1903-05-07

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 156) to incorporate the Montreal and Longueuil Bridge Company-Mr. Geof-frion.
Bill (No. 157) to incorporate the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson's Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 158) to incorporate the St. Chry-sostome Railway Company.-Mr. Brown.
Bill (No. 159) to incorporate the Canadian Yukon Western Railway Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Stewart River Development Company.-Mr. Davis.
Bill (No. 161) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of the Woolf Valve Gear Company-Mr. Talbot.
Bill (No. 162) respecting the Hamilton and Lake Erie Power Company, and to change its name to the Jordan Light, Heat and Power Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 163) respecting the United Empire Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Thompson (Haldimand).
Bill (No. 164) to incorporate the Pacific Bank of Canada.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 165) to incorporate the Algonquin Lumber and Power Company.-Mr. Gould.
Bill (No. 166) to incorporate the Gaspe and Western Railway Company-Mr. Gauv-reau.
Bill (No. 167) respecting the Montreal Bridge Company to change its name to the Montreal Bridge and Terminal Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 168) to incorporate the Chicoutimi and North-eastern Railway Company. -Mr. Beland.


Mr. SCOTT asked:: 1.	With respect to so much of the railway land grants as has been reserved for, earned by, and selected by each company to which such grants have been voted, what is the area remaining unpatented in each case, (a) in Manitoba, (b) in North-west Territories ?
2.	What is the date on which it is intended in each case that these lands shall be patented?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: The answer is as follows :
In Manitoba.
Area earned and
Name of Railway.	selected
and not patented. Acres.
Canadian Northern Railway	 253,698-53
The company is proceeding with the selection of its lands and has advised the department from time to time of parcels of land it is willing to accept if found to be available. Patents are being issued for the lands selected.
Manitoba South-western Colonization Railway, 313,402-82 acres.
Patents for the lands earned by this company up to 900,000 acres can only be issued on the order of the Manitoba government, under the provisions of an order of His Excellency in Council, dated April 5, 188G, that province having aided the construction of the railway by the issue of debentures to the extent of $900,000.
In the North-west Territories.
Area earned and
Name of Railway.	selected
and not patented.
Acres.
Alberta Railway and Coal Company	 22,048-42
The issue of patents for these lands is stayed at the request of the company for a short time pending readjustment as to a few hundred acres.
Calgary and Edmonton Railway, 304,288 90 acres.
The above area of selected lands, which is now in course of being patented, closes out the land grant of this company except an area of 407,402 acres held as security by the government under the transport contract between the government and the company, dated June 21, 1890.
Canadian Pacific Railway, main line, 3,044,635-53 acres.
These lands are in the Edmonton district and are unsurveyed. Contracts for the surveys are let. The lands will be patented as soon as surveyed.
Canadian Pacific Railway, Pipestone extension of Souris branch, 200,320-00 acres.
These lands are in a block of townships about thirty miles north of Battleford and are unsurveyed.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Manitoba South-western Colonization Railway, 680,189-28 acres.
Patents for the lands earned by this company up to 900,000 acres can only be issued as already stated.
Manitoba and North-western Railway, 354,000-00 acres.
A large proportion of the lands are unsurveyed. Survey is to be made this year. There remains only a small area to be selected by the company to complete the area earned, and patents to close out the grant, so far as surveyed, are in course of preparation.
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company, 169,434-00 acres.
These lands are partly unsurveyed but the contracts for the surveys are let. Patents are being issued for selected lands where surveyed.


SOUTHPORT AND MURRAY HARBOUR RAILWAY.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	Were tenders invited for building the railway between Southport and Murray Harbour, in the province of Prince Edward Island ?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received ; what were the names of the tenderers ; and amounts of their respective offers ?
3.	If tenders w-ere not invited for building the whole line, what part of the work -was let by public tender ; and what part by private contract ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: These questions were answered last session, but I repeat the information.
1.	and 2. No, tenders were not invited for the whole section from Southport to Murray harbour.
3.	Tenders were invited for the first section-Mutch's Point to Village Green, 11J miles. The second section extending from the 11J miles to the terminus was given to the contractor, who had the work of the first section, by extending his contract to cover the said section.


