns of from 1,500 to 2,000 population throughout the country. I consider that the government would save money in the rentals which they have to pay, and they could procure abundance of money to build these post offices at three per cent. In place of an old frame building that has been used for some other purpose for seventy years, you could have a substantial brick or stone building with a fireproof vault. But there is no reason in the world why the government should not erect a post office in that town of Arichat for $5,000 or $6,000, sufficient for the requirements of the place and containing a residence for the postmaster so that there would be no expense for the caretaker. The policy is all right, but the working out of this policy by the government is all wrong. That policy should have a general application. I do not know of any more popular or more profitable undertaking that the government could engage in, than the erection of public buildings of that kind all over the country. I hope, however, that the minister will not confine his attention to the old antiquated town of Arichat. If it be true that it was in existence long before the white man settled in Midland, it must be an unprogressive and decayed old town, if it has not a population of more than 600 now. I trust it is not a sample of the whole county of Richmond, because if the county be as unprogressive as the town, there is no doubt that the government thought it necessary to do something to keep the place alive by constructing this building. But what I do say is that it is monstrous to spend $2,000 for fittings in a post office to supply 600 people. There are hundreds of towns in the province of Ontario more populous than Arichat which have very inconvenient buildings for post offices. In the morning and evening when the mails arrive in these towns, the congestion is so great that it is almost impossible far a person to get his letters, and yet no public building is erected 'n these Ontario towns, while an old antiquated place like Arichat, which seems to be dying of decay, and where there is not enough people to make a crowd when the mails arrive, gets a post office building which costs over $8,000. I favour the policy of erecting public buildings in progressive towns and I hope the minister will carry out that policy, but as I .have said, it is monstrous to spend $8,000 for a post office building in a town of a population of 600. I believe the Minister of Public Works himself commended some years ago the very policy that I am advocating now. I know the member for Guys-borough (Mr. Fraser) did, but he is not here to-night.


Mr. ERASER.: Oh, yes I am.


David Henderson: I am very glad he is here, because I see that we will be called upon in a few minutes to vote for a public building in Guysborough, and the hon. gentleman is manly enough to be here to defend what may possibly be a job something like that which is to be perpetrated in Arichat. I think, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Holmes) that you yourself advocated the very policy that 1 am advocating now, but some mistake was made in the carrying out of that policy in Clinton. It was all right to erect a post office in Clinton which would cost $6,000 as was first proposed, but if my memory serves me right they spent somewhere about $15,000 on that post office in the end. I will not undertake to say whether it was the member (Mr. Holmes) or the minister that was at fault, but anyway they spoiled the Vhole plan and instead of spending $6,000 as might have been spent in the public interest, they worked out the policy so that they spent $15,000, which was to that extent, an absolute waste of public money. I hope the minister will take warning from what has been said, and that he will cut off something of the fittings-


Mr. CAMPBELL.: And spoil the job.


David Henderson: The member for West York (Mr. Campbell), has spoiled many things. He is trying to spoil the market gardeners at Toronto. He would not vote to help them in anyway, but he is perfectly willing to endorse an expenditure of $8,000 for a post office in a little town of 600 population away down in Nova Scotia. What strange things the member for West York (Mr. Campbell) will do at times. I trust that the Minister of Public Works will erect public buildings at a moderate cost in many thriving towns in the Dominion, but I do hope that he will not spend such large sums of money as this vote indicates in carrying out that policy.


Joseph Matheson: 'I was very much pleased with the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Henderson).


David Henderson: Hear, hear.


Joseph Matheson: The Conservative government promised a post office in Arichat and they did not build it, and they ran the Conservative majority down to only twenty-one, that was against me. and I presume that their speeches to-night will kill that twenty-one as dead as Julius Caesar.


William Humphrey Bennett: Are they all for sale there ?


Joseph Matheson: If they were all for sale you would have more of them than you have. The Conservative government bought the property and they promised a post office, but they never fulfilled their promise, and they yvould leave the post mistress to stand on the ice all winter.


Mr. WADE.: Who promised the post office ?


Joseph Matheson: The Conservative party bought an old hardware shop for n site in 1882.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh !


Archibald Campbell: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. members for East Simcoe and Halton, who have been so many years voting estimates, such as $15,000 for the Marysville post office, objecting to this item. At Marysville they built a post office which cost some $15,000 and where the revenue is only $350 a year.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the population of Marysville ?


Archibald Campbell: Four or five hundred.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is 1,400.


Archibald Campbell: The* late government spent $15,000 on the post office there, and there were many other instances of a similar nature in the days gone by which never drew a word of protest from these hon. gentlemen, but now because there is an item for a post office in the town of Arichat, which is the centre for that whole county, they are very indignant.


William Humphrey Bennett: On referring to the census returns for York, it will be seen that the hon. gentleman is about as near to the facts as he usually is. He makes the statement that in Marysville the population is 500, where the population is 1,400.


Archibald Campbell: When the post office was built some ten, years ago, the population was only 500.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I do not think there is a public building in the county of Grey built by the government. Let me give a list of the towns and their population in this county. Meaford with a population of 1,960, has no public building. Shelburue, with a population of 1,188, has no public building. Thornbury, with a population of 900, has no public building. Owen Sound, with a population of 9.000, has no public building. Hanover, with a population of 1,300, has no public building. Durham, with a population of 1,392, has no public building.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Which of those are county towns ?


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Owen Sound is the county town of Grey. Markdale with Mr. MATHESON.
a population of 892, has no public building. Yet we find here in a small place of 590 population, the government has spent $8,500. There must be something radically wrong, when such an insignificant place is to have so expensive a building and when all these much larger places I have fiien-tioned have not received such consideration. If the government are prepared to adopt the principle that each place like Arichat should have a public building, we are satisfied, but lam not prepared to vote such heavy expenditures in places like this when towns five or six times as large are not to have any public buildings. The government has oceans of money to spend on these little insignificant places but nothing in the larger centres.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Gape Breton).: It has been represented that Arichat is a very small insignificant place and further that when this vote was originally proposed, the amount then estimated was but $4,000. If hon. gentlemen will take the trouble to look back, they will find that when this vote was originally proposed the estimate was very much in excess of $4,000. I have a distinct recollection of that vote when first submitted. Arichat is not so broken down a place as the hon. member for Halton would have us believe. Look at the money transactions. You will find that $45,819.10 were sent from that post office in money orders alone during the past year. That is a respectable volume of business. 1 think the government is perfectly justified in making ample provision for the conduct of business of that kind.


Joseph Matheson: Then there is the customs house besides.


Alexander Johnston: I am simply speaking of the business done in the post office, and if hon. gentlemen will study the returns they will find that Arichat is after all not so insignificant. If the hon. member for Halton would turn to the great province of Ontario, he will find very few towns that do more business in money orders Will he find half a dozen or a dozen ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Hundreds.


Alexander Johnston: I stand quite willing to be corrected.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: That money order business may be accounted for by this circumstance. You probably have not got a bank there ?


Alexander Johnston: Yes, there is a bank there, the Union Bank of Halifax, one of the best institutions in the country.


David Henderson: I desire to say ill reply to the hon. member for Cape Breton that the statements I made -with reference to Arichat, which he thinks not quite fair, were based on the remarks made by himself. He told us the age of this building,

how long the town had existed, and I concluded that it must be a very uuprogressive place or it would have to-day a population of more than GOO.


Alexander Johnston: But I took good care to state that the Conservative party had neglected it.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman said the late government made a promise, which shows that they were not neglecting it. It would appear, however, from wuat the hon. gentleman said, that after sending an engineer down there to investigate, the late government considered the place was not of such importance as demanded the expenditure required by the erection of a post office.


Joseph Matheson: Are you quoting facts or drawing from your imagination ?


David Henderson: I think the hon. gentleman has been drawing very largely on his imagination. What I said was a fair deduction from the remarks of the hon. i gentleman from Richmond, and I do not j think I should be held responsible, if there I is anything wrong in what I did say. Two or three nights ago I had occasion to bring up a matter very much similar, where a promise had been made of a public work in my own county at the time of an election. That same thing seems to have been doue in Nova Scotia. 1 asked the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to implement that promise. I do not care whether it was made properly or improperly, once a promise of that kind is made to the electors, the government should keep faith with them. I have not objected to the erection of a post office in Arichat. I approve of the policy of erecting post offices in small towns, but not in towns where there are only 500 or 600 people. Where there are 1,000 or 2,000,
I believe in the policy of erecting public buildings, because the interest on the cost would simply take the place of the rental. The policy is good, but it is worked out badly in the case of Arichat. The government might have a very suitable post office, which would meet all requirements, for $2,000 or $3,000 less money.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The more you look into this matter the more serious it appears. The total revenue from this post office at Arichat is $772, and the salaries and commissions amount to $533, giving a net revenue of $232. If you compute $8,000 at 4 per cent, you get $320, which, you are going to pay a year on a post office which only nets you a revenue of $230. The postal revenue at Owen Sound is $14,400, and the total expenses are $4,500, leaving a net revenue of $10,000, and yet Owen Sound has no public building. In Meaford the postal revenue is $3,199, and the expenditure $1,255; leaving a net revenue of $2,000. I merely mention these facts to show that we are putting up a building in this partiW
cular place where, judging by its postal revenue and business, there is none required and no demand for it except for political purposes.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It has been alleged by hon. gentlemen opposite that a good deal more money is spent on these buildings in Nova Scotia than in Ontario. I give that statement a most emphatic denial. It has been the policy of governments in tLe past to put up these public buildings in county towns.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is Arichat a county town S


Fletcher Bath Wade: Yes, it is the county town. The building is completed, and will accommodate the post office savings bank, the post office, the collector of customs, bonded warehouse, tide-waiters, Ac. It costs a good deal to complete a building of decent proportions for these services. I would like hon. gentlemen opposite to understand that there are as many towns 1 i proportim throughout Nova Scotia which have not post office accommodation as there are in the province of Ontario. For instance, there is the town of Arichat West, and, in my own county, the town of Bridgetown


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: Is it a county town V


Fletcher Bath Wade: Arichat is the county town. There are only two towns in Nova Scotia, so far as I know, that are not county towns that have buildings, and in those cases the buildings were put up by the late government. In the town of Annapolis, which had a population of little over 900, the late government put up a large and expensive building, but they did not build one in Bridgetown, which, I think, was quite as large or larger. The reason assigned at the time was that Annapolis was the shire town and so entitled to the building. The town of Lunenburg, with a population of about 2,000, has a building erected which cost $45,000, but the neighbouring town of Bridgewater, with a population of over 1,800 has no post office building even to the present time. The policy was adopted^ by the late government of building post offices in the shire towns first, the other towns being supposed to come in for consideration afterwards. It does seem to me that if the late government purchased the site for this building and promised the people that the building would be constructed, hon. gentlemen opposite who say that the government should carry out its promises can hardly complain because the building is completed, particularly as the building is for the shire town of this county of Richmond.


Joseph Matheson: I think it unfair that this should be spoken of as a post office simjily, when it is intended for a bonded warehouse, custom house, post office, savings bank, and telephone and telegraph

5S40
office. Allow for the rent of these different government offices and also for the rent that will he received from the telegraph and telephone companies, and I think it will he found that this building is a paying investment. This was started by the party of lion, gentlemen opposite who are now talking against it. But we were told all along : What is the use of expecting a building if you do not send a supporter of the government-that is of the late government. We sent a supporter, but we did not get the building. An lion, gentleman tells us that they sent an engineer to examine, and he reported that the building was not necessary. I would like to know where that report is. I asked the lion., gentleman who made the statement if he was drawing on his imagination or talking from facts. I suppose that if he were talking from facts, lie would be able to produce them; and as he does not do so, I would infer that he is drawing on his imagination. He says that all the information lie got about the town was from me. I am not aware that I said anything injurious to the town-


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman said the post mistress had cold feet.


Joseph Matheson: And some bon. gentlemen opposite will have cold feet before they get into power again if they go on this way. It is not by repudiating their obligations that statesmen get along. This building is completed, and I do not think it would be businesslike now to repudiate it and refuse to pay the price. Yet, if lion, gentlemen ojiposite mean anything, that is what they mean. The town of Arichat was never considered a very insignificant town, though it must be confessed that part of the population left it during the eighteen sorrowful years when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. They are now citizens of the United .States, where they are well appreciated. But some of them are coming back now, and, with! improvements such as this building in the town, we hope to draw more of them.
Guysborough public building, $11,000.
The MINISTER 01" PUBLIC WORKS. This is to complete the payments for the building, the construction of which is finished.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is $20,747.


William Humphrey Bennett: The population of Guysborough seems to be 1.400, and the government formerly rented premises for the post office for $40 a year. If the hon. minister intends to apply this method all over the country, the results will be far from pleasing.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Much that has been said about the county has been true of Guysborough. A building there serves in an im-Mr. MATHESON.
portant measure for the whole county. The population of the county is 18,000, and the county town is the centre where the court sits, the place of the savings bank, custom house, and so on. This is the beautiful building, and the postmaster appointed by the late government lives in the building, so that there will be no cost for caretaking. There is a railway now being built of about 200 miles.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.
Mr. BLA1N. When was the first vote taken for this building, and when was the contract let and what was the price V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The first vote taken was in 1C01-2 and ti e total contract was $20,747.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I am surprised to hear the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser) trying to offer a defence for an expenditure of this kind. Though I have only for a short time had the honour of a seat in this House, I have read the speeches of the hon. member with great pleasure, and always regarded him as an outspoken enemy of expenditures of this kind. I find that, accor iug to the public accounts, the total revenue of the post office in this town for last year was $990, while the expenditure for salaries and commissions wras $725. That is, the salaries and commissions amounted to very nearly as much as was received altogether. Yet this government is expending $20,000 for a post office building. And the hon. member for Guysborough defends it. And were it an expenditure in another constituency, it would not look so badly, but to defend such an expenditure for his own constituency it looks all the worse.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I never spoke against public buildings-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Never, I always thought it was a good idea. Now" I know that it is a good thing to have a building in each of the shire towns of Nova Scotia. It may not pay immediately, but eventually it will pay. This is a fine stone and brick building, standing on a very fine lot overlooking the harbour and so close that the ships can come right up to where the building is. I do not defend this because it is in my own county, for I never spoke against expenditures of this kind. I do object to buildings of this kind that were intended to bribe constituencies. Think of Lunenburg getting a building at a cost of $45,000. I did not say a word against it, for I thought that good judgment prevailed in that case. And I know that good judgment prevails here.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: The hon. member says this is a county towm. Is he prepared to use his influence to get a building put up in Owen Sound, which is a

county town, with a population of 9,000 and a postal revenue of $15,000 V Will the hon. gentleman raise his voice in favour of justice being done to Owen Sound ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Decidedly, I will not object-badly as Owen Sound is represented.
Middleton armoury (revote of $2,900 lapsed) $8,400.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is required to complete the construction of the armoury at Middleton.


William Humphrey Bennett: In what county is Middleton ? What is the population of the town and what the population of the county ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is in the county of Annapolis, and the population is 900.


Samuel Barker: What is the total cost of that building to be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Eight thousand five hundred.
Marysville, public building, $2,700.


Samuel Barker: This, I think, is the place that the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. Gibson) spoke of. I understood him to say that the money had been expended some years ago to put up a building here, but I see now there is a vote asked for a site for a building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was a revote taken several years ago, but it was not expended. The building is now completed, at a total cost of $13,233.


Samuel Barker: How long lias this been under construction 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Since 1902.


Samuel Barker: I understood the hon. gentleman from York to say that some $15,000 had been expended by the late government. It is evident that lie could not have known what he was talking about.
Montmagny public buildings-Governor General's warrant, $2,800.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: During the heavy storm at that place this building caved in and it was necessary to make repairs at once. My opinion is that it will be necessary to revote this and put up a new building. I am having it now investigated and reported upon.


David Henderson: Was the $2,,800 expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, it was not. I came to the conclusion when this accident happened and the roof fell in, and after having an investigation made by an architect, that it was not desirable to use the Governor General's warrant. We had some temporary repairs made,
and we will have to take a vote to pay the Governor General's warrant.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was this building erected by the department, or was it purchased ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it was purchased and largely improved by the department. I will have a full report made of it by the engineer.
Deseronto, public building, $4,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a very expensive building. The total cost is $40,555.50. This sum will complete that building.
Toronto post office-building for branch office in west end of city (station C), $10,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This completes the work. It was let by contract.


Samuel Barker: I would ask the minister to allow that to stand, if he has no objection. My hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), I think, wants to make some inquiries.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 have no objection whatever.
Item allowed to stand.
Kingston Royal Military College-revote of $2,000 lapsed, $32,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to make provision for completion, during the fiscal year, of the gymnasium and residence. The amount of the contract was $35,956.


Samuel Barker: Will that complete everything ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the work under contract. I think there has been an application for some fittings, they will come down in the estimates far 1903-4.
Ottawa-for_the completion of the bacteriological laboratory for the cattle quarantine branch of the Department of Agriculture, $6,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the balance of the contract to complete the work.
Toronto, assistant receiver general's office, additional vault accommodation-Governor General's warrant, $1,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations were made by the Finance Department that the funds were in danger from the bad state of the building, and the need of repairs was so urgent that a Governor General's warrant was asked for. This is to make that good.
Ottawa, public buildings-electric lighting- for purchase of transformers installed in buildings on Parliament Hill and the Langevin block, inclusive of wiring in duets, &c., $11,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These transformers were supplied by the Ottawa Electric Company, at the time the electric light was put in.


David Henderson: We have several times been left in total darkness by the failure of the electric light. I must ask the minister what steps can be taken to prevent it in the future. Last night when we were here about 10 o'clock, the lights again went out. Has any investigation been made to determine the cause of the trouble last night, or on previous occasions ? There must be something defective. Whether the contract has not been properly carried out or whether there is something that cannot be overcome, I do not know, but I have no doubt the minister will give it his attention, so that we may not again be left in the uncomfortable position in which we have found ourselves on several occasions.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is certainly very annoying to have the lights go out. An investigation has been made by the officials of the department, and we have ascertained that the difficulty has not arisen from any defect in this building, but the trouble has been at the power house of the electric company. 1 was informed myself by one of the officials of the company that it was owing to a defect in one of their switchboards, which has been remedied, and we may not fear any recurrence of the trouble in future. One thing we might adopt to prevent a recurrence of that trouble, would be to have a storage battery, but that would be very expensive. The chief architect has informed me that it might cost about ?70,000 to instal a storage battery, and as the company claim that they have discovered the cause of the accidents that have been happening during the present session, and that when a new switchboard has been put in the interruption to the service is not likely to happen again, I think we might give it another trial before undertaking such a large expenditure.


David Henderson: Has the hon. minister ever taken into consideration the question as to whether it would be more economical for the government to manufacture its own electricity instead of paying a company for supplying the current. To my mind, if the municipalities throughout the country find it profitable to put in electric plants to light up the towns and villages, we. with such a large extent of buildings here requiring so many lights, might well operate along the same lines. I have no doubt the hon. minister or some of his predecessors have had that under consideration. I dare say his officers can give us some information as to which would be likely to be the cheaper.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have thought about the matter but I have


Robert Franklin Sutherland: not had the investigation made that I intend to have made. Of course we have no water-power and a comparison would have to be made as to the cost of instituting a steam plant and as to whether a saving could be effected under those circumstances. It is a matter that will receive attention during the coming season. I think the cost will be rather high ? I will ask the chief architect and the officials of the department to look into the matter and see if any saving can be effected.


Mr. BIRKETT.: I think the difficulty last night was caused by the severe storm passing over the city.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and I am informed by one of the officials of the company that it was on account of the switchboard being out of order.


David Henderson: I am surprised to hear the hon. Minister of Public Works say that the government could not make a comparison because they have no water-power. Do I understand that all of the water-power has passed out of the hands of the government ? Surely such a magnificent property as the water-power has not been all disposed of by the government or passed beyond their control entirely ? If it is so I very much regret it because it is something that no doubt parliament could have utilized to very great advantage. Perhaps the hon. minister made a slip when he made that statement. I would be very glad to know whether that is really the case.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid it is too true that these water-powers were not thought to be of so much value and that they passed out of the hands of the crown many years ago. However, the matter will receive consideration. I do not suppose they thought of lighting this building with electricity when it was first built ?
Ottawa post office and customs house-fitting up examining warehouse and putting in electric elevator ; also alterations and improvements in post office. $6,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the payment on the contracts for improvements made to the Ottawa post office.


Thomas Birkett: Certainly they were not made before they were required.
Manitoba-Winnipeg immigration buildings- isolation hospital (revote of lapsed amount), $6,200.


David Henderson: Has the hon. minister ever taken into consideration the terrible risk that people are put to who may be housed in the immigration building near the Canadian Pacific Railway station at Winnipeg ? On viewing it last autumn it struck me that on almost any occasion a

fire might take place amongst the old wooden structures there, and so in a particular structure of this kind with the means of getting in and out some terrible calamity might occur at any time. I hope before too much money is spent in repairing a building of this kind the government will take into consideration, the propriety of having one erected on some other site where there will be less danger from fire.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ltepresentations were made to the department and are now under consideration. I think the urgency of providing a better service there would perhaps require a new building altogether. It will be necessary,
I think, in the interests of the public that we should have a new building. It may be possible before the supplementary estimates come down that we will have plans to submit to the House showing what is proposed to be done.
Ottawa public buildings-gas and electric light. $2,500.


Richard Blain: Where is the gas.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Right here.
Ail hon. MEMBER. It's ail outside of the chamber.


Richard Blain: I am not joking. Why is not the gas turned on to the building so that we may have it when the electric lights go out.


William Alfred Galliher: All you have to do is to light a match.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS moved the adjournment of the House.


Samuel Barker: In the absence of the leader of the opposition, might I ask what business will be taken up to-morrow.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Minor Bills and Supply for Public Works Department.


David Henderson: Will the Seed Inspection Bill come up.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think that stands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.10 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Fkiday, July 3, 1903. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 207) to prohibit the importation, manufacture or
sale of adulterated, process or renovated butter, oleomargarine, butterine or other substitutes for butter ; and to prevent the improper marking of butter/-The Minister of Agriculture.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (Hon. Sydney Fisher).: I beg leave to move that section 4 be struck out and the following substituted :
No person shall import into Canada, offer, sell or have in his possession for sale any butter containing over 16 per cent of water.
My object is to give this clause the same form as the succeeding one.


John Graham Haggart: What was the form in which it passed the committee before ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This does not change the meaning of the clause, but only the form.


John Graham Haggart: The percentage is the same as in the English Act ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Exactly.


William Forsythe McCreary: When the Bill was up before the House the other day, I had not the information before me to enable me to speak intelligently on the subject. During the past few days, however, I received from Winnipeg protests against the measure from the firm of Messrs. Reid, Rice & Company, produce packers and exporters of butter. In the older provinces there are creameries at convenient points, but in Manitoba and the Territories we have but few creameries. The farms are larger, generally half a section, thus requiring half a mile distance to cross which makes it difficult to use the creameries. It is true that in the Territories, along the Calgary and Edmonton line and the Manitoba and North-western, the government had come to to the rescue of the farmers and established creameries, but in Manitoba there are but few creameries. In that province we have at present a very large number of Galicians. Mennonites, and" other foreigners, as well as natives of the country, who live largely on the products of the ten or fifteen cows which each one possesses, and who besides are able to make a certain quantity of butter for sale. This butter is not up to the standard required for export or the standard in the creamery. I can well recollect a few years ago a certain dealer in butter from Scotland, who went among the Mennonites to see the butter they made. He had photographed in Winnipeg an invoice of some of this butter, which he had bought at the rate of three cents a pound. This quality of butter, although made from pure milk, is not worth more than seven to ten cents a pound, and it is sold to the dealers at that rate. This firm established itself in Winnipeg for the purpose of buying this butter. The butter is not adulterated in any

way, but it is as pure as any butter in the market. Going through a certain process of boiling, purifying and cooling, the butter is so improved that they are able to sell it at fifteen or sixteen cents per pound. They tell me that this butter is so improved that it will keep as long, or longer, than the butter made in the creamery. They sell it in large quantities to railway camps and other large consumers. And, owing to this process, the manufacturers are able to pay the farmers a much higher price for this class of butter than could otherwise be paid. I think that all desirable purposes would be attained if this Bill were restricted to cover only the butter for export, while butter sold for home consumption should be allowed to go through the process I have spoken of and be sold without restriction. I do not know whether the minister has had under consideration this phase of the Bill, but I can tell him it will seriously affect the county I live in, as well as the county represented by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. LaRivi&re), especially the Mennonites there, who manufacture large quantities of butter. It is true they do not know how to manufacture it well, but they are trying to learn as quickly as they can. But if this Bill passes they will be at the mercy of store keepers and others, and will be compelled to sell their butter at three, four or five cents a pound, as they did some years ago. I would bring this to the attention of the hon. minister, and would ask hon. members here, who are conversant with the subject, to give their ideas upon the points involved.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have gone into this matter, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) suggests, very thoroughly. I have stated already in the House very plainly the necessity for the provisions of the Bills which strike at the manufacture in Canada of process butter.
T do not think that the House has cavilled, much, if at all, at the stand I have taken on this subject. The hon. gentleman speaks of one particular firm in Manitoba that manufactures this process butter. I knew of that firm before I undertook to frame this Bill, and it was partly in consequence of representations which came from the creamery men in the province of Manitoba-


William Forsythe McCreary: They are jealous, of course.
'The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. They are jealous of the reputation of their own butter. [DOT]


William Forsythe McCreary: That is doubtful.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE -that I was led to go into the matter more carefully in regard to the province of Manitoba. The description which the hon. gentleman has given of this manufacture, I think, clearly illustrates the danger involved in this process to our general dairying trade. My hon. friend (Mr. McCreary) sug-Mr. McCREARY
gests that these provisions should only apply to the export trade. I do not think that is possible, for we can never tell where butter which is once allowed to be made and put upon the market will end. Butter may be made intended for the retail trade at home, but if the retail market happened to be a little quiet, the butter will immediately be sent forward for export. My hon. friend says that this process serves the purpose of helping the farmer. The dairy interest in this country is the one in which the farmers are more interested than in any other ; and the great export trade in dairying products in this country is the foundation of the prosperity of our dairy market. If we had not that splendid export trade, all our butter in this country would have to be sold at the low prices which my hon. friend mentioned, for, without the export trade, our production would flood the home market to such an extent that we could not possibly sell our butter at prices profitable to the maker. It is true, perhaps, that some few people in the country are making such a poor grade of butter that they cannot sell it at any price at all, but, by this process they would be able to foist upon the market at home an article which was not good to begin with and which, by the process under description may have been made to appear better, but is not made better permanently or really.


William Forsythe McCreary: Does the hon. minister mean to say that you cannot improve butter or pork or any of these lines of goods- even milk-by process of boiling and purifying ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I mean to say that the manufacture of this process butter may, for the moment, overcome certain flavours, tastes and qualities ; but I say also that by the process of boiling- as the hon. gentleman described it, melting is really the term-the quality of the butter is destroyed, and though it is afterwards chilled and put upon the market, there is only one way by which it can be done properly or successfully. That way is to incorporate in the butter a certain quantity of milk in which it is washed. That milk immediately deteriorates, and the butter will not keep and cannot be put upon the market with a good reputation. The statement that this butter can be kept ad infinitum is not correct. In some instances, it may have been frozen and kept in that condition, for a time. I believe it has been. But the statements that it is kept for a length of time can only be based upon the keeping of the butter by freezing, which is impracticable for the ordinary trade of the country. As a matter of fact, the experience of the United States has shown that butter cannot be kept under ordinary circumstances and retain its flavour and condition. At the same time, it may be sold by the manufacturer so as to get it on the market,

and be made, for tbe time being, to appear to be a reasonably good article of food.