HILLSBOROUGH BRIDGE, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.
Mr. LEFURGEY asked :: 1.	What is the name of the contractor building the Hillsborough bridge, Prince Edward Island ?
2.	Were tenders invited for said work, and was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer ?
3.	What were the terms and conditions for carrying out said contract ?
4.	When is the contract to be completed ; and is the work being satisfactorily prosecuted ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) :: 1.	M. J. Haney.
2.	Yes, tenders were invited for this work, and the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer.

25S6
3.	The work is being carried out under the usual terms and conditions embodied in the form of contract adopted by the department.
4.	The date for the completion of the contract is December 31, 1903. Yes, the work is being satisfactorily prosecuted.


TELEPHONE COMPANIES IN THE MARITIME PROVINCES.
Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What telephone companies are operating in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island ?
2.	Who are the shareholders in the said companies ?
3.	What is the par value of the shares of the said companies, and what is their present market value ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: The government has received no official returns from the telephone companies referred to. These companies are organized under provincial charter and make no returns to us. We are not supplied with lists of their shareholders, nor do we know what their stock is selling at or anything of their business.



THE RAILWAY ACT, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways, was read the second time.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair) moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill.
Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Blair) to state whether he intends to refer this Bill to a special committee for the purpose of giving the railways interested an opportunity to state whether the Bill is acceptable to them or not, and to offer any suggestions they may desire to offer. I would also like to know whether he has received any representations from the different railway companies throughout the country or from boards of trade and others with reference to the scope and nature of the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 
Hon. DAVID TISDALE (South Norfolk).: I presume that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) would not object to my stating what the proceedings were in relation to the last consolidation of the railway law in 1888. Sir. Pope was then Minister of Railways, and, if I remember well, Sir John A. Slacdonald was acting Minister of Justice, or, possibly, it may have been Sir John Thompson. The Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Justice met at different times with the counsel of the railway companies; for, after all, while parliament controls all legislation, yet, there are none so largely interested in any proposed changes in railway laws as are the railway companies. A discussion, taken part in by the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Railways arid the representatives of the railway companies, would boil down, to use a common expression, all disputed points. As a matter of fact, the procedure followed in that case expedited the progress of the Bill very materially. This Bill is a great deal broader than that of 1888. That was simply a consolidation with certain amendments-quite numerous-and the introduction of the system of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. The changes in the present Bill are not only in regard to the establishment of the Railway Commission itself, but that commission is given powers far beyond anything for which we have a precedent in our legislation. So, it seems to me, it would relieve the House a great deal and ensure more rapid progress if the minister would follow out some such plan as a preliminary step. Of course the Bill would have to come again into the Committee of the whole House to be fully considered here. Not only did the procedure in 1888 lessen the labour of dealing with the Bill, but the minister was in a position to give ns information as to any objections which had been raised, and he was able to refer to the Minister of Justice where necessary. It is true that the Bill of 1888 was not referred to a special committee. But it is also true that since that time we have generally sent amendments of the railway law to the Railway Committee. The scope of the present Bill is so large that I would not, for my