John Graham Haggart: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. minister, but X would like to ask him what he means by the word ' manufacturer '-would that include the farmer who makes the butter ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, it is provided in the Bill that the word ' manufacturer ' applies to any body making butter.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman's amendment reads ' manufacturer or exporter ' and I thought perhaps it would not apply to the farmer who made the butter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It would. The clause under discussion at the moment, which deals with the sixteen per cent of water, would apply to any body in the country. I think I explained that pretty thoroughly when the Bill was under discussion before.


John Graham Haggart: I was not present.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: As to this matter of process butter, and dealing with what my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), has said, I cannot help reiterating most emphatically-and I take the full responsibility of doing so here as Minister of Agriculture, and as having studied this question from its very base up -that it is absolutely necessary in the interest of the dairy trade in Canada that we should to-day put a stop to the manufacture of process butter in this country. My hon. friend speaks of this firm in Winnipeg. They have written to. me, and in their letter to me they stated that the present laws of the United States were pernicious, and that those laws dealt with people who were engaged in the manufacture of this article in a way unjust and unfair. I want my hon. friend to understand that in the United States these laws were passed by congress a year or a year and a half ago, because they found that the manufacture of process butter in the United States was bringing the butter trade in their country into an intolerable impasse. And they went only so far as to restrict and license it, because the manufacture has reached such a point of vested rights that they were not able to do what we are proposing to do today, and what they would have been glad to do could they have done it. And it is because these restrictive laws have been passed in the United States that these people interested in the manufacture of process butter are trying to establish their trade in Canada, a trade which has hurt the dairy trade of the United States and that would have the same results here. I take the full responsibility of saying this, and I throw upon any person who trys to prevent the prohibition of process butter in Canada the
responsibility of a disastrous injury to our butter trade.


David Henderson: I fear that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is going altogether too far in the amendment which he has just proposed. It seems to me that we are over careful in the restrictions that we are placing upon ordinary trade. I am not making any reference to process butter, something which I know very little about, and consequently will not speak of. But I think it a very dangerous thing to place a penalty upon a man who chances to blij butter, and with the making of which he had nothing to do, simply because it lias in it a certain proportion of water. The hon. minister tells us that ordinary butter contains about 13 per cent of water. Now there is very little difference between 13 per cent and 1G per cent, so little that a merchant dealing in butter might easily have in his possession at any time butter that actually contains 16 per cent. I think that these restrictions thrown around the butter trade are quite uncalled for, and they are dangerous, for they are liable to get a man into trouble at almost any time quite unwittingly. More latitude should be given. In fact, I believe the people have been getting along very well by making their own rules and regulations in regard to dairy butter, and I fear the minister is not going to benefit the ordinary people of the country by such restrictions as he proposes.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The amendment I now propose does not in any way extend the provisions of this Bill as they were passed after discussion by this committee. This proposed change is simply a. change in form ; it does not add to the restriction agreed to by this committee a little while ago.


William Forsythe McCreary: I would ask the minister if. after having brought this Bill to this stage, he would not consider the matter of letting it rest until next year. I know there are many farmers in the west who have come in without means and who have accumulated three of four cows, and if this Bill is passed, it will deprive them of the means of making a living. Let the Bill stand over so as to give them a warning, that they may take steps to establish creameries. I know plenty of families who have come in there and who get their entire living, with what they make on the railways, out of three or four cows, because they do not patronize the creameries. I do not think it will endanger the country in any way to delay the passing of this Bill. There are many men coming in from Austria, Iceland and from Finland who depend upon three or four cows to make a living for the first two or three years, and if these people are not allowed to sell their butter except at three cents a pound, they will simply be compelled to give up making

butter to sell. I do not think it will do any harm to hold the Bill over for one year so that the government may take steps to come to their rescue and establish creameries in Manitoba under the supervision of the government, the same as they have done in the Territories.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have pointed out already my reasons for not delaying the Bill. If we delay the Bill, vested interests will spring up in the country which will make it more difficult to pass such a law as this. My hon. friend speaks about the poor settlers in Manitoba. Though there may be a few who do not make butter good enough to sell for more than three or four cents a pound, I know that there are in Manitoba a number of successful creameries, as well as in the other provinces, where the people make a quality of butter which is much better than that my hon. friend describes. If these people are making butter which is only worth three or four cents in the market, they will not get more than three or four cents from the manufacturers mentioned. These will get the butter for the least possible price and the profits will go to the firm in Winnipeg who are making this process butter, and not the farmers.


David Henderson: I understand the minister is not making any material alteration in the provisions of section 4 by his amendment, he is merely changing the wording. But I understood him to say that it is possible to make butter with over Hi per cent water in it. Now supposing a farmer's wife should bring a roll of butter into a country store which contained 16 per cent of water or over, how is the purchaser to know that it does contain that quantity of water ? It is impossible for him to know, yet the moment he purchases that butter he is liable to a heavy penalty. To my mind the effect of this legislation will be that people dealing in this article will simply have to tell the farmers that they must pay them one or two cents a pound less in order to protect themselves. I believe this legislation is altogether against the interests of the farmers of the country.


Mr. BROCK.: It would be a disaster if a great national industry of this country was to be made subservient to a few people who are producing an article of butter not fit to eat, and certainly not fit to be exported. The people in England are turning towards this country at the present time for their food supply, and it is for our food supply we are endeavouring to get a reputation in England. I think tile objection of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) will be done away with very shortly, because there are no people who so quickly get down to making a good article of butter as our Canadian farmers. I am not at all afraid that there will be much injury done to the butter trade by
Mr. McCreary.
passing the Bill now before us. I would not delay it for a year, because it is highly important at the present time that everything that can be done to give this country a good standing in the markets of England and of Europe should be done at once.
'The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. When the Bill was passing through committee at a previous stage there was a discussion on clause 10 which describes the penalty, and my attention was drawn to the fact that the penalties ranging from .8100 down to $10 were not sufficiently restricted. There are two classes of offences under this Act, one being the manufacture of these forbidden articles, and then there are several other clauses defining smaller offences. I wish to divide the penalties into two classes ; therefore, instead of clause 10, I wish to substitute the following :
Every person who, by himself or through the agency of another person, violates any of the provisions of this Act, shall, for each offence, upon summary conviction, he liable to a fine not exceeding $50 and not less than $10 for such offence in violation of any of the provisions of sections 4. 8 and 9 of this Act ; and not exceeding $400 and not less than $200 if such offence be a violation of any of the provisions of sections 5, 6 or 7 of this Act, together with the costs of prosecution, and in default of payment of such fine and costs, shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months unless such fine and the costs of enforcing it are sooner paid.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was a little discussion the other day upon the question of local trade where small packages of butter are marked ' creamery.' I did not consider that this amounted to a great deal, and I was very anxious that the general provisions of the Act should apply specially to the export trade. Since then, various representations have reached me showing that there is in Ontario especially, a considerable trade in rolls and prints and small packages which are marked for local trade ' creamery.' Now, these are packages which cannot be used for export, therefore putting the word 'creamery' on them does not injure in any way our export trade. As my object in providing that the word ' creamery ' should not be put upon packages of butter, was for the purpose of protecting our export trade, I propose to add as section 16 of the Act the following :
Nothing contained in sections eight and nine of this Act shall apply to butter in rolls, prints or packages of less than twenty-five pounds in weight, not intended for export.
I think that will permit this local trade, which I have described a few minutes ago, still to employ the word ' creamery,' without injuring our export trade.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. What about the butter put up in tins ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The words used are ' rolls, prints or packages of less than 25 pounds in weight.' Packages for export never include less than 25 pounds. I have made inquiries of my officers, and they tell me that they have not seen for years a package of less than 25 pounds sent for export. The ordinary packages are 50 pounds, and in some cases half that amount.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. But butter is frequently put up in tins of from two to five pounds each.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That would not come under this clause, these packages would come under the ordinary provisions of the Act.


Mr. BRODER.: That would not hinder a man shipping in boxes a large number of these pound packages of butter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, but he could not put the word ' creamery ' on them.


Richard Blain: In the county which I represent we have a number of farmers who supply Toronto restaurants with butter. 'They send it into the city in packages containing fifty pounds and some as much as seventy-five pounds, sending it by express instead of driving it in by wagon. That section would prohibit them from stamping their butter as creamery butter for the reason that they send it by express from their station to Toronto in boxes containing more than twenty-five pounds. May I ask the hon. minister if the section would apply -to butter sold in this way ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not if it were in rolls, or prints, or blocks. If each package was done up in paper marked ' creamery ' then it would come in under this proviso and it would not be subject to the penalty for putting ' creamery ' upon it, although they might send it in boxes full of these prints.


Richard Blain: If they put fifty one pound packages in a box and send it by express to Toronto they would not come under the penalty of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 208) to amend the Post Office Act.-The Postmaster General.
On section 6,
So much of schedule B to the Civil Service Act as relates to clerks in city post offices, as amended by section 15 of chapter 28 of the statutes of 1902 is repealed, and the following is : substituted therefor :-
Clerks in City Post Offices, Inspectors' Offices, and Superintendents of Railway Mail Service Offices.
4th Class, on appointment, $400 ; by annual increases of $50 up to $700. Any stamper and sorter may be promoted to the 4th class, and on such promotion his initial salary as such 4th class clerk shall be not less than his salary as such stamper and sorter at the time of such promotion.
Junior 3rd Class, on appointment, $700 ; by annual increases of $50 up to $800.
Senior 3rd Class, on appointment, $800 ; by annual Increases of $50 up to $900.
Junior 2nd Class, on appointment, $900 ; by annual increases of $50 up to $1,000.
Senior 2nd Class, on appointment, $1,000 ; by annual increases of $50 up to $1,200.
1st Class, specific duties with fixed salaries in each case to be determined by the Postmaster General ; no salary to be less than $1,200, or more than $1,500.
2.	Any clerk in any of the said offices who, at the passing of this Act is in the third class, shall be deemed to be a Junior third-class clerk, his salary until otherwise ordered continuing to be the amount which he is then enjoying, subject to annual increases not exceeding fifty dollars 'until it reaches eight hundred dollars a year.
3.	Any clerk- in the second-class at the time of the passing of this Act shall be deemed to be a senior second-class clerk, except that if his s'alary be less than one thousand dollars, it shall, until otherwise ordered, continue to be the amount which he is then enjoying, subject to annual increases, not exceeding fifty dollars each, until it reaches twelve hundred dollars a year.
4.	Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act any clerk shall be eligible for promotion to any higher class iu the outside branch of the Post Office Department without being required to pass any examination except such as may be prescribed under regulations to be passed by the Postmaster General and having reference to the duties to be performed by such clerk.
John Graham Haggart: Would the lion. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Muloek) explain how this affects the present law ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Muloek).: Under the present law there are four classes. Hon. gentlemen will perhaps remember that last year we created a fourth class with salaries ranging from $400 to $600. That left a class from $600 to $800 and another class from $S00 to $1,200. To-day, instead of having the fourth class with a maximum of $600 we propose to make the maximum $700 so that the salaries will run from $400 to $700. Then, we come to the third class. The third class is divided into two grades, the junior third class from $700 to $800 and a senior third class from $800 to $900. Instead of stopping at $800 as the maximum, it will now be possible by getting into the senior division of the third class to get a maximum of $900. Then, instead of as at present, the first-class commencing at $800 and going up to $1,200, there are two second-class subdivisions, a junior second beginning at


COMM.QNS
[Stage Direction]
8900 and going up to 81-000 and a senior second beginning at 81-000 and going up to 81,200.
John Graham Haggart: In the second-class they can go np to 81,200, can they not ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In the third class they go from $700 to 8900, in the second class from $900 to SI .200, and in the first class from $1,200 to $1,500. I leave the first class the same as before-from $1,200 to $1,500. There are three classes prior to getting to the first class.


John Graham Haggart: You are only dividing them up without increasing the maximum ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not increasing the maximum. You might be willing to give a man $1,000 a year whom you would not be willing to give $1,200. You might want to promote a man from $800 to $1,000 and by putting him into the third class, by gradual increases he might go up to $1,000, but you do not wish to be compelled to put him into a class in which he might reach a higher maximum than he was worth.


John Graham Haggart: Have you figured up the amount by which this will increase the expenditure in your department ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It will amount to a very considerable increase, I think. I will give that in the estimates. It will be in the supplementary estimates which are already prepared to be submitted to the House in anticipation of these amendments. Speaking from memory-perhaps I am in error-I think that these various increases will involve an increase in the expenditure of from $30,000 to $40,000 a year.


John Graham Haggart: $40,000 a year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think so, but I would not like to be held by these figures.


John Graham Haggart: If you transfer a person from the inside service to the outside service, the law provides that he will be required to pass an examination, but you abolish that under this Bill ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At present there are promotion examinations under the Civil Service Act. but these promotion examinations have no specific reference to the duties of the office. It appears to me, when it comes to promotion, that the examination should not be on the work learned at schools but on the work learned in the department. After a young man has passed his civil service qualifying examination, and years go by, if he is deserving of promotion, I do not think it is fair to ask him to go back to the class of work involved in text books. The proper subject of examination is in reference to the duties of his office.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


John Graham Haggart: You will require a grade or class examination ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The department will prescribe the examination having reference to the work on which the man is engaged. If he were a railway mail clerk we would want one kind of examination, and if a clerk in the department, a different examination.


John Graham Haggart: I understand, but under this Bill you abolish the examination ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Only the promotion examination.


John Graham Haggart: You abolish any examination. Subsection 4 says :
Without being required to pass any examination except-
I see that section provides for such an examination as may be prescribed under regulations to be passed by the Postmaster General.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, such an examination as we prescribe. The principle of these changes is the same principle sis is applied in the case of railway mail clerks. tinder the former law iiie inspectors were appointed at an initial salary which they remained at for ten years and jumped pt once from that figure ti another, and after remaining for a further ten years they were eligible for promotion to a no,-, her salaw they havin' served twenty years in all. I propose to apply the ordinary principle and let the salaries be increased by annual increments towards the maximum.
Hon. Mr. HAGGaRT. Would the annual increment amount at the end of ten years to more than the present system ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think not. Of course they would go step by step each year and would earn more in the ten years.
On section 8-salary of superintendent.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The maximum salary of superintendents is $l,5i'0 and it is proposed to make it $1,800.


John Graham Haggart: How many superintendents have you ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is one superintendent for each railway mail division ; ten altogether, I think.
On section 9-newspaper postage.


John Graham Haggart: How will this change in the newspaper postage rate aTeet the revenue ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The object of this clause is to reduce the postage on newspapers carried within a limited zone of 300 miles. At present the rate is half a

cent a pound and we propose to reduce it to a quarter of a cent when the distance ol' transmission does not exceed 300 miles. The loss of revenue would probably amount to from $50,000 to $75,000 a year.


Mr. BELL (Pietou).: How will you discriminate in the case of papers to be delivered in places where there is a free delivery.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Suppose a publisher in Montreal desires to send ids papers to Ottawa where there is a free delivery he would pay the old rate. There is no difficulty about the arrangement. The publisher will separate them and we have officers to cheek them.


John Graham Haggart: Will this new rate cover the cost ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


John Graham Haggart: The Postmaster General is a convert to this idea because X concurred in his opinion of some years ago that these newspapers should pay enough postage to recoup the country for the expense.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: It seems to me that this is discriminating against enterprising journals whose circulation roaches out beyond 300 miles. Certainly some of these papers are among the very best publications we have, and they ought to be encouraged whereas by this law they have to pay half a cent a pound, and the others only one-quarter cent a pound. Take tiie ' Farmers Advocate ' for instance, which is an excellent journal, and which circulates from one end of the Dominion to the other, and it will be placed at a disadvantage by this postal rate. The ' Montreal Star ' is a newspaper that is subscribed f< r over the whole Dominion and a large proportion of its list of subscribers live more than 300 miles away from the place of publication. The ' Montreal Star ' would be at a like disadvantage. I cannot see the justice of this.


Mr. CARGILL.: I think that this is a reform in the wrong direction. The Postmaster General is very well aware that there are valuable periodicals published in Canada which find their circulation at a greater distance than 300 miles from the otiice of issue. My hon. friend (Mr. Smith) has referred to the ' Farmers' Advocate.' That journal is circulated throughout the length and breadth of this country among the agricultural community and it is a very valuable paper. The postage should be reduced on.it rather than increased. I have a letter here which was sent me in the interests of the ' Farmers' Advocate ', and I am sure that when the Postmaster General, as he usually does, gives consideration to this matter in the interests of the farmers, he will come to the conclusion that the proposal in this Bill is a mistake. There are 184
other valuable publications in Canada which the farmers get a great deal of information from, and as we all know their circulation is mostly at a greater distance that 300 miles from the office of publication.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I hardly see how this can be regarded as an increase, and my hon. friend can hardly understand the proposed amendment. It is purely a reduction. If the press of Canada prefer the law to remain as it is, I would be more pleased than they. At present newspapers pay a rate of half a cent a pound, and I am reducing that to a quarter of a cent when the distance is not too great. Newspapers cannot be treated the same as letters. They are rather commercial goods delivered to us by the hundreds of tons, and I am not aware of any business principle which would warrant your carrying a ton of merchandise 3,000 miles at the same rate as 300 miles. It is not practicable to divide the whole Dominion into zones and charge by the distance carried, as is done by railways and express companies. However, if my hon. friend and the press prefer to have the law remain as it is, I shall be more than pleased.


John Graham Haggart: Some prefer it and others do not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are none who prefer it in their hearts. It will he some time before this Bill can become law, as it has to pass the Senate, and there will be ample opportunity for the press to object to the measure. If they prefer to pay half a cent per pound in a zone of 100 miles, there will be no objection on my part.


John Graham Haggart: This publisher prefers it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He really does not.


John William Bell: Have you calculated the loss ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: From $50,000 to $75,000 a year. This is substantially a reduction of $50,000 to $75,000 to the press.


Henry Cargill: I understand that it is a reduction, but at the same time it discriminates against certain publications. It discriminates against periodical or agricultural newspapers, such as the ' Farmers' Advocate.' The newspapers are issued daily and have a circulation within much less than 300 miles, but publications such as the ' Farmers' Advocate ' are circulated east and west and north and south throughout the whole country, and the greatest portion of their circulation is outside the 300-mile limit. Therefore these publishers would prefer the rates left as they are. Here is what the publishers of the ' Farmers' Advocate ' write :



We see that the government has brought In a Bill to amend the Post Office Act which contains a proviso reducing the rate on newspapers from one-half cent to one-quarter cent per pound for a radius of 300 miles. We -desire to point out that the 300 mile radius is very unfair to many publishers including ourselves. Publications that can command an extensive circulation outside of the 300 mile zone must necessarily have merits and are of more importance to our country than those of a restricted circulation, and instead of the rate of postage being increased beyond the 300 miles, it would be more in the interest of this country to give such papers a lower rate. We would prefer to see the half-cent per pound remain as it is or even increase the rate and put every paper in the country on the same basis doing away with the present free postage for 20 mile zone. Otherwise allow all papers free postage as formerly. The proposed change will discriminate against the ' Farmers Advo-vate ' as much, if not more than any other paper in Canada, as more than half its circulation is beyond the 300 mile limit.


Thomas Birkett: I would like to offer my congratulations to the hon. the Postmaster General for his efforts on behalf of the outside service. It seems to me a step in the right direction for the civil service generally to have the position of these gentlemen a little improved. If there is any class of men in the service underpaid, it certainly Is the outside service, such as the letter carriers and the clerks in the city offices. At the same time I would ask the hon. gentleman to endeavour to take the whole question of salaries into consideration. Thirty years ago, when the maximum was fixed, it was a pretty fair rate, but to-day it is too small. In the city of Ottawa everything has gone up In price. Rents have increased and the prices of ail commodities, so that $1,000 to-day is not as good as $600 was a few years ago. If the hon. gentleman would use his influence and continue the work begun in his own department and use his influence with members of the other departments, he would be entitled to the gratitude of the civil service. Three years ago, without any compulsion, we advanced our own indemnity. If we can do that for ourselves, we ought to be able to do as much for others and give them good value for their services.


David Henderson: We have drifted
away from the question of newspaper postage. Can the hon. minister tell us the amount of money realized on newspaper postage during the last year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Something over $100,000, probably $125,000.


David Henderson: It is proposed to
make a change in the law, in which I agree in some respects, though perhaps uot in all, because I think it involves considerable discrimination. It is proposed to reduce the postage on newspapers to a gross amount estimated at from $50,000 to $75,000 a year, so that practically all the revenue that the


Henry Cargill: hon. gentleman will get from newspaper postage will be $25,000 or $30,000. It seems to me that the enormous amount of labour keeping track of this postage) will eat up all tlie revenue, and I think the hon. gentleman would do very well to go back to the good old days when knowledge was not taxed in this way and newspapers were sent all over the country free. The hon. gentleman says he has a surplus. I do not fear that this will wipe out the surplus, but I think It is hardly worth while charging a postage on newspapers, from which we obtain but $25,000 to $30,000 a year, and which is paid by certain sections of the country. There is no doubt that some classes of newspapers will receive more favourable consideration under this change. Take the province of Quebec for instance, as a rule tlie newspapers of that province do not circulate outside its limits. The 300-mile limit, I take it means a distance of 000 miles from end to end. This would practically cover the whole province of Quebec. Therefore, the newspapers published in French, with rare exceptions, would pay but little postage, while the newspapers published in Montreal in English and circulating over the Dominion, such as the Montreal ' Star,' will be called upon to pay a considerable amount in postage. I simply use this to show that there is a discrimination. I do not think that the Postmaster General's object in changing the law is to give a special benefit to a particular class, but it works out in that way. And I think that rather than have it said that there is discrimination, it would be better to do aw-ay with postage on newspapers altogether.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: How much revenue would be derived from the newspapers outside the 300-mile zone ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My recollection is that the postal revenue from newspapers is from $125,000 to $150,000. My deputy advises me, from memory, that it is a little oveT $100,000, but I believe my recollection is a little more accurate. When I was asked what a loss this would mean, I said it would be about half the revenue, for I presume that half of the newspapers are within the 300-mile limit. It Is probable that after this Bill becomes law, if it does become law, we shall collect somewhere in the neighbourhood of $75,000 a year for postage on newspapers.


Henry Cargill: I do not often ask the government to take my view of a case, but I would urge upon the Postmaster General to withdraw the discrimination he proposes upon one class of newspapers. I am in favour of a reduction in postage, but I cannot understand why this discrimination takes place. I know that the Postmaster General represents an agricultural constituency and is interested in a farming community.

Why he should put an extra tax on published periodicals, while allowing political sheets to be sent about at about half the rate, I cannot understand. All those who subscribe to the [DOT] Farmers' Advocate ' and all other periodicals which circulate throughout the length and breadth of this co'unrry ought not to be subject to this tax. I hope the hon. Postmaster General will reconsider the matter and place all these publications on the same basis.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Cargill) speaks of discrimination, but he has not brought forward any argument toj prove that discrimination is proposed. At present there is a uniform rate for all Canada of half a cent a pound, regardless of the distance, as there is a uniform rate for letters. But letters are posted separately, and it is absolutely impossible to vary the rate with the distance. But newspapers are posted by the car-load, just as the hon. member for East Bruce (Mr. Cargill) ships lumber. Would the hon. gentlemen think it discrimination to have a certain rate on lumber from his mill to Toronto, and a different rate from his mill to a point at double the distance ? If not, the same argument will apply to newspapers. I am in favour of uniformity in the benefits and burdens of legislation. I do not believe hi discrimination of any kind, but hold that all should be equal before the law and all interests should be treated alike by the law. If every newspaper in Canada should pay a quarter of a cent per pound for transmission of papers for a certain district, all are treated alike. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) speaks of newspapers in Quebec. Well, take Toronto which is one of the great centres of newspaper publication, many newspapers published in Toronto are transmitted for a greater distance than 300 miles. No matter where the newspaper is, it will get the benefit of the reduction. The only discrimination that I can see in the matter is the discrimination in favour of the press in giving them transmission of goods at lower rates than are given, other people by railway. That is class legislation, I admit. If we desire to do away witli discrimination. the right direction in which to move would be in the direction of increase in postage on newspapers.


Henry Cargill: I am sorry that the hon. Postmaster General cannot see that he is discriminating against some publications in favour of others. * For instance, he is supposed to be) the proprietor of a newspaper in Toronto called the Toronto ' Star.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I wish I was.


Henry Cargill: The circulation of that newspaper, I feel sure is confined within a radius of one hundred miles. So the hon. gentleman circulates that paper at a cost 184}
of one-quarter cent per pound. But if 1 were the publisher of the * Farmers' Advocate ' in Toronto and the large bulk of my subscribers lived in the maritime provinces or Manitoba or the North-west Territories, my Bill for postage would be very heavy. This appears to me to be a clear discrimination against newspapers of wide circulation.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I ask leave to make just one observation in answer to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cargill). Of course, he has no authority or foundation for the suggestion he made as to my being the proprietor of the Toronto ' Star ' or any other newspaper. I wish I were the proprietor of the ' Star,' for it is a very valuable educational journal, if I may be permitted to say so. I have been credited with being the owner of a number of newspapers, but I am not. I am not the owner of the ' Star,' and have no more interest in it than my hon. friend (Mr. Cargill), except, perhaps, that I am a better well-wisher of it than lie is.


Henry Cargill: I have no objection to the ' Star ' at all.


William Alfred Galliher: Before the Bill is reported, I would ask the Postmaster General if he has considered the advisability of incorporating a section in the Bill, on the lines suggested by me, to make an allowance to mail clerks for detention. I pointed out that trains are often storm-bound or otherwise delayed, and mail clerks are kept for hours in employment for which time they receive no remuneration. Then they often have to purchase one or two meals and, in the west these cost something-fifty to seventy-five cents each. Yet the mail clerks receive no allowance for this, nor any remuneration for the extra hours they serve. I suggested an allowance of twenty-five cents per hour for this detention. I mention the matter again because, as I understand it, if the Bill is reported without the clause to the effect I suggest, the Postmaster General may not be in a position to make an allowance of that kind.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member for Yale and Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) mentioned this matter at an earlier stage of the Bill. I think there is much in the point he has mentioned. But whether it can be satisfactorily arranged at this period of the session I do not know. I have handed the ' Hansard ' containing his remarks to the officers of the department, to see if it is possible to devise a practical scheme to give effect to the hon. gentleman's wishes. However, it will not be necessary to have such a provision by statute. It can be provided for by an item in the estimates, just as, to-day, we have items making provisional allowance for the west where the conditions are different from those of the east.


David Henderson: I wish to say that I was in error in what I said a moment ago.
I was under the impression that the Postmaster General was simply extending the 20-mile limit to a 300-mile limit. I And he is making three zones instead of two. However, it does not materially alter my argument with regard to discrimination. I was in error when I stated that in the province of Quebec, French daily newspapers would be carried free, whereas English papers that would extend throughout the Dominion would have to pay half a cent a pound. I should have said the French papers w;ould pay one-quarter of a cent per pound.


Thomas Walter Scott: There are a couple of points I would like to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. For months past, I am informed, the mail cars supplied in the western part of this country have not furnished sufficient space for the mail clerks. In several instances, when the mail is of an excessive quantity, it has to be put in box cars, and this greatly hampers the work of the mail clerks. Another point is that under the regulations, so I am informed, a mail car requires to be placed in a certain part of the train, in a certain position with regard to the engine, and that this regulation is being often broken. I desire to call these points to the attention of the Postmaster General.


Richard Blain: I would ask the minister if he has given any further attention to the question of the increase of pay for country postmasters ? I think this subject has been brought to his attention several times in the past. We have a large number of postmasters in country districts who are receiving salaries of from $10 up to .$30 or $40. In my county there are some places where the country merchant at the cross roads, who has kept a post office for several years, has now refused to continue that post office, and in some cases the office has been removed from the store and given to the blacksmith : this is not very satisfactory. I think a clause should be introduced into this Bill to make provisions for these salaries. I am not asking that increases should be given in all places, but there is certainly no comparison between the present pay of the officers referred to in the Bill and the pay received by country postmasters generally. The minister. of course, will reply that the revenue in these country offices is very small. That is quite true, but that is caused by the system of centralization. A large number of people who used to receive their mail matter in the rural districts are now receiving it at the town where they have to go frequently for business. In the province of Ontario, farmers who are directing their attention to making butter and cheese and raising poultry require to go to the post office more frequently than formerly to attend to correspondence or to watch the market. I am of the opinion that some arrangement should


William Mulock: be made whereby country postmasters would receive a reasonable allowance to which they are entitled. I wish to direct the minister's attention to another matter, and that is the very small pay that is received by the mail carrier^ in country districts. Some of them drive six or eight miles for the small sum of fifty cents.


Mr. CHARLTON.: Are these not contracts given out by tender ?


Richard Blain: Sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not. Perhaps they do not do it that way in the hon. gentleman's riding, but in many cases these engagements are made without tender. I am not complaining of that principle, but I say that some rearrangement of the routes should be made in the country districts, so that the mail carriers could receive a proper remuneration.


Mr. KAULBACH.: I brought this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General a few evenings ago.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to make an observation ? The salaries of the postmasters are not determined by statute, except it be the salaries of city postmasters, but they are determined by the Postmaster General. The statute gives that power to him, therefore no legislation is necessary. In a little while the estimates of the Postmaster General will be before the House, and I think that would be a more appropriate time to discuss these matters that are foreign to this Bill. I have no doubt that this whole subject of salaries to postmasters will then come up for consideration.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: I am glad to hear the Postmaster General make that announcement, and knowing the generous heart which he possesses, I hope he will pay some attention to the requests we have made on behalf of the country pcstmasters.


Mr. BELCOURT.: Before the Bill is finally adopted, I wish to express my hearty approval of it, and at the same time to express the gratitude of the civil servants, who are receiving at the hands of the Postmaster General substantial justice in the increase of salary which he has provided for them. I had hoped that another portion of the service under the control of the Postmaster General would also receive by this Bill the increase to which they are entitled. I refer more particularly to a number of temporary employees, of whom there are a large number in Ottawa, whose position is rather unsatisfactory, in that it is temporary. There are civil servants who have been in the employ of the various departments for many years, and whose employment is still of a temporary character. They also. I think, are deserving of an increase which, under the law as it now stands, it is not found possible to give

them. I hope that before the session closes, or at all events early next session, the temporary employees of the Post Office and other" Departments, whose position, as I say, is unsatisfactory on account of the nature of their tenure of office, and because of the insufficient salary which is paid them, will receive the government's attention. I am sure that if the Hon. Postmaster General comes to their relief he will be entitled to the gratitude of that class of civil servants, just as he is now entitled to receive gratitude at the hands of those who are employed in the outside service and who are provided for in this Bill. I do not know if he lias considered the matter, or if lie is in a position to tell us what, if any, measure of relief he is prepared to grant to this class.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This Bill is limited entirely to the post office clerks. My hon. friend refers to another class in the service, a temporary class which is scattered through all the departments. It would not be appropriate, therefore, that a Bill dealing solely with one department should deal with a class of temporary employees found in all the departments. Legislation with reference to the civil service is done by amendments to the Civil Service Act, and it has generally devolved upon the Minister of Finance to take charge of legislation of that character.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. While on this subject, I would ask the Postmaster General whether he has given attention to the need of reorganizing the staff of the Winnipeg post office ? The staff there is quite inadequate, and the salaries paid so far have been so low that the government have not been able to secure the services of qualified men. Last year I moved for a return of the number of employees who have been engaged in the Winnipeg post office for a few years, both permanent and temporary, and I was furnished with a list of over 300 names, showing that men were actually coming in and going out from that office after a short time, both on account of inefficiency, and more especially on account of the small salary they were getting, because they could do far better by leaving the post office and getting employment elsewhere. We cannot get a permanent staff of officials for that office for the paltry salaries that are being paid so far. This Bill will provide for an increase in the salaries of post office clerks, and also for the selection of better qualified officers. I believe that the number of officers emploved in the Winnipeg post office is quite inadequate for the services required.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not thiuk that the Winnipeg post office is suffering from an insufficiency of staff. The Winnipeg post office is suffering from several causes, one the inadequacy of the accommodation. The city is extremely prosperous, it is growing and there has been a growing congestion in the government building in
Winnipeg. The government building at Winnipeg is used not only for post office purposes but for the purposes of the customs house and Inland Revenue Department, and with the increased activity in Winnipeg and the west, lack of accommodation makes it very difficult to handle the business satisfactorily. In addition to that circumstance we have had a great transition in Winnipeg, as it has grown from what it was a few years ago until it is now a leading metropolitan city. That in itself seems to require a staff different from what was formerly required. Again, the former postmaster has been recently superannuated. He had been in office many years. He was a most faithful man, but he was advanced in years. He had had no post office experience and he had not educated up under him a staff equal to the growing requirements of the city. The assistant postmaster had for many years been an invalid, a paralytic, and my bon. friend (Mr. La-Riviere) is aware how great the consideration is which is usually extended to a public officer under these circumstances. I found him in that condition and I leaned the side of leniency and consideration towards him. The staff reported that they could get along very well and he was allowed to remain in office filling a responsible position, the duties of which he was not able properly to discharge. The postmaster himself was gradually becoming unfit for duty, and there was no efficient staff growing up to take charge * of the growing business of the Winnipeg post office. Well, the process of improvement cannot take place with the stroke of the pen. There must be a gradual education.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. How long is it since the present postmaster was appointed to office ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not two years ago. The late postmaster was superannuated. the assistant postmaster paralyzed and ultimately dying, and now we are having practically new officers. The new postmaster is getting into his business and beginning to learn it. He is a good business man, I think my hon. friend will admit, a man who is considered fully qualified, as far as business attainments are concerned, for the office; and with experience, I have no doubt will fully justify his appointment. However, it takes a little time for a man to get into the work. We have some good officers there. We are endeavouring under the system now in force to educate men in the technical work of the post office at the best offices and have them available to be despatched to other offices to educate the staffs there. We have in the last few months sent to the Winnipeg post office three expert post office men. They will be of great service in educating the rest of the staff and bringing them up to a proper de-
[DOT] 5867

gi'ee of efficiency, and I think if we could only get more accommodation everything would be satisfactory there. At present you cannot find an idle building in Winnipeg. There is a large amount of mail matter arriving in Winnipeg for transmission beyond that has to stay over for other trains, and yet, at the present time, there is no way of handling that mail matter except by taking it to the city post office. There is no accommodation in the station and there is no building near the station to be rented. The Canadian Pacific Railway are erecting a new station and in that new station they will provide ample accommodation for the post office so that mail matter not required locally will be handled at the station. At present there is no way of doing that and it has to be taken to the city post office. Hon. gentlemen can see that this is a waste of money and produces a state of congestion in the post office itself. Unless the Canadian Pacific Railway satisfy us that they are going on with proper despatch to have that building erected the government will be obliged to erect a building at the station so as to avoid having to dump into the Winnipeg post office mail matter that is not required for delivery in the city of Winnipeg. But, in the meantime, I can assure my hon. friend that the standard of efficiency of the Winnipeg post office is rapidly being improved and that the trouble has not been because of an insufficiency of officers but because of an insufficiency of accommodation. I think I am correct in saying that the report recently showed that the number of officers there was more than was required, but the drawback there is because of the difficulty in getting good results out of them.


Jabel Robinson: 
Peter Macdonald: I would like to say to the committee that the discussion for the last half hour or forty minutes has . been wholly and entirely irregular. If I were to ask any hon. gentleman what section of this Bill he was discussing he could not tell me. We must discuss the different sections of the Bill, but for the last half hour no hon. member has been discussing the Bill. I was waiting until I found patience would not pay any longer and now I must call the attention of the hon. members of the committee to the fact that if they wish to discuss the Bill they must discuss section 9, because all others are passed. I think it is therefore better that the committee should rise and report the Bill.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Mr. Chairman, a minute ago I asked the hon. Postmaster General if a certain number of civil servants who are tempoi-arily in his department would receive his consideration. The Postmaster General answered me that the question was one for the Minister of Finance, and availing myself of the intimation, I beg to ask the Minister of Finance the same question which I put to the Postmaster General.


Peter Macdonald: That is wholly outside the Bill.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It is perhaps not very approximately relating to the Bill, but it

might come within the purview of section 7. At all events the Postmaster General referred me to the Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection to give my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) the information if it is in order.


Peter Macdonald: It is not in order, but you can give it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not unlikely that we shall have some changes to propose in the Civil Service Act, and without referring to what other points may be touched upon, I gave an intimation some time ago that the government would probably deal with the question of temporary clerks. There are two classes of temporary clerks ; there is the temporary temporary clerk and the permanent temporary clerk, if I may so describe them. There are persons who are denominated temporary clerks and who have been in the service for many years, and there are others who are temporary clerks who are brought in for short service and are not likely to be continued. Perhaps it is well that we should make a distinction between the temporary temporaries and the permanent temporaries, and I think that it is likely that the Bill to be introduced, in accordance with the intimation I gave some time ago, will revive the third-class clerkship, and we will transfer to that third-class a number of those temporary clerks who have been in the service for a long time and who are practically permanent officers; still, however, retaining the temporary class for those who it is expected will only be for a short time in the service. These are the lines on which our thoughts are running and I expect they will be included in a Bill before the session terminates.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will that apply to the outside service.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It only applies to the service at Ottawa.


Peter Macdonald: I am now about to report the Bill and if the discussion is to continue in reference to temporary clerks, I have ruled that out of order.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I wish to make a few remarks and call the attention of the Postmaster .General to the present postage rate upon books which is one cent for two ounces. I have heard a great deal of complaint about this rate from booksellers in cities and towns who are in the habit of sending books by mail. I wish to ask the Postmaster General if he will not make a reduction


Peter Macdonald: Order. The hon. member has put a question, but I will rule the Postmaster General out of order if he attempts to answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. If the hon. member (Mr. Wade) wants to move a new section to that Bill he can do so.


Peter Macdonald: Order.
Mr. LaRIYIERE. I am perfectly in order. I want your ruling.


Peter Macdonald: If an hon. member states he wants to move an amendment that is another thing, but the hon. member (Mr. Wade) did not say anything about an amendment.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It is not so often I raise my voice in this House and when the chairman interrupted me I was about to ask the Postmaster General if he would not consent to an amendment making a reduction upon postage on books. I rose to say that, and I intend to say it if I can. I gave as my reasons for this request, that I have heard a great many complaints from booksellers, especially in large cities, who do a large business in sending books to the country by mail. The existing rate of postage militates against the business. I trust the Postmaster General will run the risk of answering that question, even if he should be ruled out of order.


Peter Macdonald: I certainly will rule him out of order if he does. When members are out of order, they are of course not purposely out of order, but I ask the committee to stand by the chairman in having the rules obeyed.


John Graham Haggart: The government should set the example.


Peter Macdonald: Perhaps so. There is another thing I would insist upon, and that is that when an bon. gentleman is called to order, he will not persist in standing on the floor and saying that he is bound to have his say. I hope hon. members will help the chairman to maintain that order which is necessary to carry on the business of the House. The Bill is reported.


Thomas Walter Scott: To bring the discussion back


Peter Macdonald: The Bill is reported.
Bill reported.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL moved the third reading of the Bill.


Thomas Walter Scott: If I am not out of_ order now, I wish again to bring two points to the attention of the Postmaster General. By the regulation of the Post Office Department the mail-cars should be put in a certain place in the train in relation to the locomotive, and I am informed that very frequently the railway company fails to observe this rule. The other point I wish to mention is that for months past the. mail-cars have been entirely overcrowded. The

5S72
mail cars supplied by the railway companies have been entirely inadequate to carry the mails. So much is this the case that frequently whole cars of mail matter have been put in box-cars. That has occurred so generally for months past and has been carried on to such an extreme, that the work of the mail clerks has been made almost impossible.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Scott) will allow me I will endeavour to deal with two subjects he has brought to the attention of the House when the Post Office estimates are being considered.
air. WADE, May I be permitted to ask the Postmaster General at this stage, whether he does not think it desirable that he should take into consideration the advisability of reducing the postage upou books for the reasons I have stated ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The subject which the hon. gentleman (air. Wade) has brought to the attention of the House is of great importance, and if he would be good enough to allow it to be discussed when the Post Office estimates are under consideration, I think I will be able to satisfy him.


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

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 178) respecting the encouragement of the construction of dry-docks.-The Minister of Finance.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: When this Bill was last before the House some questions were asked with respect to the dry-dock at Collingwood and one lion, gentleman requested that a plan of that dock might be prepared and brought before the committee. I have had a plan prepared by the Department of Public Works, and I now lay it on the Table of the House. The chief point that was raised in the discussion, was, whether the dry-dock at Collingwood was merely a change from an old dock or whether it was actually a new dock. We have asked the Department of Public Works to make a report with reference to that subject. That report, which, I think, answers the several questions raised in the debate some days ago, has been placed in the hands of one lion, gentleman opposite. The substance of it is that the dock is not an old dock renewed, but that it is entirely and substantially a new dock.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the .estimated cost of the Collingwood dock ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Four hundred thousand dollars.


Thomas Walter Scott: Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY.
[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 182) to amend Chap. 27 of the Revised Statutes respecting the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.-The Minister of Justice.
John Graham Haggart: What are the amendments ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick).: The amendment is practically the one suggested by the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) when the Bill was up for the consideration of the House ; that is to say, that the selection of the employees be left in the hands of the King's Printer.
Amendment read the first and second time, and agreed to.


CHINESE IMMIGRATION.
[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 82) respecting and restricting Chinese Immigration.-The Prime Minister.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: These amendments are two in number. The first provides that a Chinaman shall not be subjected to the tax when he is the personal attendant or servant of a British subject visiting Canada. The tax is collectable but can be refunded to him. The section reads as follows :
In the ease of a person of Chinese origin, who is a personal attendant of or servant of a British subject visiting Canada, the tax payable under the first subsection of section six may be refunded to the person paying the same, upon his furnishing satisfactory evidence that such Chinese attendant or servant is leaving the port of entry with his employer or master on his return to China, if within twelve months of the date of his arrival in Canada and upon returning to the controller of such port the certificate granted under section thirteen.
The second amendment is to provide that Chinamen employed upon the steamers, which ply on the Pacific ocean, may land and do their work without paying the tax.
Amendments read the first and * second time, and agreed to.


ALIEN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 204) to amend Acts relating to Naturalization and Aliens.-The Prime Minister) read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. H n. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: The object of this Bill is simply to amend one or two clauses bf the Naturalization Act in order to facilitate the

proceedings whereby naturalization can be obtained by aliens. The hon. member for Frovencher has suggested that a change is necessary in Manitoba and I propose to make the following change :
Such certificate shall be presented in Manitoba to the court of King's Bench during its sittings in the judicial district in which the alien resides, or, if the alien resides in the eastern judicial district, to a judge of the court of King's Bench sitting in court or to the court of assize and nisi prius, during its sittings in the judicial district in which the alien resides, or to the county court of the county court division within which the alien resides.
With regard to the North-west Territories, I propose to strike out the clause and substitute the following :
In the North-west Territories to a judge of the Supreme Court of the North-west, sitting in chambers in the judicial district within which the alien resides.
It is more convenient to make the application to the judge in chambers than to the court.


John Graham Haggart: But the general principle is that the naturalization of an alien shall be in open court.


The PRIME MINISTER.: By a subsequent section we provide that notice shall be given of any application to be naturalized. As the law now stands, no notice is required.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
On section 2,
The PRIME MINISTER.: The amendment you have just made, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the application to judge iu the North-west Territories, will necessitate an amendment here also, because this clause provides only for sittings in court. Therefore, I propose the following as subsection 5 :
In the North-west Territories the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply, but in lieu thereof the procedure shall be as follows :-
On the presentation of the certificate, the judge shall cause a copy thereof to be posted up in a conspicious place in the court-house in which he holds his chambers for at least two weeks.
At any time after the said copy is so posted any one may file with the clerk of the court where the said copy has been posted a written notice of objection to the certificate of naturalization being granted, stating the grounds of such objection. On the Wednesday following the expiration of the two weeks for which the copy is required to be posted, the judge shall hold a sittings in chambers, at which, if no ob, jection_has been raised, he shall direct the issue of a certificate of naturalization to the applicant, and if objection has been raised he shall decide such objection in a summary way. The judge shall have power to adjourn the said hearing from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Charlton: I would ask the Prime Minister if any provision is to be made with reference to repatriated Canadians ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: We are just coming to that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was called out of the House unexpectedly to the telephone a moment ago, and did not hear the explanation with regard to section 2. I do not understand why the Prime Minister is making it necessary to put in this notice. With the indulgence of the committee. I would like to hear an explanation. I presume that section 11 applies to the whole Dominion.


John Charlton: I rise to a point of order. Is it not necessary to make a motion to reconsider a section, if a member wishes to go back to a portion of the Bill that is passed ?


Peter Macdonald: We are still on section 2. Of course, we have just considered the addition of a subsection-subsection 5.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If necessary, I will move to reconsider.


Peter Macdonald: It is not necessary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have not found any difficulty, so far as I know under the present system, and no frauds have been perpetrated. That system is that the applicant goes before the magistrate and proves his residence and other qualifications. The magistrate gives a certificate, and that is filed any day before the opening of the court. These applications are called at the opening of the court and again at the closing, which may be the day following or a week later. Of course, it may be the same day, but very rarely. Everybody who is interested has notice from the opening of the court of what is to be done, so that any attempted fraud may be checked. Under the system now proposed, a good deal more labour and trouble would be thrown upon the applicant. He has to give notice in writing, stating name, residence and occupation, and file it with the clerk of the court at least three weeks before the sitting. I fear that this will mean that people will be obliged to employ a solicitor or attorney to draw the notice and present it in due time. This will throw difficulties in the way of the naturalization of aliens, and this, I think, ought not to be done except for urgent reason. I would ask the Prime Minister what necessity has arisen for this change ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) that when this Bill was first discussed this subject struck me very much as it has struck him. I thought that the less formality there was

about au alien getting his naturalization papers the better it would be. In the old provinces, the law as it is has worked to the satisfaction of everybody. There has been no fraud complained of. But I understand that, in the North-west Territories, where immigrants are coming in in very large numbers, these formalities are necessary in order to prevent fraud. I agree with my hon. friend that it would have been better to afford facilities to an alien who wishes to become a British subject. At the same time, certain things must be complied with under the law. An alien in the Northwest must be a resident for a certain time before he can become a British subject. The law has placed it at three years. We are assured that unless we have some restriction, some notice given for the time provided in the Bill, it is possible that frauds will be committed-in fact frauds have been committed already. That is the only object of the ameudment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I quite grasp what the Prime Minister has said-that it is necessary to make this provision because of the special conditions in the North-west Territories. But would he not consider the advisability of incorporating this in the amendment which provides special practice with regard to the North-west Territories and leave the general practice for the rest of Canada as it is ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I would not give an answer off hand to my hon. friend on that subject. But if he will let the Bill go through, we will have the third reading delayed so that I may have an opportunity of discussing it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I have had a little experience in the courts with respect to matters of this sort, and that experience leads me to believe that, while it is desirable to facilitate the naturalization of those who come to this country for the purpose of becoming citizens, it is also desirable to know something about the men who are to have the great advantage of becoming Canadian citizens. At the sittings of the court in the province of Quebec, for instance, the clerk gets up, and, in the hurry and jumble of the preliminary business, reads the list of names. Nobody knows what is going on, or is aware of who the applicants for naturalization are. I think the suggestion that three weeks notice should be given beforehand is not an undue burden to put upon a man who desires the great advantage of being naturalized as a Canadian citizen.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the notice to be given as advocated by the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) does not draw the attention of anybody more than does the reading in the court. No one finds it out unless he is searching for it. But, under the present law, those who are in-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
teres ted in the matter know that the announcement is to be made at the opening of the court, and can search to see what the applications are.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: But the publication of notice on the first day of the court is still required, while the posting up of notice for two weeks in advance is required in addition-it is an additional precaution.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I admit that, but the filing provided for by the Act we are now passing does not attract anyone's attention. No one will know by the filing of this notice who are entitled to be naturalized, unless his attention is drawn to it, and unless he is sufficiently interested to go and search.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: The hon. gentleman from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster), mentioned the point about this applying exclusively to the North-west Territories. In British Columbia we are face to face with a very serious problem, and that is the naturalization of Japanese and Chinese. There was a case in Vancouver where some 1,100 Japanese were made British subjects, and I venture to say on my responsibility as a member of parliament that two-thirds cf these men had not been in the country for more than one year. The majority of the Japanese who come into our country have only been there about three years. As a matter of fact, these men are put through the mill, as you might say, far tco hurriedly. One man was found who so far forgot the oath of his office as to say that he was prepared, for fifty cents a piece, to put these men through their facings and make them British subjects. Of course we are all glad to see new citizens coming into our country. 1 think this law is an excellent law, and ought to apply to all parts of the Dominion. A man who is himself a British subject is the best judge of the men who are likely to make good British subjects, and we cannot hope to make out of these orientals anything like the British subjects that we would like to get. I hope the Prime Minister will appreciate the position we are placed in, and make the law applicable to British Columbia. The hon. gentleman suggested it should only apply to the North-west Territories.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I did not suggest that, but I was suggesting to the Prime Minister that as he admitted there was no trouble about the other provinces, he should make his section especially applicable to the North-west Territories.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3,


The PRIME MINISTER.: I move to strike out this section. The law is made uniform now except in the district of Iveewatin

where the Governor in Council shall decide to whom application shall be made.
Section struck out.
On section 4,


The PRIME MINISTER.: I desire to call attention to section 18 of the Act which says :
A statutory alien may. upon the same terms and subject to the same conditions as are required in the case of an alien, apply for a certificate of naturalization.
And so on. A statutory alien is a British subject who has become the subject of another nation, and who wants to come back again to his British nationality. Therefore if Canadians who have gone to the States want to come back to Canada the law is that they must reside here three years in order to become British subjects again. We propose to [DOT] change that so that a residence of only three months will be sufficient.


John Graham Haggart: I thought that under the British law no man could divest himself of his allegiance without the consent of his native country ; that although he had taken an oath of allegiance In a foreign country, as soon as he came back he continued to be a British subject, except in so far as his rights of naturalization in a foreign country were confirmed by treaty between that country and the imperial authorities. There is, then, a treaty existing between the United States and Great Britain by which British subjects can be naturalized in the United States ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: Yes. Now in consequence of this amendment it will be necessary to make another amendment. The statutory alien who wants to become a British subject will have to take an oath, the form of which is contained in the Act as form P. I therefore propose to amend form E in the schedule of the Naturalization Act by striking out the words ' has duly resided in Canada for a period of three years ' and substituting ' has duly resided in Canada for at least three months.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Osborne Davis: Before the Bill is reported, I want to make an observation on a statement I understood the Prime Minister to make in the discussion of this Bill. He said that some irregularities had taken place in the North-west Territories, and that fraud had been committed. I want to say that so far as I know, and I am pretty well seized of the facts up there, I never heard any complaint of any fraud having been committed in the North-west Territories. I think it was in British Columbia in connection with the Japanese that frauds of that sort took place, but not in the Northwest Territories. The people of foreign
origin up there will not take it as a compliment to be told that they have tried to become naturalized before they had resided long enough in the country.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I apologize.
Bill reported.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- steamship service between Canada and South African ports, $109,500.
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright!. This is a new vote for a steamship service to be maintained between Canada and certain South African ports. The total cost will be £30,000 sterling per annum, and this is merely for the portion of it during the balance of the year 1902-03. It is divided among three different steamship companies; the Allans take one-third, the Blder-Demp-ster Company take another third, and the Furness-Withy Company the remaining third. The service is a monthly one. If hon. gentlemeu desire to have the full terms of the contract, I will lay it on the Table of the House when the main vote is taken for the service for 1903-04. I have not it with me at the moment.
['I do not think that would be regular. We have the right to consider private Bills between the hours of 8 and 9, but when that hour has expired we revert simply to the consideration of the matter which was before the House when it took recess. I do not think any motion could be in order now, because we are supposed to be again in committee of supply.']
John Graham Haggart: Would the right lion, minister state the general class of steamships that are to be employed in this service, the rate of speed, tonnage, &c. 7


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I will state it from memory as I have not the contract under my hand, not expecting this item to come up this evening so that the hon. gentleman will understand this is subject to correction. The rate is ten knots per hour, the steamships were to be between 5,000 and 6,000 tons gross register to the best of my recollection and when the traffic grew, as it is hoped it may grow, they were to provide as many steamships as the traffic demanded. These are the main conditions.


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to ask the right hon. minister if he could tell us something about the trade that is being done in South Africa.


The MINISTER QF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The committee will understand that this is an experimental and tentative trade. The steamships that have gone up to the present, I believe, have been well filled.


Uriah Wilson: Since the war is over ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, they have been well filled with cargo. What traffic we can obtain in return I am not prepared to say. Things are in a state of flux in South Africa

at the present time, and it is very hard to say what will develop there, but there is a great demand for certain articles which I think we can well jiroduce. For instance, we ought to he able to send a considerable quantity of lumber and large quantities of provisions. I think our flour ought to find a fair market particularly in Natal, and we may possibly be able to do a considerable business in Cape Colony in agricultural implements and goods of that sort.
-Mr. WILSON. What do you expect by way of return freights ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is a point which we cannot well decide. There is not a very large quantity of articles raised in South Africa from which we can hope to secure return freights but we hope the trade will develop. As hon. gentlemen are no doubt aware a commissioner, Mr. Jardine, is at present exploring that country and he has been reporting to us as to what may be done. I may say that he thinks that in staple articles there is a fair opening for doing a considerable trade and apparently the quantity of goods that has been sent out would warrant us in concluding that his expectations have been justified, but, of course, the committee will understand that this is experimental. This service has been pressed upon us by a very considerable number of merchants and manufacturers in various parts of Canada who found that they were at a great disadvantage in exporting to the South African colonies in competition with the United States. They said :	I
believe with perfect truth, that their consignments, if they had to go by way of New York, were put on one side and they were at a very great disadvantage on that ground alone in competing with American manufacturers and producers. The whole terms of the contract, of course, are set out. As I said I have not the contract here, but I propose to lay it on the Table when we take the main vote for the service for the current year.


Richard Blain: Could the hon. minister say how long the contract is for ?
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND [DOT]COMMERCE. For five years if approved by the House.