part, suggest its being sent to tbe Railway Committee, but I would suggest, that it would be well to consider sending it to a special committee, particularly, if the minister found it was going to take too much of his individual time. A special committee ol' twenty or twenty-five members could best deal with legislation of this sort involving many details and matters of great importance. This Bill is not a consolidation. I find, on reading it that it is not like the Bill presented by the minister last session. That was a consolidation but this is a new law, and, above all, it introduces the system of a railway commission and gives that commission far more extensive powers than the Railway Committee of the Privy Council ever had. I venture to suggest that better progress would be made, if the minister would agree that, in view of the importance of hearing railway authorities on the subject, this Bill should be sent to a special committee to be threshed out there. This would have the effect of lessening the labours of the Committee of the Whole. It was found in the case of the Criminal Code and of some other matters, that the work of a special committee greatly lessened the labours of the House, and when the Bill came into Committee of the Whole, it was found that the work had been much shortened by the labours of the special committee, assisted by the ministers, and reduced the time that the House found it necessary to give to the consideration of the Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I may be allowed to make a remark in answer to my hon. friend. I suggested in my previous remarks that I had invited from the railway people a full expression of their views, and wished them to criticise the Bill in the amplest manner. I have not the slightest desire that this legislation, though I am promoting it, should be adopted if, upon full consideration, it is found that any of its features are not well calculated to further the object which we have in view ; that is, while not injuring the railway interests of the country, to promote the interests of the country as a whole. I have asked the railway people to put their views before me in writing, and if they have not done so it has been through no fault of mine. They have no doubt good reasons for having failed to do so. I understand that Mr. Hays has been absent, and the other gentlemen who are associated with him did not wish to take action until his return. We have hesitated in proceeding with this Bill for that reason, and for that reason alone. I am anxious to make progress with the Bill, and it is important that the session should not be delayed and made to drag along from this cause. There are many members of this House who are interested in special features of the Bill, and in respect to which they desire that some legislation should take place this session ; and I have promised Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
them in the Railway Committee, where these subjects have come up, that this Bill would be put through, and that it was the intention of the government to press it upon parliament. We have been delayed in doing so because we were waiting to hear from the gentlemen of whom I have spoken. I think it would be an advantage if we were to proceed with the Committee stage and dispose, at all events, of many features of the Bill, which I think are entirely noncontentious, about which there will be no difference of opinion. I think it is important to do this for the further reason, that the Bill is not entirely a transcript of the existing laws, nor was the Bill introduced last year a mere transcript of previous laws. It is a revision of the existing railway Acts, as was the Bill last year, and I think it does not differ in many material respects from the Bill introduced last year, except that we hope to perfect it in its phraseology and in its form. I think it is much improved in that regard. Now if the House is prepared to adopt that course and take up the sections one by one, I am sure it will be an advantage ; and even though we may come across some features of the Bill about which there may be a difference of opinion, I think it would be an advantage if we were to have the views of the members of the House upon those points. The discussion could not be otherwise than helpful, and I am sure time would not be lost. Any feature of the Bill about which a difference of opinion might develop, and which might specially interest the railway people, we would defer for further consideration.


John Graham Haggart: We know that the railways are greatly interested in this Bill. To my knowledge, I think all the managers of railways have formed themselves into a committee for the purpose of considering the provisions of this Bill, and the Committee have had it under serious consideration ever since it was introduced into this House, along with the legal talent of the different railways who have been suggesting amendments to it. I believe they have prepared a report. It may be the fault of Mr. Hays


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The report has not yet been prepared, at least the railway people have not yet matured their report.


John Graham Haggart: I do not know whether they have or not, but I am sure they have prepared the report.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am giving the hon. gentleman Mr. Hays' statement.


John Graham Haggart: I cannot say that I have under my hand tire printed report.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. gentleman appears to be better informed than I am.


John Graham Haggart: The minister may not know about the report; but it would assist the Committee and assist tbe minister in tbe consideration of this matter if tlie report containing tbe objections of tbe railway people were in tbe bands of tbe House before we proceed to consider the Bill. Tbe bon. gentleman may or may not have seen tbe report.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I assure the hon. gentleman I have not.