John Graham Haggart: What are the terminal points and is there a fixed day for sailing ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They are to sail as nearly as possible at the middle of the month. They go to Cape Town, Elizabethtown and Durban. The ports may be varied from time to time as the government and the company deem expedient, but there must be three ports.


John Graham Haggart: What are the ports on this side-St. John and Halifax ?


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: 


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They go from Montreal and Quebec in the summer, and St. John and Halifax in winter.


John Graham Haggart: I hope the hon. gentleman has made an arrangement by which there is a fixed day of sailing.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: That is provided for in the contract.


John Graham Haggart: When does this contract commence ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The contract commenced in October.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, it has commenced ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It has commenced, of course, subject as usual, to the provision that parliament shall vote the money. They take it at their risk of parliament voting the money. This is for three-quarters of a year.
Additional to statutory provisions for services between Canada and Australia, $28,388.88.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
John Graham Haggart: Did not you have a contract with these people to carry on the service ?
The	MINISTER	OF	TRADE	AND
COMMERCE. It has expired.


John Graham Haggart: This is a new service ?
The	MINISTER	OF	TRADE	AND
COMMERCE. * This is a renewal of it, and they demand more.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: 
Ernest D'Israeli Smith: 
Ernest D'Israeli Smith: How much of this trade is carried on the subsidized vessels ?
The	MINISTER	OF	TRADE	AND
COMMERCE. I think the Canadian Pacific Railway Company charter some sailing vessels for the purpose of carrying timber, but the bulk of the trade is carried in the vessels which we subsidize.


William Rees Brock: What are our imports from Australia ? I think our imports come very largely by way of London.
The	MINISTER	OF	TRADE	AND
COMMERCE. About $152,000, but that would hardly indicate it, because we have to take into account what comes via London. Such articles as wool would come through London, because London is the great wool mart, and it is more convenient to import in that way. The House is aware that for several years back our sister colonies have been suffering from the most severe drought they have ever experienced, and our imports during the last few years cannot be taken as a fair indication, but in spite of everything our exports show on the whole a gratifying increase. Although Australia was at one time a wheat growing country, there has been found a very considerable demand for Canadian flour, and our agents report sales of Canadian flour at a very much higher rate than any other flour in the Australian market.


William Ross: It is a matter for regret that this government does not establish direct steam communication between Canada and Australia, as we have done in the case of South Africa. It is impossible to carry on this trade successfully with the long railway haul from our manufacturing centres to the Pacific coast, and if we intend to compete with the American manufacturers, who have direct steamers from New York, then this government must establish steamers to run from Montreal and Quebec in summer, and from St. John and Halifax in winter direct to Australia.
Let me read this interview, with Mr. Bos-worth, one of the leading officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which bears on this subject:
Mr. Bosworth's attention was drawn to the statement made by Mr. John Gordon, the owner of large stores in Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane, of the possibility of opening up a considerable trade for Canadian cotton fabrics in Australia, but that he feared the charges entailed by the long railway haul over the prairies and through the mountains would prevent the development of such trade to very large dimensions.
Mr. Bosworth replied that the railway could not compete with ships running from eastern ports to Australia with cotton cargo, but a good beginning had already been made in the shipment of Canadian manufactured cotton to Australia. For some months past the Canadian Pacific has been carrying from 100 to 150 cases of cotton for Australia by each steamer.
This indicated that at existing rates a profitable market can be opened up for Canadian cotton in Australia. If the trade assumed such proportions as to warrant the running of vessels direct with Australia, the railway could not hope to successfully compete with ships, but there was no indication as yet that it would do so, although it was very encouraging to see its gradual growth.
Besides cheap woollen and cotton goods, we could export from Canada to Australia a large quantity of doors and sashes and dressed lumber if we had direct steamship communication. You can never have a successful Canadian industry unless you give facilities for export as well as for the home market. That is a thing that the manufacturers of Canada should see to at the earliest possible moment. What would England be to-day if her manufacturers were confined to supplying the home market ? I read recently that nearly three-quarters of the tonnage that passed through the Suez canal was of British ships, and that 75 per cent of the cargoes were from Great Britain. If we are going to follow in the wake of the great mother country, we must afford facilities to have our products carried to other markets than our own.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is this subsidy to be permanent ? Has a new contract been made for a term of years ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Probably it will. We are in correspondence at the moment with the Australian government about it.
Some resolutions reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at 8 o'clock.



David Henderson: When will the order to resume adjourned debate on the Bill No.

147 to incorporate the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company be taken up ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not before next Wednesday, and perhaps not then.


David Henderson: 1 think that when this Bill has been allowed to stand from day to day, tnose who are opposed to It should be given some notice of when it will come up.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have nothing to do with the Bill further than this. A number of the representatives of the municipalities waited upon me and told me that they were in conference together with the parties interested, and the hon. member for York (Mr. Campbell) who is quite as anxious that the measure should not be advanced except on lines satisfactory to the public, has announced that he will not move the Bill before next Wednesday.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would remind the hon. gentleman that there is nothing before the Chair.


Archibald Campbell: With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I would just state that the Bill will not come up before Wednesday next anyway.


CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 176) to incorporate the Canadian Transportation and Storage Company.-Mr. German.
On section 7,	.
Samuel Barker: The general nature of this section is objectionable. It is recognized, as a general rule, that we should not give any company the power to acquire or purchase another company unless the latter be named. But here we have the power given *wholesale to this company to acquire others having the same object. That is against the prevailing idea of the present day that there should be no monopoly.


William Manley German: I do not see any objection to this company acquiring the rights of other companies having similar objects. Some other company may be in existence for the same purpose, and be not going on to do business at all.


Samuel Barker: I do not suppose there could be a monopoly by the combining of companies having dissimilar objects. A monopoly is a combination of companies having the same object, and it is one of the principles of our legislation to avoid that sort of thing. We find frequently the Railway Committee requiring a company applying for the power of amalgamation to name the companies with which it proposes to amalgamate.


William Manley German: There is only one company at present in existence-and I do not know that that has a legal existence at pre-


David Henderson: sent-which has the same objects as this one. That is the company which procured a-charter from this parliament, and which has in its act of incorporation a clause identical with this. I think that that com.-pany has become defunct through the lapse of tune, but there may be a company having similar objects which this company might desire to acquire. I cannot see any danger of monopoly. If another company desires to sell out, why should not this one acquire its rights ?


Samuel Barker: The government are responsible for all the legislation of this House, whether private or public, and the rule has always been strictly enforced that whenever any company wants to acquire the property and franchise of any other, it must name that other company which it proposes to buy. No one can tell what may lie the effect of a clause such as this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This matter was considered by the committee, and a modification was made which it was thought would meet any fair ground for criticism. My hon. friend from Hamilton is quite right when he says that it is the policy of parliament to have the name given in cases of proposed amalgamation of railway companies, but it is not the policy of parliament to follow that rule in other cases.
Paragraph (h) of section 7 which gave this company the right to construct, acquire and operate other electric tramways, telegraph and telephone lines was considered so objectionable that it was struck out, but in considering subsection (f), as amended, which gives this company the right to acquire the business, good-will and property of any other company having similar objects, the committee took the view that that was not objectionable as it could only lead to amalgamation on a small scale and nothing in the nature of a monopoly injurious to the public.
Now, my hon. friend says that that creates a monopoly. But, suppose this is a steamship company, and there is a small steamship line operating in conjunction with them-an extension of their route-and they desire to buy it up and unite the two concerns. This would not be a monopoly or a policy to be discouraged. Of course, it is limited to the amount of its capital, and can only buy what its capital will purchase. The illustration I have given is a case that constantly happens with private individuals or corporations-two concerns engaged in similar lines unite; and. unless the union is of a very large amount of capital I do not see that there is anything in it in the nature of a monopoly. I sympathize with the object my hon. friend has in view and bear testimony to the fact that in the committee he takes the position that we should watch these things carefully. One of the greatest dangers of loose legis-

lation is in private Bills. Government Bills generally are scrutinized very carefully ; but private Bills sometimes pass without the care that should be bestowed upon them. Therefore, I am glad to welcome the expression of opinion of hon. gentlemen who look at these matters closely. But I think my hon. friend on further consideration will see that this does not involve the danger that he thinks it does.


Samuel Barker: I am not speaking with reference to this particular Bill or the gentlemen who are promoting it, but with regard to the general principle. The company will be a transportation company merely. But a railway company is a transportation company merely. It is hardly a case like that of one individual entering into partnership with another. Individuals have the right to do whatever a free man may do or whatever two or more persons m ly contract with each other to do. But these companies are creatures of parliament. This is a company with large capital and extensive power, its powers are not confined to the purchase of lines already in existence, for it is free to acquire all companies that may be formed hereafter and that would naturally come into competition with them. They may buy up such companies, and so deprive the public of the competition which is looked for. The principle for which I am contending is that that kind of thing should be guarded against. If the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) speaking on behalf of the government, thinks there is no objection to the clause I bow to his judgment. But it does seem to me that the principle that is applied to railway companies to prevent them from acquiring generally other railway companies should be applied to any corporation of this kind. If this company wants to acquire any existing steamship company, it is competent for parliament to consider whether it is reasonable that they should do so. But to give it a blanket authority, for all time, to acquire any company that may hereafter seek to carry on similar operations to those which this company is authorized to carry on, I think is a mistake.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). Wherever a number of persons ask to be incorporated as a company to carry on business not asking for any privileges from parliament other than that of incorporation, I think they should be left with the same powers and privileges as an individual has. Where a company has received special privileges, in the way of subsidies, grants or anything of that kind, the case is different. Under such conditions, it is quite right that the power should be reserved in a parliament. In the case of railway companies, previous' to the adoption of the
policy of granting subsidies, it was not thought necessary to impose these conditions that my hon. friend suggests, nor do I think it would be in the public interest to do so in this case. Banks are given great and special privileges


Samuel Barker: Are they authorized to amalgamate ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Even they have power to amalgamate. But I cannot agree that it is in the best interest of the country and a benefit to business generally that, if men unite their capital to conduct business, they should be deprived of the ordinary privileges allowed to one individual or to several forming a partnership. It is not likely that they would exercise this power unless it were to the general advantage. I cannot imagine that there is more danger of a monopoly being brought about by giving these powers to a company like this than there is by leaving with an individual the power to purchase the business of another individual or the shares of a corporation.


William Rees Brock: I am always in favour of hampering anything that may be to the detriment of business, In this case a number of individuals are asking for a charter for a definite business, and have subscribed their own capital. They ask no privilege except that possessed by all people who are doing business. I can hardly agree, then, with my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) that we should take power to prevent an amalgamation which would be allowed to individuals. It must be remembered that we have not in this country probably, too much capital. If it is necessary for a company like this to amalgamate with some other for the better carrying on of the business in which they are engaged, then, I think in tha interest of business and of the country, it is well that they would be allowed to do so. If it could be shown, as in the case of two great railway companies, that the amalgamation would have the effect of preventing competition I can understand that the country might step in and prevent it. But I do not think that a case has been made out to show that it is necessary that the country should be free to step in and prevent the amalgamation of another company with this one for the purpose of combining their resources in carrying on the business.


Samuel Barker: May I ask if section 9 as the Bill was originally printed stands as part of the Bill ?


Peter Macdonald: Yes.


Samuel Barker: That gives this company the right to receive subsidy from the government or any person. Is it reasonable, if a company like this receives subsidies from the government, that they should have

power practically to use the money of tlie public to buy up competing concerns ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The putting iu of this clause does not give them subsidies, but only gives them the power to receive them If they are given. And I fancy the company would have difficulty in getting subsidies. The power that gives them a subsidy, whether the Dominion, a province or a municipality, would make its own terms, which would properly be attached to the giving of the subsidy. There is no danger in this, for it simply says :	If you
can get a subsidy, you may enjoy it.


Samuel Barker: And it says also :	And
if you- get it and think that the way to enjoy it, you can use it to buy up other companies.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) will see the broad difference between this Bill and legislation affecting railway companies. My hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) pointed out that to unite two railway companies would create a monopoly, because you cannot conveniently or without very great expense lay another railway alongside of it. But there is no monopoly whatever, iu uniting two steamship lines, for instance. If you amalgamate two steamship companies and you want another, you can easily get a charter for it. The conditions which would make a monopoly in the case of a railway do not exist in the case of an ordinary commercial company. The elements of monopoly are not in the latter ease.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


THE ASSINIBOINE RIVER WATERPOWER.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 192) to enable the city of Winnipeg to utilize the Assiniboine River water-power.- Mr. Puttee.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: Iu view of the absence of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) the promoter of the Bill, I think it would be well to let this matter stand.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I gave notice of a couple of amendments since the Bill was last before the House. The suggestion I then made is borne out by the Board of Trade of Winnipeg, and it does not affect the Bill at all. I do not want to obstruct that Bill, because I am in favour of it. There is one point that I want guarded, and that is that the navigation of the Assiniboine river shall not be interfered with. This company is asking to build a dam at or near the city of Winnipeg, or further up the river, and they are! in fact asking that they shall not be compelled to put in a lock. There is a provision in the Bill whereby all the plans and specifications are Mr. BARKER.
subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. I am satisfied with that, I know that the Governor in Council will not approve of anything that will interfere with navigation, or anything that should not be approved of. But while that power is given to the Governor in Council, by clause 7 ; it is stated that-
The plans and site of the said works may be approved of by the Governor in Council without making provision for the construction of a lock or other works for the purposes of navigation.
Well, I am opposed to that, because it will restrict the power of the Governor in Council. But should the Governor in Council think well to order that .a lock be put in, Ii think it should be done. But if the Governor iu Council think that there is no necessity for a lock on any of the works done by the company, then that would suit the company. The object of this Bill is to give powers to the city of Winnipeg to dam the Assiniboine river iu order to raise the level of the water in that river, to create water-powers and to provide for the supply of water for the city of- Winnipeg. There is no objection to that at all. But iu all these works I maintain that the navigation of the river should not be interfered with. I am satisfied to leave it to the Governor iu Council to approve of the plans aiid to authorize such work as they chose to approve of. But as the Bill asks that the Governor in Council be vested with these powers without restriction, I gave notice that I would move that clause 7 be struck out, aud that the words * if necessary ' in clause 4 be also struck out. These are all the amendments I have. They only affect the navigation of the river, and I leave to the Governor in Council the responsibility to say whether locks shall be constructed by the city or not.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the first time the clause which the hon. gentleman refers to has been brought to the notice of the Public Works Department, and in view of the absence of the hon. member who has charge of this Bill, I would ask that the Bill stand for consideration. This is a very important matter, seeing that the Bill practically declares that this river which is now navigable shall be made lion-navigable. Tlie^ interests involved are very great, and I desire a little time to have the officers of my department consider the matter and make a report upon it. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


William Forsythe McCreary: Before the motion is put, I desire to say that I am a little surprised that the hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill had not said something about it, or wired me on the subject. The city of Winnipeg is an important part of the province of Manitoba, but at the same

.time there are other parts of Manitoba of some importance. The dams and locks referred to in this Bill would cut the county of Selkirk, which I represent, almost entirely. Now the danger is this, that the Assiniboine river is a river of very low banks, not more than three or four feet; above high water mark at places, and an attempt is being made now to render that river navigable. Some six or eight months ago I urged the Public Works Department to sendl an engineer for the purpose of ascertaining if the crooks in that stream which dammed the water back could not be straightened out by making cuts. An engineer has gone up, I understand, and made a report on the navigability of the Assiniboine river, and in order to see what is required to make the river navigable. Last year the overflow of that stream caused damage in the city of Brandon, in Portage la Prairie, and the municipalities from Brandon down to Winnipeg of probably $450,000. A fair estimate made by the Board of Trade of Portage la Prairie gave the damage in the Portage municipality as $200,000. Between there and Brandon the damage would be probably $200,000. In the city of Brandon the water-works were washed away and great damage was done. Now this river will have to be improved, if not for the purpose of navigation, at least to prevent its banks overflowing. The Canadian Pacific Railway also were very seriously interfered with in their traffic, as the river flowed so far over its banks that it went up to the Canadian Pacific Railway track. In fact the old trail along the Assiniboine river was three feet and a half under water, the same trail that I travelled over twenty-three years ago. dry-shod. The water reached as high a level as the railways eight or ten miles east of Portage. So if we are going to allow the city of Winnipeg to put in locks at the city of Winnipeg that will interfere with navigation, or keep the water back, then they will certainly hear from the old settlers who reside along that river and from several other places further west beyond Brandon and Portage la Prairie. In regard to this canal also from the Assiniboine river to Lake Manitoba, using Long Lake as part of the channel, I presume that has been a work contemplated for the last twenty-four years, but nothing has been done. It is difficult to say what effect it will have on the waters of Lakes Manitoba and Winnipegosis. So if the scheme is carried out as proposed in this Bill it would affect a very large portion of the province of Manitoba. I would therefore ask the Minister of Public Works to have his engineer make a thorough report before he allows the city of Winnipeg either to throw a dam across the river at Winnipeg or to put in locks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 166) to incorporate the Gaspg and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Gauvreau.
On section 6,	.
John Graham Haggart: I do not know whether the Baie des Chaleurs Railway Company or the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company have the power from this parliament to sell to this company ?
The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES {Hon. Raymond Prefontaine). They have no power to sell to this company. This company does not exist. It is going to be put into existence now by this Bill.


John Graham Haggart: These two other companies are in liquidation ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: They are in the hands of trustees.


John Graham Haggart: And the Bill gives power to this company to purchase these lines of the Baie des Chaleurs and Atlantic and Lake Superior railway companies ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Exactly.
On section 13,


John Graham Haggart: This seems to me to be a peculiar Bill. I am sorry that I was not at the Railway Committee when it was discussed. This is for the purpose of conferring railway powers on this company and authorizing it to purchase these two lines which are now in the course of liquidation. Does it interfere with the bonds or any other securities that have been issued by these two companies ? The roads could be sold and the bonds cut out. In the province of Quebec a sale is an absolute sale. It has no respect whatever for bonds or anything else, whatever they may be, issued on the road. This Bill then empowers this company to take over these roads. This parliament has power to grant to this new company the right to operate as a railway company and to take over these roads without respect to the bonds or anything else.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: If the property is sold by judicial sale, and not otherwise.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but the powers of the provincial government, or the court, to sell might be limited by the restrictions imposed by this parliament in regard to interfering with the bonds that were issued under the greater powers given by this parliament. The power of sale exercised under the provincial authorities is an absolute sale. This confirms the sale, or virtually



confirms the sale, and gives to this company powers that the provincial authorities would not have the right to confer.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: These railways can be sold by the sheriff, and the Bill pre-supposes a case of this kind. It pre-supposes the case of the sale by the sheriff of the district of these roads. If the roads are sold by the sheriff and bought by any party, they could be sold to this company and operated by this company. Otherwise they would be of no value, because nobody could operate them unless he came before parliament and was authorized to do so.


John Graham Haggart: I see in subsection 4 of section 9 there is this proviso :
But nothing in this Act shall in any [DOT]way affect the rights of the bondholders of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company or the Baie des Chaleur Railway Company.
That is to remain in the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: That may have an effect. But my argument, I think, is perfectly right if that were not in, when l say that in the province of Quebec the sale is absolute and that it does not pay any attention to the corporate powers of the company which are given by this parliament. If it were not for this reservation, this Bill would cut out the bondholders.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: All this clause does is to enable this coumpany, as an incorporated company, to buy at the sale. This company, if it buys at the sale, will buy just what the person, or court, or tribunal, is authorized to sell, and no more. Whether these roads are *subject to bonds, or whether, by reason of the proceeding under which the sale takes place, the bonds are not to continue as an obligation upon the roads, whichever is the case, the purchaser acquires the property subject to these bonds or free from these liabilities. The company simply buys what tlie court has authority to sell. We do not authorize the sale, so that we cannot affect any person's rights, or claims, or bonds. We only authorize this company to buy, so that if a proper sale of this property took place this company might go and be one of the bidders or be the purchaser. This last clause I do not think has any effect one way or the other, because the authority of the company to buy the property, by imputation or otherwise, could not affect any encumbrance which still remained on that property.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


RED DEER VALLEY RAILWAY AND COAL COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 102) respecting the Red Deer Valley Railway and Coal Company.-Mr. Cowan.
John Graham Haggart: I understand there is a land grant in connection with this railway. Has it lapsed ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That was disposed of in the committee. The Governor in Council have considered the matter, and I was authorized to inform the committee that they would not consent to any land grant.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 99) respecting the Canada Central Railway Company-Mr. McCreary.
Bill (No. 141) respecting the Medicine Hat and Northern Alberta Railway Company.- Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 159) to incorporate the Canadian Yukon Western Railway Company.-Mr. Davis. '

John Graham Haggart: before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am not supposed to be in the Chair. We were in committee of supply before 6 o'clock, and the hour for private Bills being over, we are back again in committee of supply.


John Graham Haggart: The hour has expired for private Bills, and you, Sir, have called the next order, and before we proceed with the next order, I intend to make a motion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not think that would be regular. We have the right to consider private Bills between the hours of 8 and 9, but when that hour has expired we revert simply to the consideration of the matter which was before the House when it took recess. I do not think any motion could be in order now, because we are supposed to be again in committee of supply.



SUPPLY-GRAND TRUNK TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Hon. Mi\ HAGGART. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. In making that motion, I wish to draw the attention of the government to a very important statement which appears in the leading organ of the govern-
["I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I misunderstood his remarks, and I take his remarks as lie now", 'interprets them in very good spirit indeed, and I accept them as such.\nSome resolutions reported.']
John Graham Haggart: meat, the Toronto ' Globe,' this evening. The statement is as follows :



[Stage Direction]
It Will be Leased for Fifty Years to the Grand Trunk Pacific.
And Running Rights Will be Granted to Other Railways-For the Western Sections a Guarantee of Bonds Will be Given
-Work to be at Once Rushed forward and Material to be Bought in Canada.
(Special Despatch to The Globe.)
Ottawa, July 2.-The main features of the government's policy in connection with the proposed transcontinental railway line have practically been determined, and it is expected that within a few days a contract with the Grand Trunk Company will be signed. The government undertake to construct a line from Moncton to Winnipeg via Quebec, and to lease it to the Grand Trunk Pacific Company for fifty years. For the first five years the company will pay no rental to the government. Foe the second five years they will pay the net surplus of receipts over working expenses. For the remaining forty years they agree to pay three per cent on the cost of construction.
The Western Section Guaranteed.
The government will guarantee the bonds for the stretch of line which the company themselves are to construct. In the case of the prairie section the guarantee will be 75 per cent of the actual cost of construction, but is not to exceed $13,000 a mile. The'government have arbitrarily fixed 500 miles as the length of the mountain section, and for this distance the guarantee will also be 75 per cent of the actual cost up to a maximum of $30,000 a mile.
The rates to be charged are to be subject to the control of the Governor in Council or the railway commission, but on the government section of the line the rates are not to be cut down to a figure that will prevent the company from paying the annual rental.
Running Rights Provided For.
Other railway companies are to be granted running rights over the Winnipeg-Jfoncton section. This is to be a matter of mutual agreement, and in the event of failure to arrive at a friendly understanding, the government will prescribe the terms, subject, of course, to the rights which the Grand Trunk Pacific possess as lessees and operators of the line.
Materials Used to be Canadian.
In view of the government constructing the eastern section of the railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company have reduced their capital from $75,000,000 to $45,000,000. The company, as an evidence of good faith, will deposit $5,000,000 ir the Bank of Montreal in cash or approved securities. As far as possible the materials used in the construction are to be of Canadian manufacture. The government have made a point of stipulating that, wherever it could be done, the articles that enter into construction should be bought in Canada, and the company readily agreed to this. A majority of the di rectors mu3t be resident in Canada. Mr. C. M. Hays is to be president of the company, and Mr. Wainwright, vice-president. Among the directors will be one of the Rothschilds-probably Lord Rothschild, the head of the great financial house-Lord Welby, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson and Mr. Arthur Smithers.
To Rush the Work Forward.
Mr. Hays and his associates are in earnest in the desire to begin construction and push the work to completion as rapidly as possible. ******
Sixty Survey Parties Out.
The company have sixty survey parties out at present, of whom ten are working between Lake Abbittibbi and Quebec.
I would ask the government whether there is any truth in the statement 1 have just read ?
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I might say to the hon. gentleman that the government is in no way responsible for this report, or any report which is being published now in the newspapers. A great many guesses undoubtedly are being made. Possibly it may turn out that some of the guesses are correct, but no authoritative statement has been given out by the government, and none will be out probably for a few days.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Chairman


Peter Macdonald: Further discussion is out of order.


Samuel Barker: There is a motion before the Chair.


Peter Macdonald: But the discussion is not relevant to that motion. The question under consideration is the question of supply, and a discussion of the subject now brought up will lead the House away from that question. As the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has had the opportunity of putting his question, and has had an answer, the discussion must now cease.


John Graham Haggart: I withdraw my motion.


Peter Macdonald: Shall the hon. member have leave to withdraw his motion?


Thomas Osborne Davis: He ought to be thankful to let you withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.
St. Andrews-repairs to wharf, $850.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote was granted in 1901-2. The amount lapsed, but the work was gone on with, and we are asking this vote to pay for the work done during the past year.


John Graham Haggart: How did the amount lapse ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was voted and the work was not completed the 30th June, a year ago, so the vote lapsed.


John Graham Haggart: Why did you not make provision last session ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was an amount voted last session, but it was not sufficient.

River St. John and tributaries-amount due to local government, not to exceed one-half the first cost of wharfs built by them in tidal waters. 1895 to 1902, $7,850.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Tills is to make provision for paying the contribution to the local government of New Brunswick, not exceeding half the sum spent by them from 1895 to 1902 in the construction of wharfs in the St. John river. This is an arrangement made several years ago between the Dominion government and the provincial government of New Brunswick.


John Graham Haggart: When was the arrangement made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have forgotten the date, but it was when Hon. Mr. Foster was Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The vote was given for this amount previously, but, owing to some difference between the Auditor General and the parties, it has never been paid. This is to pay the amount in full.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose the real objection on the part of the Auditor General was that he was not satisfied that the amount for the wharfs was correct.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No ; as I am informed, the dispute was as to the form of the vote. The Auditor Gene-eral held that, as the money was voted, it could not be paid to the provincial government. Hon. gentlemen will note the form of this vote, which is ' amount due to local government.' That not having been in the previous vote the Auditor General said the money could not be paid over.


John Graham Haggart: Then, if I understand the minister correctly there has been an agreement between the Dominion government and the local government as to these particular wharfs built from 1895 to 1902, that we should pay one-half the cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, that is practically correct.


John Graham Haggart: And the only trouble was that the Auditor General thought the amounts should be paid to the contractor instead of to the local government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is hardly it. He was not satisfied that, with the vote in the form in which it was formerly passed, the money could be paid to the local government. There is no doubt about money having been spent on the various works.


John Graham Haggart: Spent by the local government ?
The MINISTER OB' PUBLIC WORKS. Yes.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is that the total amount paid by this government under this arrangement since 1895 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the amount due since 1895, but not the total amount paid. An amount was paid year after year under this arrangement, but it must have been going on for several years up to 1895, when exception was taken to it by the Auditor General, and since that time it has never been rectified. This is to pay all that has accrued from 1895 to 1902 to the provincial government.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount expended by this government on wharfs on the St. John river and its tributaries, leaving out the city of St. John ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I had a statement here for the main estimates, but I haven't it at hand at the moment. I will bring the information down.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec, Cacouna-extension of wharf, $1,350.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay for some materials purchased in connection with this wharf for the current year.