John Graham Haggart: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, and take it for granted that be has not seen the report, but others than the minister are really in possession of tbe report. The fact that tbe minister lias not seen the report does not prevent others from having seen it. Perhaps it would be better to wait for that report before we proceed with tbe consideration of the Bill.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: The two parties who are interested in this Bill are tbe railways and tbe public. It was reported two or three weeks ago in tbe press that the railways would make very important representations to the government in regard to tbe terms of this Act. They have since been working on it, I am informed. I am also informed that certain bodies representing the general public have been corresponding with the Minister of Railways, telling him that they desire to be heard in respect to this Bill. They have noticed in the press reports that the railways intend to ask for amendments, and they have been waiting until the government were in possession of these amendments before they came themselves to interview the government. I understand that tbe Toronto Board of Trade are in that position. They have been making representations to the Minister of Railways, and desiring to be heard after the railways have made their representations. If the Minister of Railways sees fit to adopt these amendments which the railway people produce, then the board of trade desire to be heard in regard to these amendments. But they do not want to make two trips here for that purpose. Perhaps the .Minister of Railways may have representations from other bodies representing the general public, as we know that the public are a good deal interested in this Bill. I would urge the minister of Railwavs to postpone the second reading of this Bill until he has the representations of the railways, and until he hears the organizations representing the public, neither of which bodies have yet been heard by him. It seems to me that it would be a waste of time to go on and read this Bill a second time, and consider it clause by clause, until we have heard more from the parties interested. I hope the hon. minister will give these organizations which desire it an opportunity to be heard.


Tlie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Mr. Speaker, I may say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp), that I was communicated with by the Toronto Board of Trade and I am not sure but that there may have been one or two other associations, perhaps the Manufacturers Association, and perhaps some other associations which, also communicated with me ; but I know the Toronto Board of Trade has done so and I stated to them what had transpired. I very frankly stated to them that I had asked the railway people to present to me, if they could, a statement of their criticisms upon the Bill, and when I received that I said that I would put them in possession of it Then, I thought would be the proper time for them, if they wished to formulate any views, to do so. I have not received that information from the railway companies. It is apparent that these gentlemen have been communicating in the wrong direction. Instead of communicating with the Minister of Railways and Canals, they should have communicated with the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals because the ex-minister has been taken into the confidence of these gentlemen to a much larger degree that the present minister has been favoured. Therefore, I have not been able to carry out my undertaking with them. If I have failed I have not failed for any other reason than for that stated. I still adhere to the view that nothing would be lost and that everything would be gained by proceeding into Committee on this Bill.
I know very well the clauses of the Bill that will invoke the most criticism and I am sure the House will accept my statement and that when in committee the committee will accept the statement I make, that I will not press any of the clauses which I have reason to believe are likely to be contested in the interests of the railway companies or anybody else; but that I will be willing to afford them every opportunity of being heard.
Mr, KEMP. I do not think the hon. minister's mind is sufficiently ingenious to imagine what the Toronto Board of Trade have in their minds in regard to this Bill. I have been informed that they have a great many amendments to suggest and I think we would only lose time by proceeding with the Bill.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mix Blair) to another difficulty in discussing this measure ; that is, if the hon. minister proposes to go on with the clauses relating to tbe commission. Personally, I am in favour of the principle of a commission, but I doubt whether I can vote for the clauses as they stand until I know how far the clauses will extend ; that Is to say, whether they are to be binding upon all the railwavs of this Dominion, or only a few of them. Strongly as I feel there would be

an advantage even to the railways themselves from the appointment of such a commission as this, I feel also that the effect of the Bill would be mischievous if one or more of the large companies were exempted from its operations while others were bound by them. We all know that the Canadian Pacific Railway, at least, claims to be in such a position under its special Acts that you cannot do with it what you propose to do under this commission. I think it would be a grave injustice that one company should be made subject to this commission and to the decrees of the commissioners, while the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other company should be absolutely free. I think that must be a proposition which no hon. gentleman in this House can dispute. We cannot very well, in the absence of the representatives of the Canadian Pacific Railway and other companies, decide here for ourselves which company is bound, and which is not bound by the provisions of the Bill as it stands. The only way, it seems to me, in which we can deal with that question, is the way which has been suggested ; that is, to appoint a committee to hear the contentions of the several railways as to whether they are possessed of parliamentary powers which prevent this Bill being applied to them. We may spend hours ancl hours and daj^s and days in going over the various provisions of this Bill and ultimately find all our work useless simply because we have no power to deal with some particular railway company whose freedom from control would make the Bill of very little use. I do not want to refer here at length to the question of the government railways. The hon. minister has said that he exempts the government railways from the operation of the Bill. I think that is wrong. I do not agree with him in that, but I am dealing now, simply with the question of other railways which cannot appear in this House and state the objections they may have to what is proposed against them here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section two, paragraph (m)-
Mr. LANCASTER.: I would ask the minister why he limits the authority, of the judges under this Bill to judges of the Superior Court. The judges of the High Court which is the Superior Court in Ontario, are located in Toronto when not on circuit, and as a great many things may arise under this Bill which would require immediate attention, I would suggest that the County Court judges who are perfectly competent to act should be clothed with powers under the Bill, it would save a great deal of expense and would greatly facilitate the operation of the law if the County Court judges were given jurisdiction.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Since the Railway Act was Mr. BARKER.
passed it has been the law that the Superior Court judges should have jurisdiction, and I would be inclined to adhere to the existing law unless very strong reasons were given for the change. The judges have not manv duties to perform under this Act. One duty of theirs, which occurs to my mind, is, that they have jurisdiction in connection with the expropriation of land, and I personally would not think it desirable that we should change the law in that regard. Then again, when rules are made by the commission, in order that they may become rules of court, application has to be made to a judge of the Superior Court, and I can see no reason at present why that should be changed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The procedure in expropriating land is, that the railroad gives notice to the land owner, and in that notice the company appoints an arbitrator, and they ask the land owner to appoint another arbitrator, then those two have to agree on a third one, but if they cannot agree, application has to be made to a judge of the High Court at Toronto. Suppose the land is in the county of Lincoln, which I have the honour to represent, could, not the judge of the County Court there pick out an arbitrator a good deal better than a judge sitting in Toronto ? The judge in Toronto has to rely on affidavits and he generally appoints a judge of the County Court, but if the judge of the County Court himself has the appointing power he could appoint the judge of another county court, or he could appoint any one he thinks fit. The application could be made to the county judge at home and it would save a great deal of expense and trouble. I think the legal gentlemen from Ontario on both sides of the House will agree with me that better and cheaper results would be obtained by giving the County Court judges power to deal with the expropriation of land. In Ontario we have railways incorporated by the province, and in relation to every one of these the County Court judges have to do with the expropriation proceedings and not the Superior or High Court, and practical experience has taught us that it works very satisfactorily. There has not been the slightest complaint against the manner in which the County Court judges have discharged these duties. As to making an order of the Railway Commission a rule of court, I would remind the minister that in the province of Ontario the County Court judges are local judges of the High Court, and every day of their lives they are making just such orders In regard to other equally, or more, important matters as they would be called upon to make under this Act. There are only ten judges of the High Court in the whole province of Ontario who have original jurisdiction. I firmly believe that it would be a great improvement in the Bill if we conferred this power on the County Court judges concurrently with the judges of the Superior Court if you like.


David Tisdale: The matter brought to the attention of the House by the member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) is well worthy of consideration. The hon. gentleman is much more conversant with the later rules of procedure than I am, and he no doubt knows from practical experience whereof he speaks. The old principle of the Railway Act, as the minister truly says, was adopted a long time ago, and things have changed since then. While I would not, without further consideration be prepared to confer this power on the County Court judges, yet I think the minister should seriously consider the suggestion. The difference between the High Court judges and the County Court judges was more accentuated in times past than it is at present. The judges of the County Courts are now judges of the Superior Court in local matters, and this jurisdiction has been conferred on them for the very purpose of saving litigants the expense and inconvenience of going long distances from home when they are interested in litigation. From my experience, I would be as well satisfied to have the County Court judges appoint arbitrators as the Superior Court judges. They would be not only much cheaper but more quickly got at, which are advantages not only to the localities but to the railways themselves. There might be a number of other cases in which a County Court judge might very well be substituted for a Superior Court judge in Ontario. I would not be prepared to say that I would make this substitution in all cases. I think-the suggestion of the hon. member for Lincoln is well worthy of consideration.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The clause must stand for further consideration. The argument which the hon. member has presented on the score of reduction in the expense of expropriation proceedings is one that occurred to my mind.