William Rees Brock: I suppose that this wharf was built for the accommodation of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company. What return do we get for the money expended on such a wharf ? I am a little interested in these points because we in Ontario occasionally make a request for public expenditure on such works. For instance, in Toronto we sometimes want something done on our harbour, but find it difficult to get it. But when I go down to Cacouna, which is a pleasure resort, I find a large aniount spent for a wharf for the benefit, as I take it, of the Richelieu and Ontaria Navigation Company. What does that company contribute ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a public wharf, but I suppose it is used by the steamers of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company. It was originated, however, for the benefit of the public, and I take it that it was because the wharf was there that the company's steamers called. I understand that the greatest influence in bringing about the construction of this wharf was that of one of our most influential statesmen, the late respected leader of the Conservative government, Sir John Macdonald, who had a residence there.


William Rees Brock: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken. Sir John lived at Riviere du Loup, not at Cacouna.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, r might be mistaken on that point, but the information in the department is that the work was started as the result of his in-

fluence in the first place. I do not s'ay that it was not the proper thing to do, but 1 am explaining to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock), in answer to his question, how the wharf came to be built. I do not think it was built at the instance, or for the benefit of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company.


William Rees Brock: I think it was built for the benefit of the hotel that was constructed there by a company, and I do not see why the government should build a wharf for the benefit of such a concern. It is not to accommodate a section of the country with a large population, but simply to promote a summer resort.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brock) is mistaken. There is a large district served by this wharf. At any rate, the Dominion, for many years, has followed the plan of building these wharfs, and, unless we change our policy I suppose we shall have to continue building these wharfs to some extent.


William Rees Brock: I do not wish to be misunderstood. If the respected head of the government some years ago, the late right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald recommended that this should be built and maintained by and at the public expense, make no mistake about it, I would asquiesce, for I know that he would not have recommended it unless it were to the public interest.


Mr. MORIN.: I believe the hon. minister is mistaken in saying that the Richelieu boats go there. They may go there but only occasionally. Cacouna is visited only by people who go to spend the summer there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Morin) allow me ? I misunderstood the information furnished me by the engineer. I understood him to say that the steamers stop there, but I was mistaken. The whqrf is altogether for the benefit of the people who reside there regularly or as visitors.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The people who go there to spend the summer are generally rich people, and, if they want wharf accommodation they should provide it themselves. There is a railway there, and people can go down and up by rail. But sometimes they engage a steamer at Quebec and take the trip by water for pleasure. If they enjoy these pleasure trips, they should pay for them. The poorer class of people realize no benefit whatever from this wharf.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister tell us the size of the wharf-I see that this item is for an extension.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The wharf is 977 feet long, 24 feet wide and the mean height is 17 feet, and 24 feet wide.


Richard Blain: How much has been expended on it up to the present time by the government.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total is $26,611.60.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister explain why the wharf has to be extended ? One would imagine that it was quite large enough for the business.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They want deeper water to allow the larger
class of steamers to reach the wharf. However, this amount has been expended, the material was purchased, and this is to pay for it.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Does the minister know for a fact that any business was done there other than we have learned from the hon. member who has just spoken ? I do not object to spending money to aid people to get in their commodities or to get them out, but I think we should draw the line at a mere pleasure resort for wealthy people going up there from Quebec to spend the summer. I object to spending $25,000 or $30,000 of the people's hard-earned money to benefit a few pleasure seekers. I feel a little sore about this, when I remember that in my riding there are five or six wharfs of more importance ; one of them, Presqu'Isle harbour, one of the best'in Ontario, where millions of bushels of grain have been shipped, and not a dollar of public money has been spent all along that shore. Does the minister know whether there is any need at all for this work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no doubt that the wharf is largely used in the summer time by the class of people to which the hon. gentleman has referred. I think also it is used a good deal by people in that district to ship their produce over to the north shore. This is in the county of T6miscouata.


William Rees Brock: Is there any revenue from that wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no revenue. The government owns the wharf.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: If the people wanted a wharf and the government owned it and they exacted any tolls, there ought to be a revenue ; and if there is no revenue and the government own that wharf, it is quite evident that there is something wrong. If there was business done over that wharf, and it was conducted on business principles, we should have some revenue from it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: There is a large number of these wharfs that have never been transferred to the Marine Department.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There is a wharf only six miles above there, at Rivifire du Loup, where

the steamboats belonging to the Richelieu Navigation Company land. AH the boats going up and down the St. Lawrence stop at that wharf. On the north shore, almost opposite, is the mouth of the Saguenay river, and right opposite Caeouna is what is called Red Island, a very dangerous place for navigation. No boats of any kind dare go to Caeouna except special boats. All the business done is transacted at Rivi&re du Loup wharf. So that you can see at once that the wharf is of no use except for the purposes I have mentioned before. I do not see why the government should spend the people's money in that way. There are other places needing a wharf more than that place.


Richard Blain: Did the engineer of the department go down and examine this place, and report that such extension and repairs were required ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, that was done. This was a work on which the previous government had spent at least $20,000, and it would be poor policy to allow that work to go to pieces when a small expenditure will keep it up. I cannot admit this work is of no use. It may be, as the hon. gentleman says, an advantage to people who reside there in the summer. But it is a great advantage to have these people, mostly foreigners, perhaps, reside there during the summer season. But when I find a work for which $20,000 had been voted by the previous government without criticism, I think it is the duty of the department to keep that in proper repair.


Thomas Earle: But there is also an extension.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was a small extension added in making the repairs, an extension of about 50 feet, so that schooners could use the wharf.


William Rees Brock: My objection is not to the expenditure of $1,350, but there is a principle involved. The government are spending the money of this country in building a wharf, and we ask upon what principle they are proceeding. Are they doing it in the interest of the general public or in the interest of some private company ? I contend that if this is not in the general interest of Canada, it must be in the interest of a hotel company, and that is something to which we should draw the minister's attention. If in the past this country has foolishly spent money on this work, there is no reason why we should go on spending money upon it. If that place is worth building a wharf upon, the Richelieu & Ontario Company will spend that $1,350 or more, if necessary. If it is not worth their while to do it, it is not worth the while of this government to do it. Let the companies who are making money out of it spend their money in keeping up this wharf.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not agree with what the minister said just now. He said that the late government had built a wharf there. That is correct. But you must remember that you have condemned the late government and voted them out of power for their bad conduct. Now, what are we to think of you when you turn round and do things just as bad, or worse ? If the late government has done wrong, do not follow their example; draw a line and quit that kind of business.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: We have not heard from the minister any answer to the request of the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) as to the principle on which the government are proceeding in building wiharfs of this kind. It seems to me there ought to be some well defined principle for giving grants to wharfs. There are many wharfs on our lakes and rivers, and on our ocean inlets, on some of which large sums have been expended, and on others nothing has been expended.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The policy has been to build wharfs where-ever they are considered to be in the public interest. We must admit that the public money has been pretty widely distributed. Applications are numerous, and it is not possible to meet them all. But this is not a new work, it is an old work, and I do not know that it comes under any new policy. As I have said on several occasions, as long as it is the policy of parliament to build these wharfs, I suppose it will remain in the discretion of the government to say what wharfs they will build in the public interest. I do not think that this work is subject to severe criticism, in view of the fact that it has been established for so long a time, and that the residents in that district have pressed for improvements.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Here is something I cannot understand. Here are $34,526 asked for. What is the use bf our criticising one item ? You come here and you want $1,300 to extend that wharf. We prove to you that the wharf is of no use, and while you hear us you do not pay any attention to us at all. You just do as you please. If you are going to do so, why not pass this item in full, $34,000, and be done with it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member who represents Temis-couata (Mr. Gauvreau) says that the people in that district take a very different view from that of the hon. gentleman.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I will bet you they do.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And the difficulty is to decide betweeu the hon. gentlemen as to the necessity of this work.
Hull-completion of wharf, including freight shed, $3,200.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: 


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is in settlement in full of the contract.


Samuel Barker: I see that this work has been going on since 1900. In 1900-1901 the government paid $9,460 on this work. In 1901-2 they paid $40,977.59 upon it. Perhaps the hon. minister can tell us what they paid under the appropriation of last year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The total amount paid on the work was $52,042.71.


Samuel Barker: I make it $53,637, but the difference is not very material. These items came up in this way year after year. I have called attention to it in the railway estimates. We never know when we pass an estimate for a public work whether we are authorizing what is going to complete the work or simply throwing in so much on account. I want once again to protest against this manner of conducting public business. I cannot say what occurred in 1900, but year after year items are passed for public* works without the explanation which ought to be given. Will the hon. minister assure us that this really completes the business ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This will complete the work.


William Rees Brock: Really the figures are rather appalling. We are not very far from Hull, and we are able to judge of the amount of money we have expended, and we want to know what benefit we are going to get from it. Does the honl minister assume to say that this country is getting a return for an expenditure of $50,000 on a work of that kind ? I can understand that it may be an advantage to lumbermen and other people who make money out of it, but what is the Dominion government getting out of it ? Are we getting 3 per cent on the money we have expended ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is impossible to give any idea of the revenue. The work has just been finished, and it will be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries at the end of another year, and if there is any revenue to be derived from it we will know then. At the present time, it has not been transferred, and there has been no revenue derived.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: The statement of the hon. minister confirms the report that was in circulation at the time of the appointment of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prgfontaine) that all these public wharfs were to be transferred to the Marine Department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ever since the Marine Department has been established, these wharfs, when completed, have always been transferred to the Marine Department.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Will the hon. minister be good enough to tell the committee whether any steamboats carrying passengers ever go to that wharf at Hull ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I only give the hon. gentleman the information that I have, which is that the Ottawa River Navigation Company use that wharf. It is the intention to run the ferry between Ottawa and Hull from that wharf.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Is it not unusual to build freight sheds on wharfs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In a great many places it is usual to build freight sheds on these wharfs.


William Rees Brock: It is not unusual, but it is very improper.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is a good work, whether a justifiable one or not, I do not know.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: These freight houses are not constructed on all wharfs. How does the hon. minister select the particular wharfs on which to build freight sheds ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In some of these smaller places freight sheds have been built for the accommodation of the public. It depends a great deal on the conditions in the locality where the public wharf is constructed. In most places corporations and private individuals get the privilege of building right on the wharf, or on the adjoining property.
Isle Grosbois, opposite Boueherville-dredging channel, $5,151.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay for the dredging done there during the past year. This is the full amount that was spent there and it is in payment of the work done.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: This is special dredging, because around there last year and years before the government have done a great deal of dredgirg in the main channel, but the dredging at this island must be special dredging for a special channel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this is special work ordered by the Minister of Public Works. There was no appropriation made, and this is to pay the people who did the work.


Samuel Barker: I see this work was not begun this year by accident. It was begun tin 1900. The Canadian Construction, Limit-(ed, received $4,039 upon it in 1901-2, and although there was no appropriation asked from parliament for further expenditure last year, the department appears to have gone on and authorized the continuance of the work, and incurred a liability of over $5,000. This

is another specimen of what we had up in connection with the Galops canal, where two years ago some $50,000 was expended by the government without any authority whatever from parliament. At the end of the year we had the most extraordinary statement made that the work had been proceeded with without the authority of the head of the department, and yet an engineer and a gang of men were supervising the work the whole season. The minister says that this present work was proceeded with last year without authority of parliament, and yet we are asked to pay $5,000 now for it. This is an extraordinary way of conducting the business of the country. I appeal to the minister whether that is going to continue. Are we to give carte bianche to the minister to spead any money he likes, and then allow him to come here for a vote of indemnity ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not ask that we should have carte blanche. I do not approve of the system. I think it unfortunate that this thing should occur. I have to ask for several similar items to pay accounts fbr which no appropriation has been authorized, and some of them I think are perfectly warranted and could be justified and I would be willing to take the responsibility for them. As to the others they were authorized by the minister. These people have done the work in good faith and they perhaps had no means of knowing that there was no appropriation by parliament and that it was not authorized. The Premier, I suppose, and the government have to take the responsibility, but I do not know that they had any more knowledge that this was going on than had the hon. member for Hamilton.


Samuel Barker: It is the country that is taking the responsibility. The country has to pay it. If the minister himself paid it we do not care who would take the responsibility.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The minister authorized this work without an appropriation and I do not think it would be right for us to repudiate the amounts. The work was probably well done. I am not pretending to defend or approve of the system of spending money without authority.


William Rees Brock: This work was done under the responsibility of a member of the government of which the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is a very important minister. The whole country has to take the responsibility because the whole country has to pay it. From the minister's own statement the government is deserving of censure for being derelict in their duty in allowing any minister to spend money without the authority of this parliament. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we repudiate the responsibility Mr. BARKER.
and we enter a strong and vigorous protest against that kind of thing being done. Even the minister himself will not pretend to defend this thing. The government has no right to ask us to vote money in this kind of way. If a minister has done this on his individual responsibility, he should be made individually responsible for it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am afraid you would have a poor lookout for getting it back.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Some time ago a gentleman from Quebec was here when we were voting money for public works, and after the House adjourned he complained to me that they could not get one dredge in or around Quebec. He pointed out that vessels could not get to some of the wharfs on account of the sand and gravel banks and that the trade of the port was greatly hampered. That gentleman asked me to mention this to the Minister of Public Works the next time the House was in Committee of Supply, and I avail of this opportunity of doing so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a small dredge at Quebec but I do not think she is large enough to do deep dredging. However, with a view of getting value for our money we have asked parliament to be kind enough to give a grant of $75,000 for the purpose of purchasing a dredge that would be able to do the work at Quebec and below Quebec.


William Rees Brock: In addition to this sum of $5,151. I suppose you have not taken into account the $20,000 or $30,000 which would be represented by the use of the dredge in doing this work. Do you keep a separate account for these dredges showing day by day the work they do and their expenses. Is this an additional amount to that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This work was done by contract. An account is kept of the work done by the government dredges, the cost of each dredge and all that sort of thing. The expense of these dredges is as a rale paid out of the vote for maintenance of dredges belonging to the government.
River St. Maurice-dredging eastern entrance of channel. $555.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a justifiable work, and the vote is for a small overdraft.


John Graham Haggart: Is it outside of the jurisdiction of the Three Rivers commissioners.


Mr. BLIREAU.: The jurisdiction of the Three Rivers harbour commissioners extends only to the St. Lawrence. This work was done at the junction of the St. Lawrence and the St. Maurice rivers, where there are large mills and where barges come to load lumber. This work was urg-

ent during the spring because then they were splitting their booms and a dredge could not enter after the booms were put down. The water is sometimes too low there to float the logs. I requested the government to do this work in the interest of the lumber trade of Three Itivers which asked for it.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Are they dredging the river so as to be able to float logs ?


Jacques Bureau: They dredged the mouth of the St. Lawrence to allow boats to come in to load lumber. What I said was that there was not water enough to float logs at certain seasons of the year.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Was the dredging done in order to float the logs ?


Jacques Bureau: The purpose of the dredging was to allow the barges to come in to carry the lumber away after it is sawn, and also to allow the barges to go higher up the river. They had to make a cut through a sand-bar, where logs sometimes get ashore, and that work had to be done before the booms were laid or otherwise the dredge would not have been able to get out again. Does my hon. friend (Mr. Morin) understand what I mean?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I understand very well ; I was not born yesterday.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
St. Nicholas-'rebuilding and strengthening parts of pier damaged by ice, $2,300.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not live very far from this place, and it would appear that every year there is a wharf carried away by the ice and a vote of money to replace it. 1 wish the minister would build a wharf there that will stay or else let him quit building wharfs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will try and invent some plan to have them tied down ; I notice that a good many of them seem to be slipping away every year.
Valleyfield-dredging, $2,400.


William Rees Brock: What are you dredging at Valleyfield for. Is it for the use of these large mills, or is it for the public convenience ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is for the deepening of the harbour and for the public convenience. Although I have not been there for a long time, I imagine it would also be of some advantage to the mills.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. minister know whether the old canal is being used for vessels or not ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is not being used for vessels.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: As the hon. minister does not appear to know anything about this appropriation, I shall take the liberty of telling him, so that he may no longer remain in ignorance. I was in that place last year at the time of the election, and I saw that the Milling Company had built a dam there partly across the St. Lawrence, which raised the water three feet and overflowed thousands of acres of land. The people at the time of the by-election were all saying that what they wanted was a representative in the House of Commons who would get money from the government to dredge this stream. But there were others who said that the Milling Company should be made to do the dredging because they were the ones who were responsible. I heard the gentleman who was elected declare at a public meeting that he would use all his influence to obtain government money in order to have that dredging done, but now that the hon. minister is informed who is the cause of this overflow, he should conclude not to spend any government money on dredging this stream. The company which built the dam is responsible for the damages and should be made to pay.


The MINISTER OF. PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is damning the wrong dam.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The people there said that the water never rose before the company built this dam.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The overflow was not due to that work at all, but was due to the building of the government dam on the St. Lawrence for the purpose of raising the water on the Beau-harnois canal. I think that the people are [DOT]entitled to some remedy, and I hope, as soon as I have a full report, to be able to recommend something practical for their relief.


John Graham Haggart: Was not part of this dredging done for the raceway from the mills ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: None that I am aware of.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of that dam ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is built at Valleyfield for the purpose of raising the water for the canal.


John Graham Haggart: In order to make an entrance into the canal?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is built for canal purposes at Valley-field.
St. Laurent-Isle of Orleans-completion of wharf, $7,300.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay balance of the contract for this work.	.


John Graham Haggart: What did the wharf cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 
John Graham Haggart: What was the amount voted by parliament ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 112,000.


John Graham Haggart: Why did the hon. gentleman enter into a contract for $17, 000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no doubt that when a vote was asked for $12,000 an estimate of the cost was given showing that it would cost $17, 000. There was no necessity for asking for any more than could he spent within the year.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The item says for completion of wharf. I believe it should be for extension of wharf.


The MINISTER OF TUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it is to complete the extension.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How long was the extension ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About 90 feet.


John Graham Haggart: What was the total cost of the wharf in this village ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


Jean-Baptiste Morin: It seems to me that the department manages these matters in a rather peculiar way. When a public work is necessary, why not send out an engineer to make a report and give an estimate of its cost, and then we will know what we will have to pay ? But here is a vote for $15,000, and the department is at full liberty to expend up to that amount, hut if the department were limited to the cost estimated by the engineer, it could not go beyond that. But so long as a certain amount is voted, the people of the locality and their representative will insist that that whole amount should be spent.
Doucet's landing-dredging on east side of wharf, $1,700.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is opposite Three Rivers. The dredging was done in the river. The wharf is Grand Trunk property and this is to allow large boats to get up the river.
General repairs and improvements to harbour. river and bridge works, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to supplement the appropriation made in 1902.
Riviere du Nord-dredging channel to Ft. Andrews landing, $4,400.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is on the Ottawa river. This work had
to be done and the amount is paid out of the general appropriation. We have therefore to take a special vote now to recoup.


John Graham Haggart: Then the amount for this particular work was not voted at all by parliament.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There was no special vote for this work.


John Graham Haggart: What vote did you pay it out of ? Not out of the general repairs and improvements to harbours and rivers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, the contractor was paid out of general improvements.


John Graham Haggart: What was the contract and the total cost of the work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 


John Graham Haggart: Then whoever had charge of this work, which is an entirely new work, let the contract when he had not even the money in the general vote to pay for it, and the hon. minister comes now and asks parliament to recoup him. How was the money paid when you had nothing to pay it out of ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This amount was paid out of the general vote.


John Graham Haggart: But your general vote was overdrawn by $5,500. You are taking an amount to recoup it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: At the time this expenditure took place there was something to the credit of the general vote. We used the money, and, at the end of the year, there was work requiring the full amount of the appropriation. I am asking this to recoup it and make it good.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but the curious thing to me is that you had a vote for $15,000, and you expended $20,000. Is there an Order in Council or Governor General's warrant ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am pretty sure there was no Order in Council or other authority. The parties who did work laid out under the general vote have not been paid. The contract in this particular case was paid. But this is to recoup the general vote.


John Graham Haggart: Who were the parties who lay out of their money to the extent of $5,500 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The principle amount was due to the Canadian Construction Company, Montreal. They are not paid yet, and cannot be paid until this money is voted.


John Graham Haggart: 


Richard Blain: The total amount, including item 73, is $34,520. Would the hon. minister say what proportion of that amount was voted by parliament, if any ? Is all this expended without the authority of parliament ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No special vote was taken for this money. I have explained how the work was ordered, how it was done, and why we are asking the vote to recoup the appropriation.


Richard Blain: Then the total amount


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The actual amount is $4,379.40.


Richard Blain: Is it the intention of the department to continue the construction of these wharfs and this dredging in the same manner ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as I am able to control it, the same system of conducting business will not be continued.
St. .Jerome-wharf on Lake St. John, $420.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: In the main estimates is a vote of $12,000 for the dredging at Midland. Has any part of that been expended 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I hope not. I gave very strict instructions that none of the money was to be anticipated. The estimates now before us make full provision for the past year.


William Humphrey Bennett: Can the hon. minister inform the House where this $12,000 is to be expended in Midland, and where the dredge is working now, or has been working for the past two weeks 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall be glad to bring down a return of the money spent. It has been spent under the authority of the engineer, and has not been brought to my personal attention. I will also bring down a statement, if the hon. gentleman desires, showing where it is intended to dredge during the season.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the payment of the contract.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Is this expenditure for the benefit of the public ? Or is it, as I have been informed it is, for the benefit of an individual who has a saw-mill at the mouth of the river, and who, in low water in the summer cannot bring barges to his mill, but has asked for this money to dredge about 200 feet of the river so that he may bring barges to his wharf 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken ; this wharf is for the benefit of the public.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: All right; I have been misinformed.
Harbours and rivers, Ontario-Cobourg-completion of repairs, $2,000.


William Rees Brock: Is that for a wharf ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is on a report of the chief engineer for the completion of repairs commenced in the first six months of the fiscal year.
Hawkesbury-dredging, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay the balance due on the dredging done at Hawkesbury during the past year.
Midland-dredging, $16,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay the balance due for dredging done at Midland.


William Humphrey Bennett: All I can say is that it is nearly time some work was done at Midland in the interest of the general public. And, if the hon. minister is not aware where the dredge is working to-day, I can tell him that it is high time some work was done in the general interest of the general public. May I ask if any body is in charge of the work as overseer, and what his allowance is ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) to say that this $10,000 was spent otherwise than in the general interest at Midland ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I would not apply that remark to the whole expenditure, but I can say that where the dredge has been working lately, is not in the interest of the general public. She is digging up dry land. Instead of working the dredge in the yard or whatever it is she is working in, it would pay the country better to have men go at it with pick and shovel.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: ' The chief engineer informs me that the dredge has been doing work for private parties, which was paid for by those parties.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the work that has been done there during the past week at private or public expense 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think that any has been done during the past week at public expense.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was this amount expended up to the end of the last fiscal year ending June 30th last 7


William Humphrey Bennett: Who is in charge of the work on behalf of the department, and what is his allowance 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: William Hacker, and his allowance is $3 per day.


William Humphrey Bennett: I see he was allowed 50 cents per day for a boat. Is that paid now ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: When I tell the hon. minister that the man who is doing the work at his boat-house, where he has boats to rent, and where he is at work part of the time, about fifty yards away from where the dredge is working, he will see the necessity of making a present to this man, for sweet charity's sake of fifty cents per day, for boat-hire.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Is it not a fact that the dredging was done during a good part of the season at the iron works at the other side of the harbour ?


William Humphrey Bennett: It was, but not this year.
Mr. SAtITH (Wentworth). What is the total amount spent at Midland harbour during the last five years ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORICS.: It was $46,108.64.
Air. SA1ITH (Wentworth). Will it be necessary to continue spending permanently or will the work be completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Aly information is that this is a good harbour, and that, once it is dredged to the depth required, it does not fill up much.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. minister will accept any suggestions from me, I would say that the place where the work requires to be done is near the elevator. It is certainly annoying to see large vessels come in near the elevator, and, if they approach within fifty yards of the elevator, they take chances of running on a bar.
The A1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. It is my intention to spend this money there, and I shall look into it and see that it is done.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the minister will do that, I think he will do the work in the general interest.
Bruce Mines-dredging, $5,200.


William Rees Brock: Is there a harbour at Bruce Alines ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, and there is a public wharf.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the nature of the dredging at Bruce Alines ? Where is it being done ? There is a perfectly straight line of shore there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORICS.: I am informed that it is to build an approach to the wharf.


Richard Blain: How much money has been expended at Bruce Alines altogether up to date ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $20,389. So far as I am aware, this work was commenced in 1900.


William Rees Brock: Has the hon. gentleman any information as to the rent we are getting for the enormous amount of money we are spending there ?


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This wharf was transferred to the Department of Alarine and Fisheries in August last, and no doubt when the estimates of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are under consideration, he will be able to tell the revenue derived.


William Rees Brock: One would suppose it was more especially under the control of the Public AVorks Department, being a wharf, and supposed to be for the general benefit of the country.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is not a new system at all. When a public work of this description is constructed by tlie Public Works Department, it is transferred to the Marine Department, who appoints the wharfinger and attends to the collection of the revenue.


William Rees Brock: Have you any account of any revenue that has been collected there ? I am informed that there has been $16 collected there, and we have spent $22,000. It is simply ridiculous to spend that large amount of money unless there is some business.


Richard Blain: Could the minister give us an explanation as to why this work was commenced ? Did lie send his engineer up there to report, and was there any public demand for the work ? It is only fair that the minister should give us some statement as to the revenue from that time to the present. The public accounts show that last year the revenue was $16.


The AIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That would be probably for three or four months from the time the work was completed and was handed over to the department. This is a very important place, a good deal of trade is being done there, and is growing fast. No doubt full information was given in regard to this matter when the appropriations were made. This is a balance to pay for the work that has already been done.


William Humphrey Bennett: What arrangement has been made about the dock ? At the town of Alldland the dock is handed over by the Crown to the department. What rental is


William Humphrey Bennett: being paid this year by the parties who are using this dock ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was waiting for the estimates to pass and to receive the authority of parliament to proceed with this work. No action has been taken by the department since the government became owner of the property.


William Humphrey Bennett: But the minister has on file in his department applications from parties wishing to rent this dock. I know one party who is prepared to pay $500. I suggested to him to write the department, and ask whether they would rent the dock to him. He got a polite letter saying his letter would receive consideration, and that is all he got. It is now in the hands of a warm political friend of hon. gentlemen opposite. Now, the minister cannot tell whether that gentleman is paying anything at all for rent. Have the firm who are using that dock made an arrangement to pay anything for it this season, and if so, how much ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not been able to give the matter consideration yet, but I will take it up after we get an appropriation. I could not give it proper consideration until I know what work we intended to do there.


William Humphrey Bennett: The town of Midland handed over to the Dominion of Canada a considerable portion of the water frontage. On a part of this water frontage there is being erected a good dock on which there are large storehouses, and a warm political friend of the hon. gentlemen opposite has the use of this dock on which are already erected this property and storehouses. The minister will find in his department an application from a business firm offering to rent this dock and pay $500 for it this season. I ask the minister, since there are applications on file in his department asking to rent the dock and storehouses, what arrangement he has made after declining to accept the offer from this firm ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not had the matter under consideration. I do not see how I could undertake to rent the property until I knew what the extent of the property would be.