Mr. RUSSELL.: It seems to me the question raised by the hon. member for Lincoln does not properly come up for discussion now. This clause simply says that judge shall mean a judge of the Superior Court where the context does not otherwise indicate. If it is desired to give jurisdiction to a County Court judge or a District Court judge, that will have to be specially provided for and will not interfere with this definition. I doubt very much if these definitions are of any real utility, because I cannot conceive of any case in which the statute itself should not say which court or which judge should have jurisdiction. But in any case there can be no difficulty in letting this definition stand.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 2, subsection t,


David Tisdale: What object is there in leaving out the word ' map ' ? In some 82
cases, if the words, map or plan are not used, there may be an uncertainty in the sense, because I understand that the two words have been held to have different meanings.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When the clause says that the word plan means the ground plan, it means all that it is required to mean, and all that the word map means. You could not make any more or any less of it than a ground plan.


David Tisdale: Unless the minister has some reason for considering the old language defective, I think it would be wise to stick to it, because there have been decisions based on different meanings for the two words.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: What difference would the hon. gentleman suggest there could be between a map of the land proposed to be taken and a plan of the land proposed to be taken ?


Mr. CASGRAIN.: It seems to me that the word map means much more than the word plan. The word map includes the land, its ridges, rivers, streams, &c., whereas a plan may simply be an indication of the running of the line over the land. This is probably the reason why both words are used in the old Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If you refer to section 122, you will find that it defines just what the plan must disclose.


David Tisdale: But the old law used the words map or plan even in that section. If you take, section 123 which is the same as section 122 in the new Act, you will find that the expression is ' map or plan.' The minister rightly asked me to point out a distinction. Well, one can put on a map more than on a plan. It may be a good thing that more should appear than on the plan, but if you have more, it would not be the plan. There may be topographical information which would be very important, but in the interpretation the court would infer that, as we had changed the wording from that of the old Act the change was intentional on our part, and they might rule that because more was put on it than was necessary for a ' plan ' and that the Act was not complied with. I agree with my hon. and learned friend (Mr. Casgrain) that the word ' map ' is a larger expression than the word ' plan.' And we must remember that we are dealing with technical construction.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I understand my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) to press the view that if the plan were to show more than would be required, it would be ruled that this was a defect in the plan.


David Tisdale: They might do so, as we are changing the law.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can hardly imagine that such would be the case. The Act provides that if there is a deficiency in the information on the plan, the minister may require additional information to be shown.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I agree that if section 122 stood alone this would be a definition of the word ' plan ' and would include 1 map.' But there may be other sections in which the word 1 plan ' only is used, and it seemed to me, therefore, the wider term should be used in the interpretation clause, subject, of course, to any other section where It is necessary that the word ' map ' alone should be used.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The point seems to me of no great importance, and if hon. gentlemen desire to put this in, we will not object.


David Tisdale: What do hon. gentlemen who have had experience as counsel for the railways say on the subject ? The words in the old law have stood for a great many years, and I do not see any reason why in this Bill the two terms ' map ' and 1 plan ' should not be used. I think that, unless there is some distinction, you will find that in every case they are used as corelative terms. In the case of the word ' judge,' my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) showed that, owing to the extension of the duties of the County Court judges, there was a reason for changing the wording. But in this case it is simply the cutting out of one word.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: But we indicate in the Act in explicit terms just what information we want, and, if that is supplied, it does not matter what we call it. And, if the word ' map ' means more than the word ' plan,' why should the meaning of it be circumscribed ? What you want is, before the land is expropriated, that it shall be clearly shown what the boundaries and other facts are. It seems to me it makes no difference whether you call it one name or whether you call, it another.


David Tisdale: I may be unduly adhering to the idea of no change, but I think I can see something more than is in it. A map may cover all that a plan covers and more.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If it covers more than we require, we do not want it.


David Tisdale: But there might be cases where you would be quite willing to accept it. I agree that this section 122, though longer than section 123 of the old Act, is an improvement. I believe that all these clauses should be terse, but I agree that certain additional requisites have been included in this section and that the section has been improved thereby. But I can-Hon. Mr. TISDALE.
not see any reason for cutting out a very significant word, particularly as it has been there so long.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let me call the hon. gentleman's attention to the old Act, upon which he rests so much, and which he thinks must be adopted if we are to avoid danger of misapprehension :
The expression ' map ' or ' plan ' means-
What ?
-a ground plan of the property taken or intended to be taken.
' Map or plan ' means a plan. Then, what is the use of adding 'map ' ? How is there any possibility of misapprehension about it ?


David Tisdale: In this way-as I understand the interpretation clause-wliere-ever it is used it means a plan. There is a distinction between a map and a plan, but in the interpretation clause we can make them mean the same thing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Why should we ?


David Tisdale: Because the interpretation clause will make anj article what it is therein termed' no matter what it might otherwise be. Whether it be a map or a plan, you make It a plan.
On section 2, subsection U :
The expression ' railway ' means any railway which the company has authority to construct or operate, and includes all branches, sidings, stations, depots, wharfs, rolling stock, equipment, stores, property real or personal and works connected therewith, and also any railway bridge, tunnel, or other structure which the company is authorized to construct.


Albert Edward Kemp: I would like to inquire why express companies have been| omitted from the operation of this Bill ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have not come to that yet.


Albert Edward Kemp: I should have brought this point up under subsection C, which defines the meaning of the expression 1 company,' but that subsection was put through rather hurriedly.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman wants to raise, any point regarding express companies, he must do so in some other connections than this, because so far we have not dealt with any provision excluding express companies. We have not passed any clause declaring that express companies are excluded from the operation of this Bill, and have not changed the law in that respect.


Albert Edward Kemp: When subsection C was under discussion, I did not notice that the expression ' company ' was confined to railway companies, or I would have asked that it should also include ' express companies.'


Tlie MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Why ' express companies ' ?


Albert Edward Kemp: Because they are closely allied to railway companies, and this Bill should control express companies as well as railway companies.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. It would never do to say that all the provisions we are making in this Bill with regard to railway companies should apply to express companies. If the hon. gentleman wants a certain control exercised over express companies by the Railway Commission, it will be open to him to ask the committee to adopt some provisions with regard to that subject.


Albert Edward Kemp: But should not that come properly under paragraph C, wjiich defines what the expression ' company ' means ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Paragraph C provides that whenever the word ' company ' is used alone, it means a railway company, and that is in the law as it stands to-day. If you want to make any enactment with regard to express companies, it is quite open to you to do so, but such enactment would not be germane to the subject we are now discussing.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is there any other place in the Act where I can bring this point to the attention of the committee ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The present law provided that express companies should be given every facility, and that no discrimination should be exercised regarding them by the railways. We are not changing that.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Does the hon. minister Intend to take jurisdiction over the rates of express companies ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I hope the hon. gentleman will not bring that question up now.


William Findlay Maclean: I am reserving the right to bring it up later on and am simply asking the hon. minister whether he has taken such jurisdiction.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When we come to that phase of the Bill, we will discuss that point.


William Findlay Maclean: When we come to that phase of the Bill, we will find no provisions for express companies and may overlook the matter.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend is not likely to forget. Do not let us be drawn into a discussion as to whether the Bill should include express companies when we are dealing simply with explanatory clauses.


John Graham Haggart: This clause is different from the old Act. The present law 82$
says :	* Which any company is authorized
to construct under a special Act.' You make it read :	* Which the company is
authorized to construct.' You leave out the words ' under a special Act,' and change the word ' any ' to ' the.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I can well understand why we should not put in any reference to a special Act. It makes no difference whether the Act is special or general, under which a company is authorized to construct.. What particular service would there be in adding these words ' under any special Act ' ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not know why they are in the present law or what effect they had, but I am asking simply why they were left out.