William Humphrey Bennett: But there is already a dock built on a part of it and large storehouses, and it is occupied and used by a warm political friend of the hon. gentlemen. Playfair & Company are using it, and other parties ask to come into fair competition to rent it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is the first I have heard of it. I will take an early opportunity to look into the matter.


William Humphrey Bennett: I hope the minister will exact at least $500 rental for it this year,
because other parties would be happy to pay that amount.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Does the hon. gentleman consider that is fair value for it ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I think in open competition you would have got $500 for the use of the dock and warehouses.


Richard Blain: On that item for Bruce Mines, I want to draw the attention of the minister to this item, ' material and labour for construction of frame storehouses on the wharf, $500.' Is it the policy of the government to construct warehouses or storehouses on a wharf constructed by the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has been the policy of the government to build small warehouses for the accommodation of the public.


Richard Blain: In this same item I see ' Gordon & Hellowell, architects, of the city of Toronto, $35 for the preparation of a plan of a square building to cost $500.' Has not the minister in his office any persons capable of drawing a plan and writing specifications for the construction of a warehouse on a wharf at Bruce Mines, to cost $500 ? If he has not, is it not time that he should have such officers in his department ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am warranted in saying that there are sufficient architects in the department perfectly competent to design these buildings. The ex-minister seems to have thought fit to employ these gentlemen in Toronto to make these plans, and I suppose they have to be paid. It does not seem an outrageous sum. Why he considered it desirable, I cau-not say.


Richard Blain: The minister will remember that a protest was entered by the leader of the opposition the other evening against the practice of this government in employing outside labour of different kinds instead of employing officers in the department. It seems to me there can be no justification whatever for the employment of political friends of the government in Toronto for the preparation of a plan and specifications for the construction of a $500 warehouse at Bruce Mines. May I ask the minister if it is his intention to continue that policy when he wishes to construct similar small wharfs and warehouses, and if he intends to give the preparation of the plans to outsiders, to political friends, as was done in the case of Bruce Mines ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS No ; I never authorized the preparation of plans by any outsiders, and have no intention of doing so.


William Humphrey Bennett: Since the general question has come up for discussion, I am going to call the attention of the hon. Minister

of Marine and Fisheries as well as the hon. Minister of Public Works to these docks on the Georgian bay and particularly on the north shore. There is a line of steamboats calling at Bruce Mines, Cockburn Island, Thessalon and other places, and while the country has spent on an average from $20,000 to $25,000 erecting a dock at each one of these places, these steamboat owners are permitted to call at these docks upon which storehouses are erected and what is the result ? We will take the case of Thessalon, where there has been an expenditure of $20,000 or $25,000. The Dominion government did not derive a single cent revenue from that dock last year. The country goes to an expense of $20,000 or $30,000 for building these docks and after they are finished you permit a wealthy steamboat company to use them and to store their freight in the storehouses while the country is not collecting a single dollar at the thriving town of Thessalon. In the case of Bruce Mines where there is a fairly considerable town, you only derived a trifling revenue of $10.83 last year, and at Cock-burn Island some $60. It is high time that when all these gigantic expenditures are made, because in the aggregate they amount to a considerable sum, these steamboat companies should be compelled to pay something for the use of these docks erected by the country. I see that in the city of Toronto when an application was made by a steamboat company that was about to make that city a port of call, for the use of a dock, they were asked to pay a very large sum for it. I am going to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if he thinks it is good business to expend $20,000 or $25;U00 on a dock and then allow a steamboat company to use that dock and not ask a single cent in return, and if he as a member of the government is approving of that system of doing business. The hon. minister must remember that he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries last year and that this happened under him.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my memory serves me aright the wharf at Thessalon was built some nine or ten years ago. I had imagined that there was quite an increase in the business there. The wharf has been transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. As my hon. friend knows, I was a short time in the Marine Department. This is a matter that was not particularly brought to my attention, but my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will look into it and see whether the revenue is being collected there. It may be that it is being honestly returned, and may be not. I draw his attention to it.
Prescott-dredging, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Representations were made to me that the trade of that port requires that some dredg-Mr. BENNETT.
ing should be done. It was ordered to be done, but delay has occurred in the work. It was only started a few days ago and it will come under the supplementary estimates of 1903-4, because, as the work is not completed during the current year, this vote could not be used. I move to strike out the item.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to say, before dropping that item, that I hope the hon. minister will not forget it when the supplementary estimates for 1903-4 are prepared, because the work is an actual necessity there. Prescott is a very important 'harbour. I suppose there are about half a million tons of coal handled there every year and it is at the foot of lake navigation where all the barges have to remain over night in case they arrive there late. A number of years ago the government made a channel there, I suppose, fourteen feet deep, and this vote is merely to make it a few feet deeper in order that these large draft vessels can go down and discharge their cargo or lie to during the night. I hope the hon. minister will see that this item is put in the supplementary estimates for 1903-4.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WO	A
I quite agree with the hon. gentleman and I have already given instructions that this amount be placed in the supplementary estimates for 1903-4. I do not think there will be any objection to it. The work is important in the public interest.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and item struck out.
Richard Blain: May I be permitted to ask what proportion of item 74, amounting to $43,210, was expended without the authority of parliament ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose that technically this has practically all been spent without the authority of parliament. I think it would be a mistake if $100, or if $1,000 were required to complete a work that it should be stopped because the appropriation had been exhausted. I think, perhaps, in regard to this whole amount, the works and the places being important, that the over expenditure might be justified, but technically, I fancy that the amounts have been expended without the appropriation having been made.
British Columbia-Hardy Bay wharf, $2,100.


Thomas Earle: Is this work going on V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, that work is going on. I found that it would require so much to complete the work and that there would be great loss if the work were stopped. I authorized the engineer to go on and complete the work having made provision in the meantime for the money and this is to recoup the parties.


Thomas Earle: What is the total cost V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 

Telegraph lines, Quebec, Magdalen Islands, Bryon Island and Anticosti Island cable connection, &c.-to pay balance due on cable $36,782.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to pay the balance due on the contract for the cable between Bryon Island and Anticosti. I understand that at the time the appropriation was taken for this work an explanation was made to the House as to what the cost would be. This is to pay the balance on the contract for the cable.


John William Bell: What was the total cost of this work '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $70,330.52.	.


John William Bell: Who had the contract 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The W. T. Henley's Telegraph Works Co., London, Eng.


John William Bell: Is the contract completed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The work is completed.


William Rees Brock: Have you an account showing the expenditure and revenue in connection with this telegraph line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think I gave the statement as to the revenue on a former occasion, but I will get it and bring it down for the hon. gentleman.


John William Bell: Where does that cable make connection with the land line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a cable that crosses from the north shore to Anticosti.


Richard Blain: Who had the inspection of this work on behalf of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The cable was laid under the immediate superintendence of Mr. Keeley the chief officer of the department.


Mr. HACKETT.: I have taken occasion frequently to call the attention of the government to the state of affairs in the province of Prince Edward Island in regard to telegraph communication with the mainland. A monopoly was fastened on that province some fifty years ago by the Anglo-American Company. The matter has been brought up frequently in this parliament and last year we were assured by the then Minister of Public Works that action would be taken to relieve the people from that monopoly. The Anglo-American Company charge an extra fee of twenty-five cents on each message for the use of their cable, about eight miles across the straits of Northumberland. This is very detrimental to
the business of that province, and I trust that the Minister of Public Works of today who is known to be an active fair-minded man will take some action to remove this incubus that has dwelt so long and so heavily on the business interests of the province of Prince Edward Island. What action does the minister intend taking in the matter ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A deputation waited upon me with regard to this matter, but on looking into it I found that it was a rather complicated question in which a great many legal points were involved. I will be pleased to go into it more fully after the session, and if there is anything I can do to relieve the people of Prince Edward Island from the exhor-bitant rates they claim to have to pay under the present arrangement, I will be glad to do so in every possible way.


Edward Hackett: I understand that the company would give the accommodation required by the people if they get a slightly increased subsidy.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That matter is under discussion now.


Edward Hackett: If you cannot agree with regard to the subsidy you should withdraw the subsidy they are now paid of some $2,000 a year if they do not afford the accommodation that the people require. If by increasing the subsidy to a reasonable amount you can arrange with them to reduce their rates, and not to close their offices at eight in the evening and not open them before eight next morning, you would be conferring a great benefit upon the people of the province.
Telephone line to Alexander Indian agency. North-west Territories, the poles to be supplied by the settlers, $500.


Richard Blain: Would the minister explain why this telephone line was constructed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is for the accommodation of the settlers in this outlying district, and the department concluded that it would be better to have a telephone line than a telegraph line.


Richard Blain: Is there any revenue from it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There must be some revenue; it is a new line. I will bring down a statement of the revenue.
Alberni-Clayoquot line-to complete payments, $1,050.


Richard Blain: Where is this line ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think it runs from one end of the island to the other.


Thomas Earle: It is a continuation of the Alberui line down to Clayoquot Sound.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish to ask the minister if he has decided to do anything with the channel between Kingston and Brockviile on the Canadian side ? I understand there was a survey party there last year with a view of having a regular Canadian channel. X have not heard whether the government have decided to do anything or not. I think that Fiddlers Elbow in the Thousand Islands requires particularly a little straightening.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not come to a conclusion as to that. The matter the hon. gentleman refers to is under the consideration of the officers of the department.
Esquimau graving dock-special constables, $1,825.


William Rees Brock: This seems to be an expensive item for special constables. What is the meaning of it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The people in charge of the dock got the impression that the work was going to be destroyed and they asked for special constables.


William Rees Brock: How did they think it was going to be destroyed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Blown up. There was considerable excitement at the beginning of the South African war and the Welland canal was threatened, and it was thought by the military authorities there was danger at Esquimalt and we were asked to appoint those special constables.


Richard Blain: Who selected these men, how long were they on duty and what was paid to them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There were two special constables. I do not know on whose recommendation they were appointed. I have their names here.


Thomas Earle: How long were they doing duty ?


William Rees Brock: I thought this belonged to the British government. Could they not protect it themselves ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The dry dock is the property of the Dominion government.


Richard Blain: Did the minister say that there were two special constables appointed here ? I am not anxious to have the names, but would like to know the number.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the only memorandum I have with regard to the matter.


Richard Blain: How many months were they employed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They were placed on duty the 12th January, Mr. EARLE.
1901, at $2.50 per day, and must have been on duty about a year.


Thomas Earle: How many were there- two or four ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Two in addition to the regular ones.


Thomas Earle: Who recommended their dismissal ? Was It the admiralty ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think they were dismissed by the deputy ? There was no necessity for keeping them any longer, and they were dismissed.


Thomas Earle: I cannot conceive how any necessity could have arisen for the employment of these men when there is a naval station close by. Why these men were kept there a year is something I cannot comprehend.


William Humphrey Bennett: They forgot to sack them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose that during excitement, such things are done. My information is that the Department of Justice advised that it was desirable to make these appointments.
Toronto post office-building for branch office in west end of city (station C.), $10,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is to complete the contract. The total cost of this building is $43,342. I think the hon. member for Toronto (Sir. Brock) will admit that we got good value for the money.	*


William Rees Brock: Who is the contractor.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Brown and Love, of Toronto,


William Rees Brock: Was this contract let to the lowest tenderer ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC SVORIvS. Yes.


William Rees Brock: In Toronto the contracts are not always given to the lowest tenderer. Sly hon. friend from West Toronto (Sir. Clarke) objected that in a certain case the contract was not given to the lowest tenderer, and the excuse was that the lowest tenderer was not a satisfactory contractor. Sly hon. friend has conclusive proof to show that that statement was incorrect.
The S1INISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. This is not the item which has to do with that. There is another item in which that discussion will come up. I furnished the hon. member for West Toronto with all the papers.


William Rees Brock: I was merely stating this in order to express the hope that this last transaction was not so discreditable to the government.

Sorel-deep water wharf, $47,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This item was allowed to stand on a previous occasion until the premier was present, and as he is here now, I would ask the hon. leader of the opposition if he is prepared to discuss it ?


Robert Laird Borden: I would prefer that it should come up when my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is here. I had no idea that it was coming up to-day, or he would have been here.	.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier informed me that he did not want to discuss it any further.	.


Robert Laird Borden: He did not intimate anything of the kind to me.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could easily arrange to have a full discussion on this item on the supplementaries.


Robert Laird Borden: Not only my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier lmt two or Un ee oihers intimated that they desired to be present when the discussion of the item took place. They are not here tonight, and I would ask my hon. friend if he would fix a day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am perfectly willing either to allow this item to stand or to have it discussed on the supplementary estimates. We intend having a special supply Bill, and it is necessary that this item should be included.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend would give me notice a few days in advance, I would see that the item was discussed.
Item allowed to stand.
To pay arrears of salaries between certain city postmasters and assistant postmasters accrued during the period beginning June 1, 1881, $15,764.85.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Under the Post Office Act, it is provided that the salaries of postmasters shall be contingent upon the revenue of their respective post offices, but for many years the late government did not appear to think that that created a legal liability, and failed to increase the salaries of some of the postmasters. The question came up, however, in the case of the postmaster at Winnipeg. Inasmuch as the practice had been to disregard that provision and not look upon it as creating any legal liability, I did not depart from that practice but allowed the salaries to continue at the old rate. However, Mr. Hargraft preferred to take the opinion of the court upon the subject, and brought an action in the Exchequer Court. The court held that the postmasters were entitled legally to the increase based upon the percentage. If hon. gentlemen will refer to the Civil Service List, page 208, they 186
will find the schedule under the head ' city postmasters ' with a provision :
When postage collections exceed $250,000, $4,000.
When postage collections are from $200,000 to $250,000, $3,750.
And so on. It has happened that, in the course of years, the revenues of city post offices have gradually increased, but the salaries of the postmasters and assistant postmasters have not increased according to this scale. However, when a postmaster took the view that he had a legal right to the increase, the government issued a fiat and the question was decided by the Exchequer Court, as I have stated. Accordingly it is necessary now to make provisions for all the postmasters who have not been paid their salaries. They are as follows : Victoria-
N. Shakespeare, postmaster, from 1st July, 1891, to 30th June, 1903. $2,200 00
T. A. Cairns, assistant postmaster, from 1st July, 1891, to 30th June,
1903	 i,auu uu
Vancouver-
J. Millar, postmaster, from 1st July,
1897, to 30th June, 1903	 1,200 00
F. E. Harrison, assistant postmaster, from 1st July, 1897, to 30th
June, 1903	 1,200 00
Winnipeg-
P. C. McIntyre, postmaster, from 1st July, 1901, to 30th June, 1903.	500 00
Windsor-
A. Wigle, postmaster, from 1st July, 1901, to 30th June, 1903.. ..	800 00
London-
J. C. Cameron, postmaster, for the 15 months ending 30th June, 1903.	500 00
Thomas Duncan, assistant postmaster, from 1st November, 1902, to
30th June, 1903	 158	33


John D.: Sharman, ex-assistant postmaster, from 1st July, 1881,
to 1st February,	1902	 2,033	33


Jane E.: Dawson, widow of the late R. J. C. Dawson, postmaster, from 1st June, 1881, to 30th June,
1899	 1,600	00
The widow of the late T. A. Brown, postmaster, from the 1st July,
1899, to the 1st March, i903.. ..	666 66
Hamilton-
Adam Brown, postmaster, from 1st July, 1891, to 30th June, 1895.. ..	400 00
T. A. Hagar, assistant postmaster, from 1st July, 1891, to 30th June,
1895	 200	00
Ottawa-
E. B. Bates, assistant postmaster, from 18th December, 1890, to 30th
June, 1903	 1,607	53
St. John

T. B. Hannington, postmaster, from 1st July, 1901, to 30th June, 1903.	400	00M. J. Potter, assistant postmaster, from 1st July, 1901, to 30th June, 1903	
400	00


John William Bell: There is nothing for Halifax ? The POSTMASTER GENERAL. Nothing was held from the postmaster at Halifax.



We have gone through all the cases In view of the decision of the Exchequer Court-


John William Bell: Including the legal representatives where the postmaster is dead ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: What about the ex-postmaster at Belleville ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: His case does not fall within this rule, because nothing was withheld from him. The otli-eers of the department have gone through all the cases and where anything was withheld, it has been included in this list. There are three other items included in this vote. The first is $11,126.80 for the British American Bank Note Company. This company had at one time a contract for the printing of postage stamps, which contract came to an end in 1897. In settling up accounts, the question arose whether the government was entitled to a surrender of the dies, rolls, plates, machinery and appliances used imprinting the postage stamps. The question was in dispute for some time. It has now-been settled, and these things have been surrendered and destroyed, and the balance due has been struck. The amount is, as I have stated, $9,581.10, being for principle and the remainder for interest at 3 per cent.


John William Bell: Was not that case in litigation ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, but there was a subject in litigation with this company. That question has been settled. There was a verdict, but a dispute ns to the amount. But that has been adjusted, and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) tells me that the amount has been paid to the Finance Minister. Another item is for $8,000 to pay Canada's share of the service established in 1902 between Dawson and Eagle city. Eagle city is a few miles within the American territory of Alaska. The present service is being carried on jointly and it costs $9,000. This is apportioned, according to the distance travelled, between the two governments, and the amount falling upon our government is $8,000. The last item is $S,000 for additional service between White Horse and Dawson.


John William Bell: Are these services teudered for ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, a man named Calderhead was the contractor and he was paid so much per trip, and so much per pound over a certain weight. The amount is about $8,000.


John William Bell: This is to provide for the year just closed ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


John William Bell: This is the yearly amount ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes. We have had a service for some years, and Sir. WILLIAM MULOCK.
last fall we established an extra service. We invited tenders for this additional service of 700 pounds to be carried in after the close of navigation between White Horse and Dawson city. The contract was $238 per trip, and thirty-two cents per pound for all mail matter exceeding the limit of 700 pounds. Some thirty or thirty-two trips at $238 would bring it up to about $7,200, and, in some instances the mail carried exceeded the limit, and the excess being paid for at thirty-two cents per pound, the cost for the whole would be about $8,000.


John William Bell: This provides for thirty-two
weeks ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Thirty to thirty-two weeks, yes.


John William Bell: This was during the last winter ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


John William Bell: Were tenders invited ? Was the service advertised ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Tenders were invited, and it was advertised, but not for the six weeks. There are only a few people who could tender. There was a bona fide competition. I can recall the tenders being submitted. The White Pass Railway were tenderers. I think there were about three tenderers altogether. I am sorry to say this man lost money by it. I do not know that it affected him financially, but I do not think he wants any more contracts at this rate.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: At what time was the decision come to with regard to the first item ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My deputy informs me that it was about last August.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: When the Postmaster General stated that he had a surplus of $5,000 in the Post Office Department for the year 1902, he was quite wrong, it would appear; he really had a deficit of over $40,000 according to his own statement here.


The FOSTMASTER GENERAL.: I hardly think that is fair. These are old arrears in no way concerned in my administration, debts handed down to me largely by my predecessors. My statement was made up from the balances in my department, without reference to these figures, not connected with the financial year to which I allude.
Outside service-salaries and allowances, $1,373,366.75.


Robert Laird Borden: That is too comprehensive an item to undertake tonight.


John William Bell: 
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I aui always willing to make a statement in regard to my department. We shall have some supplementaries. If the hou. gentleman would like to have a full statement of the work of the department for the financial year that is closed, it can be made on the supplementary estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: The statement of the hon. gentleman should not be left till too late in the session, and the supplementaries might make it very late. It would be best to reserve this item for that purpose. I think it would be desirable for the hon. gentleman to make his statement earlier in the evening and to a larger House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have no objection to make the statement, but during my twenty years' experience in this House, on no occasion so far as my recollection goes* has any Postmaster General been called upon to review the work of the department when asking parliament for a vote. It is not at all an unreasonable re-flllPSt. finrl T vpnflilv ?_CC9dc to it.


Robert Laird Borden: It is the hou. gentleman's custom to do so.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I never-made one yet, it has never been the custom in this department to make a general review. It is the custom, I believe, in the Department of Railways and Canals. I would suggest to the hou. gentleman that we proceed with some of these resolutions, and we can keep the last one for a fail discussion.
Mi-. BORDEN (Halifax). I think these items will involve a good deal of discussion, and it is rather a late hour to begin it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not my fault if the House is slim. Since the hon. gentleman is desirous of having a general review, I think it would be more interesting if made a little later. The fiscal year of the department has only closed on the 30th of June. The discussion of the supplementaries might be postponed for a week or two.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman's statement is to be of any assistance to us, it should be made before we are asked to vote the estimate, instead of afterwards. For my part I would like to hear the statement before I voted for or against some of these items.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Whilst I am not unwilling to make a general review, it is not fair to interject that demand at this moment, and to ask that the whole business should stop until something unusual and unprecedented is done. Nor am I to blame because the hon. gentleman's forces are limited to-night.	I have not
heard any appeals from that side of the House for postponement. On this side we are anxious to proceed.
186*


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are they going to discuss the item on your side ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They will no doubt do their duty.


Robert Laird Borden: The hou. gentleman will of course take his own course about it. Perhaps he will be good enough to explain the increases.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The increases amount to $56,066.75, and are arrived at as follows :	In the inspector's office,
17 annual increases, making in all $780. Also to provide for increases in salaries to messengers, $152. Railway mail service, 78 increases, $3,670. Seven additional appointments, $3,400. The decreases are as follows :	Difference between the salaries of
persons promoted or retired and the salaries of persons appointed to fill vacancies, $800 ; over estimate, $80. Five vacancies dropped, $2,450, total $3,330. Making an increase fo!r the railway mail service of $3,740.
City cost offices-Tncrpaaes-540 increases of salary :
3 at $400	$ 1,200 00
1	at 250	
250 005	at	200	each	
1,000	002	at	100	each	
200	00143 at	50	each	
7,150	00101 at	40	each	
4,040	0087 at	30	each	
2,610	006	at	20	each	
120	00

To provide for the increase in the salaries of 180 letter carriers and 5 messengers, transferred from the provisions of the Civil Service Act, the provisions of the amendment to the Post Office Act, 1902 (f), page
21	 16,296	25
To provide for increase in the salaries of certain stampers and sorters promoted to the 4th class (g), p. 26.. ..	690 00
Transfer of W. E. Lemon, first-class clerk, from railway mail service to
Toronto post	office	
1,300	00Two additional second-class clerkships (h), p.	27	
1,800	0035 additional appointments (i), p. 27... 16,640	00Short estimate	(j), p.	27	
100	00Difference	$53,396 25
Decreases-
Difference between the salaries of persons promoted or retired from the service and the salaries of persons promoted or appointed to fill vacancies
(k), p. 28	$ 581 50
Increases of salaries not
paid (1), p. 29	 910 00
One vacancy dropped (m),
p. 29	 510 00

 2,001 50
Making an increase for city post offices of	$51,394 75
Total increase In estimate for salaries and allowances	$56,066 75

Mx\ REID (Grenville). In what city post offices have they received increases ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: All the city post offices.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister has read us a long list which it is a little difficult to follow. I have noted two or three of the additions, but, Of course, 1 could not catch them all. There are seven increases to railway mail clerks. Would the hon. gentleman explain the necessity of them, where the increases are and for what lines ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is one additional third-class clerk at $520.


Robert Laird Borden: Who is he ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL A.   C.@: McLatchy, and there are six additional railway mail clerks at $480 each, making $2,8S0.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Carried.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know why the hon. Minister of Customs desires to call out ' carried ' when hon. gentlemen are getting on their feet.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not do it when you were on your feet. I want to get on.


Robert Laird Borden: I would call the attention of the hon. Minister of Finance to the fact that we have had no notice that we were to go into the Post Office Department estimates to-night. The announcement last night was that we were going into the Public Works estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I know that on previous occasions the post office was mentioned, but I cannot remember as to last night.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My recollection is that the hon. Minister of Public Works announced that Public Works and Post Office would be taken up.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. Minister of Public Works said that minor Bills, Supply, Public Works and nothing else would be taken up.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And I think Post Office.


Robert Laird Borden: Here is what ' Hansard ' says :
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS moved the adjournment of the House.


Samuel Barker: In the absence of the leader of the opposition, might I ask what business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Minor Bils and supply for Public Works Department.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 1 think he added Post Office also.


William Mulock: 


Robert Laird Borden: He may have, but ' Hansard ' does not say so.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not care what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) says, he was not on his feet when I made the remark to which he referred.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not get from the hon. Postmaster General the reasons for these increases.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These increases are due to the extension of the service which is going on in all directions, owing to the prosperity of this country. .


Robert Laird Borden: Surely, the hon. gentleman does not regard that as an answer. I am asking him where these increases have taken place.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman will get all the information he ought to have. I did not hear the hon. gentleman ask where ; he asked why, and I gave him the reason.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The hon. minister might as well keep his temper.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will keep my temper, but the hon. leader of the opposition in presenting his question ought to be fair too. I understood him to ask why. Now, he asks where. Does the hon. gentleman expect me to bring him all the books in the department, and show where every one of these officers on the staff is ? Is that his idea of doing business?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. Postmaster General seems to be in an unpleasant state of mind for some reason, and it is a little difficult to gather what is the occasion for it. I asked him distinctly where these officers were.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, my hon. friend asked why.


Robert Laird Borden: I say where now.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, I accept his where.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is a reasonable question to ask where they are.
I would like the hon. gentleman to' state that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. McLatchy is from the hon. gentleman's own province. He was appointed to the railway mail service in Nova Scotia. Mr. McRae was appointed to the railway mail service in British Columbia, Mr. Leckie in Nova Scotia, Mr. Hartling in British Columbia, and Mr. Doyle in Ontario.


John Dowsley Reid: Where is Sir. Doyle from in Ontario ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I could I not say.

d>
5930


John Dowsley Reid: Tlie lion. Postmaster General should know where he was from when he was appointed. I-Ie must have had some place of residence.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not the least idea where he came from.


John Dowsley Reid: Who recommended him ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That I do not know.


John Dowsley Reid: What run is he on now ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Railway mail clerks are not assigned to any particular run. They belong to the service generally.


John Dowsley Reid: What run did he start on ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is a matter for the controller of the department.


John Dowsley Reid: It does seem I sLiange that wnen a man has received an appointment to the service nobody knows what run he is on. As long as I have been a member of this House I have understood that when a railway mail clerk is put on a certain route, he remains there for some time. Tins man ,1s from Ontario. I represent an Ontario constituency, and I think I have the right to ask where he is located and what constituency he is from.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot tell my hon. friend what constituency he is from. The practice when a railway mail clerk is appointed is to leave it to the controller to utilize his services as he sees fit. Railway mail clerks are not appointed to any particular railway run.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to have some idea where this man is from. Of course, if we cannot get it now, I hope the hon. minister will be prepared to give us the information on some other estimates.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman desires the information, he will get it.


John Dowsley Reid: Why was W. E. Lemon transferred from the railway maii service to the Toronto Post Office ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Lemon had been employed in the Toronto Post Office. He was an experienced officer, and he had been transferred for a while to the mail service at the union station. Subsequently he was retransferred to the city post office, because of his special efficiency. When we opened the office at the union station four or five years ago, an officer had to be placed in charge of the railway mail service, it being connected very largely with the running of trains, and Mr. Lemon being
an experienced officer, was put in charge of the railway station office. After some experience in the working of the system, it was deemed advisable to place the railway station office under the control of the city postmaster of Toronto, and accordingly Mr. Lemon was transferred back to the city post office so as to be amenable to the postmaster.


John Dowsley Reid: He was paid $1,300 extra according to the statement made by the hon. Postmaster General.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was paid nothing extra. His salary was $1,300 a year. The same amount he had as a railway mail clerk he received on his transfer to the city post office.


John Dowsley Reid: Oan you tell us the names of the inspectors, and how much they each received ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL. A.: Thompson, J. A. Madore, M. J. Whitty, W. T. Cox, E. A. MacDonald, P. W. Erwin, W. A. O'Rielly, M. W. Shaw, a. l. Robertson, M. Ford, .J. II. Landerkin, J. M. Morris, T. Keys, K. M. O'Connor, M. A. Curran, M. C. Green. These are the names of the persons in the inspectors' offices who received this increase.


John Dowsley Reid: Did they all receive the same increase ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Under the law they received different amounts, according to their position.


John Dowsley Reid: I call the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that the postmasters in rural districts are not getting a sufficient remuneration for the services they perform. I would like to ask the minister if he intends making any change in the system of paying these country postmasters ? In some cases they do not receive a salary in proportion to what others receive in the same locality. It seems to be a general cry throughout the country that the rural postmasters are paid too little, and I have been requested on several occasions to raise the question in parliament. Sometimes'it is difficult to get them to keep the post offices. What is the intention of the minister in that regard ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not devised any different system from that which I found when I entered office, and as to increasing their salaries I am not able to give any opinion to-night. The matter is one deserving of every consideration, but in saying that I do not wish to be understood as committing myself to any conclusion at all. They are paid to-day the rate of salaries that I found current when I entered office.
I have not yet been able to devise a system that would be more satisfactory to the taxpayers, as well as to the postmasters, than

the one which I found in operation by my predecessors.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did these inspectors get their salaries increased because of increased duties, or because the Postmaster General thought they were getting too little?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These increases are made in accordance with the Civil Service Act. The practice is that an official enters office at a lower salary than he is expected to receive later on. I suppose the theory is, whether it is supported by fact or not, that when a man is in the service for some time he is better able to discharge his duties than when he enters.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You do not imply that it is because their duties have increased ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend can draw his inference.
Mr. LANCASTER, I would like the Postmaster General to help me to draw a correct inference, and we may save time if he does. Is there any regular rule as to how often the rural post offices are inspected in the course of a year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is an effort to inspect these offices at least once a year. There are ' accounting ' and ' non-accounting ' offices, and the nonaccounting offices are minor places and the others are of more importance.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In my part of the country there is no regularity as to the hours at which the people can get their mail in the different post offices. The post office at Beamsville will be open an hour or two longer every day than the office at Grimsby. We had a new postmaster appointed in Grimsby not long ago, and perhaps he thinks he knows more about how to run a post office than one who has been there for a long time. The postmaster at Grimsby sometimes closes the post office at seven o'clock at night., sometimes earlier and sometimes later. The people there complain that he says he can do pretty much as he likes about it. I do not believe that, of course, and so I wish to know from the Postmaster General wliat rights my constituents have in the matter. A mail comes to Grimsby village from St. Catharines and P>uffalo and Suspension Bridge at six in the evening, and there is another mail fifteen or twenty minutes later from Hamilton and Toronto. The fruitgrowers and others, who do a great, deal of correspondence, like to get their mail regularly, but if one mail is late the postmaster will close the office until the two come in together. He says he is not going to be bothered handing out letters until the two mails come in, and if the mail from the west is late sometimes he does not open the office again at all that night. I want to know from the Postmaster Geineral. so that I can tell Sir WILLIAM MU LOCK.
my constituents, whether the inspectors have anything to do with regulating the hours for opening and closing these offices. I think we should have some regular system, so that everybody would know when they could get their mail. If the people in Grimsby find that the post office is open for longer hours at Beamsville, five miles away, it naturally creates dissatisfaction. What has the Postmaster General to say in reference to this ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no law or general regulation determining when the post offices shall be opened or closed, but postmasters are required to manage their business having regard to the convenience of the patrons of the office. At one office the mails may arrive later than at another, and it may be to the convenience of the people that that office should be kept open longer. Again, the customs of the people in one small town differ from the customs in another. In some places the business establishments close at different hours from others, and it would seem proper that the post office in each town should conform reasonably to the practice of the business people. How'ever that be, the policy of the department is to have the postmasters manage their offices with proper regard to the convenience of the people. The public, as a rule, are not slow to call attention to a departure from any such practice. a mistake is made, it is promptly inquired into. If there is any issue between the patrons and the postmaster, the inspector inquires into the matter and makes a report.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not be well to have a rule fixing the number of hours during which post offices must be kept open? In St. Catharines the stores are open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and the post offic'e is open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., whereas in the village of Grimsby, where the stores are open until eight at night every day and on Saturdays still later, the post office closes at 6 or 7. It is not satisfactory that people living within short distances of each other should compare notes and find out that in one place a man can get his letters up to 8 o'clock at night and in another he cannot get them after 6 or 7 p.m. There should be some system. Let the hon. minister make the hours 8 or 10 per day, but the length of the working day should not be left to the will of each postmaster.


Richard Blain: A part of the item is for superannuation in connection with some officers of the hon. gentleman's department is it not ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No,
not in this item.


Richard Blain: I thought the hon. minister read out some names.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not
in this item.


Richard Blain: Then it was in one of the other items ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Probably the hon. gentleman is thinking of a former item in the supplementaries of this year and of an explanation in connection with the postmaster at Winnipeg, who had been superannuated.


Richard Blain: I probably misunderstood.
I thought the hon. gentleman had read out some names on this item. Did I understand correctly that he has under consideration the question of increasing the pay of country postmasters ? He justified his position by saying that he found the salaries of the country postmasters very low when he came into office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say that. I said that I found the salaries as they are to-day.


Richard Blain: That would be about the same thing.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not express any opinion.
Mi* HT, ATI's! Th& hmi ministpv iiicfifiprl
his present position by the fact that some of the salaries were very low when he came into office. Why did he see fit to have a Bill passed this afternoon to increase the pay of the city employees. When he was considering that class, he should have given some consideration to the country postmasters. Is it his intention to make some provision in the supplementaries for an increase in the salaries of some of the underpaid country postmasters ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am afraid it will be out of order for me to discuss the provision of the Bill which passed the House to-day, but it is>
quite in order to discuss the question of the salaries of the postmasters. My hon. friend suggests that I expressed an opinion as to the scale of their salaries being low. I am not saying they are not low, but I have not expressed any opinion. The hon. gentleman asks me whether we could not include an item in the supplementaries to provide for an increase. I am afraid that I could not anticipate a message from His Excellency by saying what the supplementaries will* contain, but when on the Table they will speak for themselves. No legislation is necessary in order to deal with the subject, as the statutes vest that power in the Postmaster General. That has been the law for many years before this government came into office. I am very pleased to hear all that can be advanced in favour of an increase, and will give every consideration to the representations of hon. gentlemen.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. minister read a statement of the increases in the staff, but gave no explanation of the reason. I can understand that railway mail
clerks are assigned from time to time to their respective routes, am I right ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That, of course, is very satisfactory, as far as it goes. Could the hon. gentleman tell us on what particular lines the increase has been found necessary ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I hardly think that my hon. friend expects me to give him that detailed information. The railway service of Canada is extensive and increasing, and as the number of trains increase, mail clerks have to be put on and additions have to be made to the staff. If the hon. gentleman has any particular mail service which he desires to discuss, I shall be happy to give him all the information in my power.


Robert Laird Borden: I should have thought that it would not be beyond the hon. gentleman's knowledge of bis department, or at least beyond the knowledge of his officers, to give to the House information as to where the particular demands
for	pnmp from TIiptp rnnet
some parts of the country where there are more railway clerks required now than before. He says that there are seven additions, but I want to know where the additional ones will be located, and where the demand for these additional clerks comes from. I would not have supposed that it would be outside the hon. gentleman's information to tell the House where the additional clerks are now placed. There must be some distribution of the additional offices; where there were say five before there are six now, and so on all over the country. Surely the hon. Postmaster General ought to be* able to give us that information.
I have been informed of a ease in the North-west Territories which I would like to bring to the hon. gentleman's attention. I have not the exact details. Not knowing that the post office estimates would come up, I have not the papers before me, nor could I lay my hands on them at once in my room, as at this late hour my secretary is not here. But as I recollect the case, there is a mail car which runs south to the United States boundary and then on to an American line of railway. I believe it connects with the Canadian Pacific Railway at Moosejaw and proceeds southward from there. I have been informed that if people put their letters into this car, they are not received by any railway mail clerk until after the car has crossed the boundary into the United States, when they are taken by a United States mail clerk. The result is that if the letters are addressed to places in the United States and have a Canadian stamp on them, the American mail clerk does not recognize the stamp as payment of the postage and sends the letters to the dead letter office. And so the people.

even on the Canadian side, posting letters on this car addressed to people in the United States, must put upon their letters United States stamps. I do not know that this state of affairs has been described to the hon. minister, but I would like to know if he has any information to give the House on the subject. It seems an extraordinary state of affairs, if true. If it has been true in the past, he might tell us whether it is still true, or whether one of the additional mail clerks spoken of by him has been placed upon the car to which I refer.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not heard of the case to which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) refers. I understand he is not able to-night to identify the railway, further than to say that it is a railway passing from the North-west Territories into the United States. If he will give me the name of the railway, I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) is more familiar with the point, no doubt, than 1 am.


Thomas Walter Scott: I suppose it is the train on the Pasqua branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert Laird Borden: It runs south to the United States and joins the Canadian Pacific Railway at Moosejaw. That is my recollection.


Thomas Walter Scott: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I am right in saying that that is the line referred to. I can learn with certainty from the papers in my possession. Perhaps the Postmaster General can say in the meantime whether such conditions exist.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I said I did not know, but I would inquire.


Thomas Walter Scott: I think the car which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) refers will be found on inquiry, to be an American mail car. Since the beginning of the year, the Postmaster General has placed a mail clerk and Canadian mail car upon the line. But formerly, the American mail car ran to Moose-jaw, and I suppose does so still. Of course, there is no Canadian mail clerk on that car.


Robert Laird Borden: The point that particularly attracted my attention was that a Canadian subject in the North-west Territory desiring to place letters on this car-
I suppose, after the mail in the post office had been closed-could only get his letters carried to an American destination by putting American stamps on them, although the letters might be mailed a hundred miles from the border. I think it is a condition of affairs which the Postmaster General might do well to inquire into. I was inform-


Robert Laird Borden: ed also that there was some striking anomaly in regard to the mail service between Regina and Prince Albert. But the details have escaped my recollection at the moment, and I have not the papers at hand. No doubt, my hon. friend from Assiniboia would be familiar with the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: I see that the Ottawa Supply Company got about 316,000 supply from the department. Can the Postmaster General tell me who are the members of this company?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do
not know the personnel of this company. They had a contract for manufacturing mail bags, and I think that it is on account of that contract that the item appears to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid, Grenville) has referred.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the name of the gentleman who deals with the government on behalf of the company ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The
officer of the company-the president, I believe-is Mr. Stratton, an Ottawa businessman.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. Postmaster General read a list of what was included in this 356,000, but the items were read too fast for me to take note of them, and they were too many to remember. Has the Postmaster General a duplicate, so that we can see the items ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have no duplicate at hand.


John Dowsley Reid: In arranging for the carrying of the mails from point to point, does the hon. Postmaster General always call for tenders, and, if so, does he accept the lowest tender ? I notice here one item where a contractor is paid for service between Midland and Honey Harbour, twelve miles, sixty-nine trips, 310 for the season, and he receives 38. Surely that must be wrong. The hon. Postmaster General would not be guilty of asking a contractor to make sixty-nine trips for 38.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot at the moment explain the item. I suppose this is not the whole amount paid, but it is probably some balance. Contractors are required to carry out their contracts and are paid whatever has been agreed upon.


John Dowsley Reid: But this item reads ' Midland and Honey Harbour, contractor, distance 12 miles, 69 trips, December 30th, 1901, at 310 for season. The season, I suppose, would be the whole year, surely the hon. gentleman would not pay 38 for such a service, particularly when I find another man is paid $1,200 for eighteen miles, and others also are paid large amounts.

Ml-. LEEURGEY. While these large increases in the estimates for the Post Office Department are going through, I would like the minister to consider the need of some satisfactory arrangement about the mails of Prince Edward Island. 1 think his attention was called to this during the winter, and I propose now to refresh his memory. While the winter service boats were running the mails arriving at Georgetown, and at Summerside also, had to wait ten or twelve hours before they w.ere distributed from the west to Charlottetown, or from Georgetown to Charlottetown and Summerside. Passengers arriving there thirty or forty at a time had to telegraph to Charlottetown and to put up money out of their own pockets to get special trains in order to reach the capital. These trains paid for by private individuals carried His Majesty's mails free of cost. This matter has been going on for a number of years. I believe some of the ministers disclaim having had any notice of it this last winter: but if they will turn up the ' Hansard ' of last winter and the winter before, they will find that reference was made to this matter. My hon. friend from Queen's. Prince Edward Island (Mr. MacKinnon) puts me in mind of the time when I crossed myself. We had thirty or forty passengers on board the steamer, arriving about six o'clock. We had two or three days mails, and we found that there was no special train to take the passengers and mails to Charlottetown. We wired to the board of trade and to the hon. member for Queen's, and through his good offices, who put up the money from his own pocket, we finally got a train. That is only one instance, there have been numerous instances where the merchants and people of Charlottetown and Summerside had to put up money out of their own pockets in order to get the mails distributed throughout the island. While it is possibly not desirable to have the regular train wait over where there are passengers arriving every day, our mails are uncertain some consideration should be given to a reasonable distribution of the mails throughout the island. ' The Postmaster General must know that the merchants are labouring under serious disadvantage from the Irregularity of the steamers. It is intolerable that this condition of affairs should continue year after year. The trouble seems to be between the Railway Department and the Post Office Department, who bicker among themselves as to who shall stand the loss. The people of this country who pay the money do not care which department expends it so long as they get the service which they pay for. It might just as well be expended uuder the Post Office Department as under the Railway Department. I trust enough has been said on this subject, and that the minister will see that next winter arrangements are made for the transmission of mails and passengers by special trains to meet the boats.
I want also to call his attention to some improvements that might be made in connection with some of the smaller post offices, for the transmission of the mails along the line between Charlottetown and Summerside. For the information of the minister I will read a communication which I received from a gentleman who is well informed in the matter :
Kelley's Cross, P.E.I., March 28, 1903. A. A. Lefurgey, M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir.-I wish to direct your attention to the very unsatisfactory daily mail service between Kelley's Cross and New Wiltshire. Our mails are despatched from Kelley's Cross every morning at seven o'clock to New Wiltshire, where, by the present arrangement they lay all day and night and are only sent forward by the next morning's express from Charlottetown and said letters for Charlottetown and all eastern and southern points on the island being returned to the capital by the western mail on express train from Summerside, which does not reach Charlottetown till late In the evening, and, in all cases too late for hanking or other business transactions or to admit of replies to correspondence by next morning's train. You will thus see that it takes a letter from thirty-six to forty hours to find its way from Kelley's Cross to Charlottetown, a distance of eighteen miles. To give you another instance of how unsatisfactory the present arrangement is. suppose a letter for Charlottetown is mailed and despatched from Kelley's Cross post office at seven o'clock a.m., on Saturday, it remains at New Wiltshire Saturday and Saturday nights Sunday and Sunday night, goes forward on the west bound train Monday morning and returns by the western express from Sumerside and arrives in Charlottetown Monday evening so late that practically you may call it Tuesday morning, on three days and three nights travelling from Kelley's Cross to the capital a distance of eighteen miles. I do not think that I need say any more to convince you that this is not a very fast or up-to-date daily mail service. But Kelley's Cross is not the only section that suffers inconvenience by the present arrangement. There are three post offices, viz.: Brookvale, Emy Vale and Tyrone on the mail route between Kelley's Cross and New Wiltshire, w'hich have only a tri-weekly service and whose mails are detained at and despatched from New Wiltshire in the same manner as the Kelley's Cross mails. Thus the mails of four post offices are needlessly detained at New Wiltshire for days-to the great inconvenience of the large sections of country served by these offices-nowr that I have stated my grievance you may naturally ask what is the remedy I propose ? Simply this, arranging with the New Wiltshire courier to make a second daily trip between New Wiltshire and North Wiltshire railroad station, taking the Kelley's Cross, Brookvale, Emy Vale and Tyrone mails to connect with the western morning train from Summerside to Charlottetown, so that the mails of above named offices would reach the city early on the day they were mailed instead of late in the evening of the following day as under the present arrangement. The New Wiltshire courier is willing to make this second daily trip for a very small remuneration so that if the department w'ishes they can give us a satisfactory daily service at a very trifling additional cost. Years ago I wrote Sir Louis Davies re this matter. Sir Louis handed my


Mr. MACKINNON.: There may be something in the grievance that the bon. member (Mr. Lefurgey) has just mentioned in some small sections of the country in Prince Edward Island, but I do not wish the committee to be under a wrong impression about tlie mail service of Prince Edward Island. In regard to the winter mail service, the grievance of which the hon. member speaks, arose from the desire on the part of the government to comply with the wishes of his own constituents. At bis own request, and at the request of the people of Sum-merside and Prince county, they put the steamer ' Stanley ' on the winter route between Cape Tormentine and Summerside. The ' Stanley ' stuck in the ice and she remained there during the greater part of the winter. Another steamer was sent to her relief and she also remained there during a large part of the winter, and while both steamers were fast in the ice, the mail service was not as good last winter as it had been formerly. It arose from the fact that there was more ice in the straits than usual and a desire to please the people of Prince county, who urged upon the government the desirability of sending the ' Stanley ' to the western part of the island. These people are represented by members of the opposition. Members supporting the government in the House were desirous that they should be fairly treated and they yielded to the request, and that is the reason why tliis service was established. The bon. member, time and again, has spoken of this winter service across the straits, both as to the steamers and the mail service. I rise particularly to point out that Prince Edward Island is not ice bound all the year round. We have passed the middle of the summer ; yet, the bon. member still reiterates bis statements about the ice thus advertising our province as a place unfit to live in. It conveys a wrong impression to the world. This is one of the most fertile spots in the Dominion, and one of the most progressive, and it is one where the hon. Postmaster General has improved the mail service far beyond anything in the history of that province. Both locally and from an interprovincial point of view be has improved the service greatly. I regret to hear lion, members coming from the province talking in this way of Prince Edward Island. I have looked up the record of ' Hansard ' and I find that for 20 or 30 years hon. members from the island have got up and continued discussing this ice question, and they give people the impression that we are nearer to the north pole than we are. It is true that we have ice in the winter, but the government has placed two steamers on the

service where the former government had but one. These hon. gentlemen have been chasing a tunnel project which would cost almost half the value of the whole province instead of doing what they could do to secure an improved service. They have been getting up and grumbling about the matter and suggesting no remedy. They get up and chase that tunnel scheme that would cost $10,000,000 or $20,000,000, instead of in a practical way proposing some feasible scheme. Hon. gentlemen get up year in and year out and continue the same old story about the ice. There is no reason to talk in that manner. A few of these grievances occurred last winter, and I have explained the reason why. So far as the salaries of postmasters on the island are concerned, there are a few places where they should be increased a little, and I am satisfied that if the question is brought to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General this will be done. I suppose he is treating the island in the same way as he is treating other parts of Canada, and I think we should be satisfied with that. It is not a money making transaction to keep a post office any way. The people of Prince Edward Island are generally satisfied with the service, and although this trouble did occur last winter, it was through the fact that an experiment was being made in the western route during a winter when navigation was more difficult than for the past twenty years.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: I am surprised that any hon. member from Prince Edward Island should get up and make a speech before this committee such as the hon. gentleman has made reflecting upon the intelligence of the people of his own constituency and of Charlottetown. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. MacKinnon) mean to lell this committee that the delegations that were sent up here and that the remonstrances sent up from a mass meeting in Charlottetown were simply jokes ? A mass meeting was field at Charlottetown by those whom the hon. gentleman represents, and condemnatory resolutions were passed upon the conduct of the mail service and the conduct of the winter boats last year, and for that hon. gentleman to come here and make light of the resolutions passed by his own strong supporters, and by the very best business men of Charlottetown and of Prince Edward Island, I think, is certainly paying a small compliment to the intelligence of his own electors. Now, Mr. Chairman, in one word he condemns the placing of the steamer on the Summerside and Cape Tormentine route, and in the next moment he applauds it. If the hon. gentleman will look at the report from Mr. Shewen, published in 1894, fie will see that Mr. Shewen recommended the placing of a steamer on the Summerside and Cape Tormentine route to test the feasibility of this route, and when the hon.
gentleman gets up and says that it is a failure, I say he does not state the truth.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I say he does not state the facts as they are.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: ' I would ask the hon. gentleman if it was not a failure, what is he grumbling about ?


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am not grumbling about placing a steamer there.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: Was it a success V


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It was a decided success.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: The steamer was stuck in the ice all winter.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: She was stuck there on account of the neglect of the officers of the department, but that was no fault of the route. It is not necessary for me to go over that again, because I have reiterated on several occasions that when the boat was stuck off Summerside, she remained ten days in the ice without a hand being lifted to free her, while experts claim that with reasonable diligence, such as any private owner would have exercised in the conduct of his affairs, the captain could have relieved her from her position and continued the mail service throughout the balance of the winter. We had reports upon this mail route between the two capes years ago. The hon. member says that the government are coming forward with a progressive policy to-day. We have not any amount in the estimates for establishing a pier at Carleton point. We have this report of Mr. Shewen, prepared in 1894, recommending in the strongest words possible that the route between Cape Tormentine and Cape Traverse was the only natural route, and would eventually be the route of communication between the island and the mainland. We have been presenting petitions praying for a pier to be constructed at Carleton point during the last two sessions. And when the hon. gentleman gets up and says that we have a progressive policy, why does he not get his ministers to put an amount in the estimates to carry forward this pier ? I am afraid the progressive policy the hon. gentleman is talking about is carried out with the idea of keeping up the local prejudice of which he speaks, and keeping the boats on the Charlottetown and Pictou route. That is why the route was not tried long ago. It is not because the intelligent people of the western part of the island have not been asking the government for years to experiment on the route. The experiment with the ' Stanley ' on the Summerside route has been eminently successful. and the Minister of Public Works will tell you that the service was everything that could be expected under the circum-

stances. If the hon. gentleman wants to carry out an up-to-date policy, let him put a vote in the estimates this year for carrying out that project, and not wait for another year, or until on the verge of an election. I believe the engineers of the government made surveys there last winter, and I believe all the evidence points to the fact that between Cape Tormentine and Carletou point is the only alternative by which the Dominion can carry out the terms of union with Prince Edward Island. I am sorry to have to bring forward a defence of our position on the island against one of the members who is sent here to represent us. I can only say that his words will not be accepted with very good grace by the people who gave him their confidence at the last election.


William Humphrey Bennett: They will never do it again.
however, that the revenue at Kelley's Cross for the last fiscal year was $67, and the postmaster was paid $24 ; the mail service cost $125, _and if that were duplicated it would be $250 a year for a service to that very important place, which, however, does not send a large revenue to the department. I may say that these are circumstances which have to be considered. However, I will have that point looked into. With reference to the question of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid). I may say that the bank note contract was made in 1S97 with the Department of Finance. That contract ran its term of five years and has been continued since. The company do excellent service at reasonable rates, and probably this country never received a better service at more reasonable rates than it is receiving to-day for the class of work that is being done for the department.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: I never boast until the election is over.


John Dowsley Reid: There is hardly a member in this House who has not some grievance against the Post Office Department, and that shows the injustice of bringing down this vote when there are so few members in the House. However, I am prepared to do my share of the discussion, and I will ask the Postmaster General to explain the contract he has with the American Bank Note Company with regard to the printing of postage stamps.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the Postmaster General answers that, it seems to me that he ought to inform the House how it happened-putting aside the question of passengers-that the Prince Edward Island mails are delayed for some considerable time when they are landed from the boat. There is the instance quoted by my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. Lefurgey), where money had to be deposited for the purpose of getting a train to send the mails forward.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Post Office Department has not the control of the Island Railway. When the trains are put on by the Department of Railways they are utilized by the Post Office Department the same as any other trains in Canada. There was some interruption for a short time this year, but that was overcome, and there is no reason to suppose there will be a repetition of it. With reference to the question raised by the hon. member for Prince, as to the second daily mail service between Kelley's Cross and North Wiltshire, I have had a note made of his suggestion, but I may say that I find in the Postmaster General's Report some circumstances which may have some bearing upon the hon. gentleman's demand. It is customary to give the best possible mail service to all localities, but it is always necessary to have some regard to the financial side of such a question, "f find,


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: 


Edward Hackett: The question under discussion is of so much importance to the people of Prince Edward Island that I cannot allow it to pass without making a few observations, especially at this early hour of the morning. I regret that the Postmaster General so cavalierly brushed aside the grievances of my hon. friend from Prince. He said that some slight difficulty occurred last winter and it was removed, and he trusted the like would never occur again. A slight difficulty ! Why the people of Prince Edward Island were for weeks at a time deprived of their mail, and the government of Canada were too mean and too contemptibly small to hire a special train to send these mails to their destination when they arrived on the soil of Prince Edward Island. Sir, when the island entered the union a solemn compact was entered into by the government of Canada that we should have steam communication continuously between the island and the mainland for the convenience of mails and passengers. The Postmaster General says a slight delay occurred last year. Let me tell him that the people of Prince Edward Island were filled with indignation from one end of it to the other. They were on the verge of revolt. This mass meeting was held in the citadel of the hon. member for East Queen's ; held there under-I was going to say under his nose-but within the length of his arin. The board of trade of the city of Charlottetown passed strong resolutions and sent a delegation to this government asking redress of the grievances. My hon. friend has spoken about ice, but let him read the speech of the hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Lefurgey) when it appears in * Hansard ' to-morrow, and he will see that the hon. gentleman made no reference whatever to the ice He wanted to make it appear that the whole trouble was in connection witli the ice, and he says we have fine weather now and that we should not give the province a bad name by talking about ice. Let me tell him' that

the ice and the winter will come again. It is unfortunate that an hon. gentleman' representing a people who are labouring under such wrongs and who are vainly pleading for redress, would not raise his voice in the parliament of his country in behalf of those people, but endeavour instead to shield the government which has been unfaithful in its duty and has made no attempt to carry out its pledges or the contract between the Dominion and the island. The hon. gentleman speaks about the beautiful little spot, about its green valleys-


William Ross: And high mountains.


Edward Hackett: No, not high mountains, nothing to compare with the mountains along Bras d'Or. But we have undulating hills and green valleys and rippling streams. If hon. gentlemen want to see nature at its best, let them visit the province of Prince Edward Island and they will be rewarded for their trouble. I would advise the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Ross), after this parliament is prorogued and when he will have some leisure days on hand, to take a trip to Prince Edward Island.


Thomas Walter Scott: You have no ice there now ?
Mr. HACIvETT. My hon. friend from' Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) evidently requires to be cooled off, and if he will make the trip we will take him across in one of the old ice boats that have been there the last forty or fifty years. That will certainly bring him down to a proper temperature, and then, when he returns to his native home in the Pile of Bones Creek, he will be able to interest his people by a description of the Straits of Northumberland. It was not my intention to take part in this discussion, but I felt bound to enter a protest against the utterances of my hon. friend from East Queen's (Mr. McKinnon). I am certain that the remarks of that hon. gentleman will not be accepted with much favour by his own supporters and will be certainly condemned by those who are opposed to him.


William Ross: It is now coming pretty near the full moon, which is about the time when usually the grievances of Prince Edward Island are ventilated in this House. The hon. gentleman has given me an invitation to visit the island. Let me inform him that I have been there before and enjoyed my trip very much, but that does not blind me to the fact that when the ice becomes thickened with the frosts of winter, it is impossible for the steamers to make their regular trips from Pictou to Charlottetown or any other spot m the island. And before the hon. gentlemen from that province unburden themselves of their complaints, they should try and remember that it is not within the power of the Dominion government or parliament to remove the obstacles which Divine Providence has placed
in the way of winter communication between the island and the mainland. If they would cultivate a spirit of submission to the will of Providence, they would be conferring a great boon on this parliament by sparing us the repetition of their complaints from session to session on every possible occasion. I happen to be a resident of an island which considers itself of as much importance as Prince Edward Island, but we have no grievances for which we cannot obtain redress in the different departments of the government without bringing our troubles before this House. 1 think it is about time that the people of Prince Edward Island and their representatives would learn to submit to the will of Providence and not expect from this parliament the accomplishment of the impossible.


Edward Hackett: This is not the first time the hon. gentleman has read me a lecture on my audacity in venturing to speak in this parliament on behalf of the interests of my constituents. Well, Mr. Chairman, the strictures of thje hon. gentleman are a matter of very slight moment to me. He is perfectly free to criticise anything I may say, and all that he is able to say will not prevent me from doing my duty to the people I represent. We are supposed to be here prosecuting the business of Canada, and if the hon. gentleman has sufficient youth to remain until very early in the morning and desires to keep up his assiduous attendance, he will hear me on many more occasions speaking in defence of the rights of my people; and if he choses to remain in his seat quietly and read his newspaper, that is no business of mine. I was reading the other day in a newspaper a very interesting article which had some reference to the hon. gentleman, and in which he was styled the Lord of the Isle. It appears that the rock St. Paul, in the gulf of the St. Lawrence, had been set aside for some years by the Canadian government for the propagating of the lobster. That rock, however, had excited the jealous and envious eye of many hon. gentlemen opposite, interested in the lobster fishery down in that vicinity, and many were tlie attempts they made to secure the coveted treasure for themselves, but the government withheld all their attacks. The hon. gentleman, however, at last succeeded by his wiles, his winning ways, and his fa timing and cringing manner, in prevailing upon the government to make him Lord Paramount of that rock, and since then he lias been dubbed the Lord of the Isle, and no one but he is allowed to kill lobsters around St. Paul Island.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the hon. the Postmaster General has hardly given an adequate answer to the complaint made of the defective mail ser-* vice in Prince Edward Island. 'All he has

been able to reply is that the Post Office Department utilizes the services of the Railway Department. That, I submit, is not an adequate answer. The hon. gentleman is responsible for the delivery of the mails, and we want to learn from him whether there is any particular reason why the mails should remain undelivered for hours after they have been landed from the steamers. It does not matter whether it be the Railway Department or the Post Office Department which is involved, what we are entitled to know is the reason why the mails, even after they have been in the ice of the gulf for weeks, should be detained for hours before being sent forward to their destination. Does he think he meets the case by stating that he utilizes the services of the Railway Department ? The Railway Department in the other provinces provides the means for forwarding the mails at once upon the arrival of the steamers. That is the case in Halifax as regards the mails of the upper provinces. The only answer the Postmaster General might make is that these mails are for a much larger population and are much greater in quantity, but that will not justify his neglect to take the proper tneans of forwarding them immediately upon their arrival in the island.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The post office has not the ordering of trains as to their starting or progress, nor as to whether they shall start at all. The mails are not the'only thing to be carried by the railway. The hon. member for East Prince (Mr. Le-furgey) pointed out that there was a large number of passengers coming by these steamers, and I suppose there were goods also to be transferred. It is for the railway to meet the requirements of the country as to train service for the carriage of passengers, goods and mails. When railways are in operation, this department feels it its duty to utilize the trains to the fullest extent for the purpose of carrying on the mail service. That has been done by the department in Prince Edward Island and will continue to be done. I understand that arange-ments have been made so that the interruptions which took place shall not occur again. Therefore, I do not anticipate any further ground for objection such as lias been made. I can understand the disappointment of the people at the delay and interruption in the carriage of mails and I am quite as solicitous as the members from Prince Edward Island to avoid these interruptions.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose we must take the remarks of the Postmaster General as rather a censure of the Railway Department for not providing the necessary facilities. Of course, if we understand it in that sense, the hon. Postmaster General, administrator of his own department, might not be open to severe criticism, except, possibly, for not having made some arrange-


Robert Laird Borden: meat with the Railway Department to foi-ward the mails promptly upon their being landed. However, as he gives assurance that he believes that arrangements have been made to avoid a repetition of these delays, I suppose that ought to be regarded as fairly satisfactory. We shall see to what extent his expectations are realized in the coming winter.


Mr. HUGHES (King's).: There is no doubt that the service last year was unsatisfactory. But I think it was largely due to the differences among the people of Prince Edward Island themselves. The steamers employed in the service were sent one to the eastern end and one to the western end of the island. In former years, this service had been fairly satisfactory, particularly since the two steamers were provided.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? I did not understand the position taken by my hon. friend from Queen's (Mr. MacKinnon). He said at one time that the result which had obtained was owing to the fact that steamers had been put upon the new route between Summerside and the Capes. But then I afterwards understood him to say that the route between Summerside and the Capes was the proper route.
Mi-. MACKINNON. Not between Summer-side and the Capes, but between the two Capes. This is the shortest route.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the route covered by the ice-boat service when the steamers do not ply 1 Mr. MACKINNON. Yes. The route to Summerside is twenty or thirty miles.


James Joseph Hughes: I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) wished to ask me a question, but it seems he wishes to ask my hon. friend (Mr. MacKinnon).


Robert Laird Borden: I want to get the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, King's) also.


James Joseph Hughes: One of the steamers went to try to keep up communication between Summerside and Cape Tormeutine. But the western route has not proved satisfactory, and, in my opinion, and in the opinion of men who are competent to judge, it cannot prove satisfactory. The interruption was due also in part to the fact that last winter was an unusually severe winter, and there was a great quantity of ice in the straits and the gulf.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes, King's) agree that the route between the Capes is the best ?


James Joseph Hughes: That has not been tried by steam-and-well I will come to that later on.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Would tlie lion, gentleman have any objection to the government trying it V


James Joseph Hughes: We are dealing now with what occurred last winter. I think the difficulty was largely due to the fact that the government listened too much to the representations of the western part of the island and went too far in trying to meet the wishes of everybody. 1 believe that in that they made a mistake, and I trust that that mistake will not be repeated. I think that the ministers, and particularly the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, has information that will enable him to place the winter steamers on the route that will give the people of Prince Edward Island the best service. And 1 believe that next year, and for the years to come, there will be no great cause for complaint. There was a difficulty and we might as well recognize it. There was a steamer plying between Pictou and Georgetown and one between Cape Tor-mentine and Summerside. It was ce'rtainly difficult for the railway department to provide trains to meet both steamers on their arrival, for they did not arrive on schedule time, and no one could say when they would be in. That difficulty will continue as long as the steamers are on different routes. If they are put upon one route, the one known to be feasible, the one the use of which for the last thirty years has resulted in a reasonable service, it will be easy for the Railway Department to meet the steamers and to convey passengers and mails to Charlottetown where they may be distributed to their destinations. The government, in their anxiety to please everybody, particularly the people of the western part of the island, made a mistake. It is no reflection upon the harbour of Summerside to say that it cannot be a winter port. Montreal cannot be a winter port, yet it is a very important city. It is a fact known to men skilled in winter navigation that Summerside cannot be successfully navigated in the winter, and so the route between Cape Tormeutine and Summerside cannot be successfully maintained. But the route between Georgetown and Pictou has been fairly successful since it was established about thirty years ago. With the two boats on that route, a satisfactory service will be given to the people. I trust that idea will be followed. I believe the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will be seized of the facts and will carry on the service in a way satisfactory to all parties concerned.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: Before the question of railway mail service is disposed of,- I wish to say a few words with regard to a matter brought to the attention of the Postmaster General last session. I informed him that mails were carried on the Inverness railway as mere baggage, and this has proven very unsatisfactory to the people. I remember
that the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) called attention to a similar difficulty in his riding. I find from the discussion this evening that the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of the hon. member.


Thomas Walter Scott: I have another one.


Angus McLennan: In the case of the Inverness Railway, I regret to observe that nothing has been done. The Postmaster General is evidently seeking to make both ends meet between revenue and expenditure in his department; but of all the departments, I believe this particular department is the one that the people of Canada would be willing to pay deficits to keep in a satisfactory condition.
Leaving the railway question and dwelling a little on this economy in the mail service, I wish to call attention to the fact that so much economy was practiced in the county of Inverness last winter that while travelling on a train I happened to fall in with the deputy post office inspector for Nova Scotia, and he told me, to my amazement, that he was just going down to Inverness to seek for offers to convert about half the daily mail service in that county into a tri-weekly service. Needless to say that I felt quite excited over the evidence of retrogression in this connection. I must say en passant that the Postmaster General was not at home at the time. But now that he is here and that I am here, I wish to call his attention to the fact that on that occasion tenders were publicly asked to have about half daily mail service in Inverness converted into a tri-weekly one, As usual the Minister of Finance was at his post, and I appealed to him in the absence of the Postmaster General ; and I wish to say here to-night that if the officials of the Postmaster General had their way, and had it not been for the prompt action of the Minister of Finance, the county of Inverness to-day would be jogging along, so to speak, with a tri-weekly service where it had a daily mail service for 35 years previously. I, therefore, feel that I would be derelict in my duty if I did not call public attention to a matter which threatened to affect so seriously a matter of vital interest to the county of Inverness, which perhaps of all counties in Canada is progressing the most rapidly. At such a time, then I submit whether such a handicap would not be a most regrettable circumstance. I asked a question in this House last year as to the comparative cost of carrying the mails in the county of Inverness in the year 1896 and in the year 1902. The Postmaster General's answer to that showed that there had been $5,000 a year for six years saved out of the mail service in the county of Inverness by the Post Office Department. I would not complain about that were it not that I find it very difficult to secure any improvement * in the old order of things with regard to the

mall service in that county. The matter has been progressing, however, as 1 said before. Other departments of this government are doing well for that county, and X regret all the more that this particular department of the government should do anything which would calculate to retard the progress of that county.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes) has referred to the service between Georgetown and Pictou as being the only service that proved satisfactory. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if there was not a period last year when the captain himself reported that for upwards of two weeks it was impossible to enter the harbour of Pictou. I want further to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the report of the resident engineer, to show how up-to-date this government has been in providing a suitable service. I am going back to the year 1894. This letter is dated March 15, 1901:
Sir.-I returned to the office from Richibucto just before mail time yesterday, and on opening your letter despatched immediately a copy I had on hand of my report made on the 14th of February, 1894, on Cape Traverse and Carle-ton Point. Since that date other references to the same subject have occurred in several reports of mine relating to Cape Tormentine, the harbour intended to be the New Brunswick end of the island crossing.
I inclose an extract from report No. 4039, dated 'the 8th of September last, which in a condensed form points out the facilities for successful winter navigation presented by the narrows of Northumberland strait. I beg you to read this in conjunction with the report of 1894, forwarded yesterday.
This report was made in 1894, that Carle-ton Point was the place to establish a pier for a winter service, and we have now the engineer of the government going over the same ground again and using this as an excuse for not going on with the pier.
The primary work of the examination made in 1894 was intended to determine whether a harbour should be made at Cape Traverse. As you will see, the conclusion is obvious that Cape Traverse is utterly unsuitable, while Carleton Point presents undoubtedly the best site for a harbour of the island side of the strait. One question has arisen since the date of that report, namely, objection has been made to- crossing from Cape Tormentine because of the risk a steamer would run of being swept upon the point of Jouriman reef. To this it may be said that in the present crossing from Pictou to Georgetown the Caribou shoals constitute a similar danger ; while the area of those shoals is, from their appearance on the chart, perhaps larger than the area of Jouriman reef, the dangerous part of which may be almost limited to that point.
Besides, if there is any danger of a steamer being carried on Jouriman reef it can only happen while the current is setting westward, and would be entirely removed when the tide stream ran to eastward. As you know, the flood stream that enters Northumberland strait from both ends, the two tides meeting and parting abreast Cape Tormentine and Tyrone. Of course, in ice Mr. Mclennan.
navigation, or in open navigation, much depends upon the skill and judgment of the mariner. Since the strait is so narrow at this point some opportunity for observation of the conditions of the crossing will be given from the masthead of the steamer before starting, an advantage not found at Pictou. A short time ago the 'Stanley' was drifting about in the ice oil Pictou for fifteen lays, and a few years ago was in similar case for sixteen days. Such a contingency would not I think be posible where the current runs, where the ice is not merely moving, but is parted east and west by the tides twice a day.


Donald Alexander Mackinnon: That was under the old government too.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: The old government was not responsible for the ice conditions between Georgetown and Pictou.
I have given a great deal of attention to the island crossing since 1894, and have endeavoured to collect information every winter .upon the subject. Everything tends to show that the natural crossing is where the strait is narrowest.
Yours obediently,
(Sgd.) E. T. P. SHEWEN.
Resident Engineer.
I have another report of the resident engineer dated 8th September, 1900, in which he says :
It is, I believe, admitted that daily communication by steam is the object sought. Hitherto that object has not been obtained during the winter months. Up to this time the winter steamer has been crossing from Pictou to Georgetown, a distance of about forty-two miles, with more or less irregularity occasioned by the ice. The northwest winds of the winter drive the field ice to the eastern end of the strait of Northumberland and sometimes lodge it against the Cape Breton shore, completely blocking the eastern end of the passage at which Georgetown and Pictou are situated. When the ice is packed as in this manner it is almost impossible for a steamer to force her way through, as will be seen from the following quotation from Admiral Makaroff's description of the voyage of the Yermak' (vide the proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society for January, 1900), who found it easier to break the ice in the polar seas with that vessel than in the Baltic, because in the Arctic seas the ice is broken, while in *he Baltic it extended from land to land.
The engineer is pointing out one of the main difficulties in the navigation of the straits at the eastern end of the island. The ice is carried in an easterly direction and is jammed up between Pictou island and the Cape Breton shore, and where there is no room for relief it is impossible for these steamers to break through. He points out further that the tides meet and part twice daily at the Capes and this forms loose ice which it is very much easier for the boats to get through. He goes on :
Floes of ice might be several miles or several fathoms in length. Between the ice floes are the lanes, which are very irregular. Sometimes ice floes are pressed against each other and sometimes not. When the ice is not pressed, the progress of the ship is very easy. Floes of ice even a mils long move away and give pass-

age to the ship. But, the fact is that even ice 14 feet thick cracks when charged at by the ship, provided there is room to remove broken parts.
In the neighbourhood of Cape Tormentine the two branches of the principle tide wave, which formed at the Magdalen Island into the east and west ends of the strait respectively (but with 12 hours difference of time) meet each other with a surface overrun in either direction according to the moon's age, due to the diurnal inequality. Thus, in the neighbourhood of Cape Tormentine the currents meet and part twice a day.
What he means by this is that the tide forms off the Magdalen Island and it flows in at the eastern end of the island and up around the western end, coming in at both ends and meeting the Capes twice daily.
This condition is of course favourable to the loosening of any blocked ice there might be. But there are really two considerations which recommend a winter crossing from Cape Tormentine :
1.	Cape Tormentine is the nearest point to Prince Edward Island, the distance across being only 8 miles, and it is certain, the voyage being dangerous, the shorter the passage the better. I believe the distance to Georgetown is 42 miles through ice more closely packed than at Cape Tormentine.
2.	That the narrowest part of the strait is found the strongest current and current assists in loosening the ice.
These are two elementary principles that I do not think the hon. member for King's can contradict.
There are other ice crossings in northern Europe somewhat similar to that between Cape Tormentine and Prince Edward Island in the winter. One of these between Zealand and Funen in the great belt, appears to resemble very strongly in many respects that of Cape Tormentine and illustrates the fact that at least in Denmark the principle of adopting the shortest, passage has been observed. This crossing has been maintained I believe except in one severe winter (when detention for a day or two occurred), without interruption. The steamers start from Neibor, in the island of Funen, a harbour of which Knuds Head is the headland. From Knuds Head to Korsor in Zealand, a distance of 10 nautical miles, is the passage. The great belt must be more hazardous in the winter than Northumberland strait at Cape Tormentine because of the number of reefs and shoals. The prevailing current in the great belt is northward but variable and occasionally the streams and eddies are locally very strong.
Here we find away up in Denmark that the people get an almost uninterrupted service. In one season there was one day whicli they could not cross, while here we are in Canada, with only eight miles to cross and the hon. member for Queen's has spoken of it as being a fairly reasonable service when our boats are in the ice for fifteen or sixteen days at a stretch.
The shortest crossing of Northumberland strait would be from Cape Tormentine to Carle-ton Point but there is no harbour at the latter place. The distance to Summerside is about six-te6n	hut it is wise to try first whether
uninterrupted communications can be main* tained between Cape Tormentine and Summer-side during the winter, because, if so, construction of an expensive artificial harbour at Carleton Point may be avoided. Of course there is a disposition always to accept whatever is as immutable and in changing the establishment of anything that has become worthily or unworthily by lapse of time and institution, local prejudices will be met. Careful consideration should be given however to the experiment of crossing from Cape Tormentine.
In selecting the crossing for the steamer at the Strait of Canso, where heavy ice is found in the winter, I chose the point on the Cape Breton shore nearest to the Nova Scotian terminus of the railway. This crossing afterwards adopted by the Intercolonial Railway has I understand, proved satisfactory, and may perhaps afford another illustration of the principle that the shortest ice crossing is liable to be the best.
Tours obediently,
*	(Sgd.) E. T. P. SHEWEN,
Resident Engineer.
I may remark that the bon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Ross) spoke rather disparagingly about the efforts we are making to have the service made satisfactory, but he failed to say that $1,000,000 had been expended at the Strait of Canso in order to provide a satisfactory crossing. It is all very well for the hon. gentleman, after a million dollars lias been expended there, to be satisfied with this crossing, but if he were putting up with the service that we have he would be one of the first to protest. Then there is another letter as follows :
Antigonish, N.B., June 18, 1894. Amherst Head (Cape Traverse).
Sir,-In reply to your letter No. 1571 of the 13th received to-day, I beg to report from my report of the 14th of February.
Amherst Head.
At first sight, the presence of deep water close to the shore at Amherst Head suggests a work similar to Cape Tormentine. But Cape Tormentine is practicable because the northwest wdnd is a little off the land, while the pier is protected from north-west and northerly seas by Cape Jourimain reef


Peter Macdonald: I would call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Le-furgey) to the fact that I do not think what he is reading has any relevancy to the question now under discussion. I have been as patient as I could possibly be in the hope that the hon. gentleman would bring the reading of these reports to an end. but I am bound to say that I cannot see how these reports have any reference to the item of salaries and allowances in regard to the Post Office Department. They may come in more naturally under the next item which is that of the mail service.
5Ir. LEFURGEY. We are discussing item 239, and it is included in that item.


Peter Macdonald: No. we have selected the first item for consideration. This is the only item we have been speaking of for the last two hours and a half-



salaries and allowances. I think the hon. gentleman had better hold his papers over until the next item, that of mail service, is taken up.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Since we are on this subject now and as it is a very important one


Peter Macdonald: This afternoon I urged upon hon. members of the committee not to proceed in violation ot the rule when the chairman called their attention to it. I hope hon. members will remember that. I do not call the hon. member to order upon any particular point for the sake of doing so, but so as to keep the committee in order as far as possible so that we may accomplish some business and I hope, therefore, that when the rules are pointed out no hon. member will persist in going on in opposition to the ruling because there are so many opportunities in this House under the rules whereby everyone can express himself on any question upon which he desires to express his views.


Robert Laird Borden: This is all one resolution practically.


Peter Macdonald: We started out to consider the first item. When we take up the items each item has to be considered in its order, and checked off as it is passed, and the rule says that when an item is passed we cannot refer to it again. There may be a general discussion of the whole resolution, but when the items are taken up the rule is quite definite in saying that each item has to be discussed as a separate question and that when each item is passed no reference can be made to it again.


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly, this same kind of discussion has been going on for


Peter Macdonald: Two hours and a half.


Robert Laird Borden: An hour and it would have been best to have limited it in the first instance.


Peter Macdonald: I have been very patient for the last hour and a half. We are making no progress, and I think the committee will see the necessity of confining the discussion to the question under consideration so that we may make some progress. I am sure the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) will agree with me.


Robert Laird Borden: We are discussing an item now of which we had no notice last night; on the contrary the ' Hansard ' report shows that we were impliedly told it would not be on to-night. I have not heard any of the hon. gentlemen 'state that there was any other announcement than the one which is reported in ' Hansard.' On the contrary the hon. gentlemen around


Peter Macdonald: me assure me that the ' Hansard ' report is exactly correct with regard to the statement of the business coming up to-day. I regard it as an unfair proceeding to place such before the House, an item amounting to nearly $4,000,000, at half past eleven o'clock at night.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: So far as that is concerned it was announced last night that minor Bills would be taken and after that supply, and when it yvas asked what would be taken in supply and it was said Public Works, and I think the words were added that if we had time we would take up the post office estimates.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is not so reported, and I must disagree with the hon. gentleman in regard to my recollection of it. It was 1 who asked the hon. member for Hamilton to ascertain what business would be taken, and I listened attentively because it was my duty as Whip to know what the business would be. My recollection of it which is confirmed by other members is that we would have minor Bills and after that supply in the Public Works estimates.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: You can only state what you heard.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was sitting here, and I have good ears and as Whip I had a particular reason for wanting to know what the business would be.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not the slightest objection to the hon. gentleman saying he did not hear, but I certainly heard it and so did other hon. gentlemen.


Peter Macdonald: You may think me a little out of order, but I would suggest a compromise here. I would suggest that the first item be passed arid that the committee rise, and report progress.


Robert Laird Borden: All I have to say with regard to what has been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs is that I think we must feel that we must follow the record. If we depart from the record we simply have a controversy between different members of the House. Further than that, I will say that if the business of the House is announced in such a tone that members on this side of the House cannot hear it, then the announcement might as well not be made at all. I have called attention once or twice to the confusion when announcements were made, and In some cases the answer has had to be repeated. It is perfectly clear that no one on this side of the House has received the slightest information from anything said last night that the Post Office estimates would be taken up.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My recollection is as I stated before that I heard the announcement made, and therefore 1 do not like to have it repeated that it was not
595T

made. Of course it is possible I might be mistaken in my hearing, but bon. gentlemen around me corroborate what I heard.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If it was said, it was said so that it was not heard by members on this side of the House. It was not heard by the people who wanted to hear it, because the members on the other side of the House do not ask the question. It is the members on this side of the House who want to know, and it certainly was not heard by them. I sat on the front seat and having caused the question to be asked I listened attentively and I can say that it was not stated.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I was not present in the House last night, and therefore I only know what occurred from what has been stated here this evening. It was proposed to proceed to-night with these estimates and my colleague the Minister of Customs states that notice was given that these estimates would be taken up, or I, for one, would never have thought of proceeding with them. Until very lately it has never been the practice on the part of governments to go into details as to what estimates would be taken up. During my years in opposition I have never once heard the government of that day give the information to the opposition as to what particular estimates would be taken up. We have, as a matter of courtesy, and also to facilitate discussion, adopted the practice of giving Intimation as to the particular estimates that would be gone on with. The leader of the opposition, if I heard him aright, has made a statement which seems to me as rather overstating the case. I understood him to say that not only was it stated last night what estimates would be taken, but It was also stated that the Post Office estimates would not be taken.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman lias not quoted my words. I said that it having been stated that certain Bills and the Public Works estimates would be taken, it was by necessary implication understood on this side of the House that no other estimates would be taken and that therefore the Post Office estimates would not be taken. I want to be fair to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs. He told us this evening that a reference to the Post Office estimates had been made the previous evening. I find that he is quite right about that. It was mentioned on Monday night that they were likely to come up the next day. But that is a different thing from mentioning them last night.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: So far as I am concerned I have no desire to take this committee unawares respecting my estimates, and I am sure that no other minister nor no members who support the gov- ernment want to take the opposition by surprise. AVe have felt that the attitude of the opposition just now is hardly warranted 187A
by the circumstances or the courtesy that we have endeavoured to show to them, not only this session but on other occasions. We have endeavoured to be reasonable and to recognize their rights to the fullest extent. However, it is quite manifest tliat whatever be the justification for it, the opposition propose to continue discussing, whether relevant or otherwise for a considerable length of time. I suppose that if this protracts the session we can take the consequences the same as they can and we are prepared to do so. I wish, first of all in my remarks to have it made quite clear that the leader of the opposition was in error if he said that it was distinctly agreed that these estimates should not be taken up tonight. AVhatever ground there might be for taking up estimates which have not been formally announced there would be no justification for us taking up any business which we promised not to take up. However, the leader of the opposition desires it to be made clear that he only drew that inference from what took place. Since the difficulty has arisen, I beg to move the committee, rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want to be understood as admitting that we are taking any unusual course at all. A good deal of discussion has taken place from the other side of the House and particularly one matter that has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. McLennan) has not been answered by the Postmaster General. I do not wish to rest under the imputation of being lacking in courtesy to the Postmastet General or to any other member of the government. I think I endeavour on all occasions to treat them with courtesy, while of course, having firm convictions sometimes as to my own rights and the rights of the opposition. So far as matters of courtesy are concerned, I do not accept the suggestion of the Postmaster General that on any occasion we have been lacking in courtesy towards the members of the government or towards any gentleman on the other side of the House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The leader of the opposition has misunderstood me. I have not made any reflection upon the lack of courtesy on his part or on the part of his colleagues. I said that the government endeavoured to treat the opposition with courtesy and because they thought it was not fair that we should proceed. 1 said that since the hon. gentleman was under that impression, in order that he might have no foundation for even thinking that we treated him with discourtesy, I moved that the committee rise.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I misunderstood his remarks, and I take his remarks as lie now

interprets them in very good spirit indeed, and I accept them as such.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT - BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business does the government propose to take up Monday 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are several Bills remaining on the government Orders. We will endeavour to deal with these on Monday after Private Bills ; and if we are able to reach supply, I would like to take up the remainder of the supple-mentaries, to that, however, there is one qualification. I desire to mention an understanding which I have with the hon. the leader of the opposition with regard to the estimates of the coming year. We have entered on a new fiscal year, and it is very important that at an early day we should have a partial Supply Bill passed. The practice in such cases is to take a vote on account-that is to vote a small proportion of the estimates, reserving the balance for discussion. Therefore, I shall propose on Monday that we take a vote of one-fifth of the remaining estimates for the new year, reserving, of course, every item for discussion later on. I mentioned that to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and he was good enough to agree to the suggestion. That matter will be dealt with on Monday. The post office estimates will then be continued, and possibly the interior, if there be time.


Robert Laird Borden: Regarding the partial Supply Bill, there has been some conversation between my hon. friend and myself on that matter. There are precedents for the course he suggests ; and as it is in the interest of the public service that the public officers should be paid without the delay which would otherwise ensue, I think that the proposal is one which will meet with every support from this side.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 2.10 a.m., Saturday.
t
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 6, 1903.