Samuel Barker: I think I understand the reason. They are properly left out. Branch railways of six miles are now constructed under the general Act, and it is necessary that this clause should cover these as well as those constructed under a special Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It covers all.


Samuel Barker: I am arguing in favour of the section. I say that the reason is, the word ' railway ' must apply to other railways than those constructed under special Acts, because every railway branch of six miles comes under the general Act.


John Graham Haggart: No, it does not. The company gets power under a special Act to construct additions to the road, and the provisions of the general Act are made to apply to this special Act. I do not know that it makes any difference, but I could not understand why these words1 were left out.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If they have power to construct a railway, it does not matter whether that power is given in a general or a special Act.
On section 2, subsection Y :
The expression ' rolling stock ' means and includes any locomotive, engine, motor car, tender, snow plough, fianger, and every description of car or of railway equipment designed for movement, on its wheels, over or upon the rails or tracks of the company.


David Tisdale: That is an entirely new clause and requires particular care. It may have a financial effect. There are many decisions as to what constitutes rolling stock, because rolling stock is often held under lien and may be liable for the payment of bonds. Why should it be necessary to make this definition at all ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It has been found in actual experience, and in conferring powers upon the Railway Commission with respect to furnishing this description of rolling stock

or that description of rolling stock, tliat tlie provision contained in this clause was desirable.	'


David Tisdale: Has the minister considered what might be the financial effect of it ? I think the Minister of Justice will agree with me that when we make a definition of the words ' rolling stock,' nothing else can he included. The words ' rolling stock ' has been defined by a long series of decisions, just like the words ' working expenses,' which we have never changed, and millions of dollars depend upon the meaning of the phrases ' working expenses ' and ' rolling stock.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This clause will have no retroactive effect, it only applies to what may be ordered hereafter. If there has been any contract in which the words ' rolling stock ' are used, that contract would not be affected by this Act.	[DOT]


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am afraid this clause goes a little further than the minister intends. sWe are now discussing clause (v.), which is a part of section 2 of the Bill, and the very first words of this section nre :
In this Act, and in the special Act incorporating any railway company to which this Act or any part thereof applies, unless the context otherwise requires

The context might- mean a good deal more than this Act provides for. We must read clause (v.) in the light of the first words of section 2. As my bon. friend from Norfolk (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) says, these special Acts are passed every day, and it might be the context of a special Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understand the bon. member for Norfolk to say that it is dangerous to introduce this change because it may affect existing contracts. I do not think it is possible it can affect any existing contract. That is my opinion, expressed off-hand.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: According to the views expressed by my hon. friend from Norfolk, that word ' rolling stock ' has attained a meaning through a long series of decisions. Assuming that he is right, then certainly you might possibly change the meaning of a contract by this legislation. The Minister of Justice will see that it would be possible. For example, if the words ' rolling stock,' as used in this Bill, had a particular meaning assigned to it by a series of decisions, then it would bear that meaning in the contract. You have the meaning of the words ' rolling stock ' ascertained by judicial decisions. A contract has been made reciting the provisions of the special Act, reciting the provisions enabling rolling stock to be charged, and you have this Act affecting the meaning of the words used in the special Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My hon. friend suggests that possibly, if a contract Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
had been passed previous to this Act coming into force, the meaning of the words ' rolling stock ' in it, might be affected by this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I would not go that far. There might be a good deal of force in the observations of the Minister of Justice with regard to that, but you do not need to go that far. You might take a case where arrangements have been made for drawing up a deed. Negotiations have been going on, you draw up the deed, and it would have possibly the meaning assigned to it by this statute.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If hon. members will reflect upon the nature of the questions likely to arise, their minds will be set at ease. If you turn to, the old Act, subsection (x.) of the corresponding section, you will find the question of rolling stock comes up in this way :
The expression ' working expenses ' means and includes all expenses of maintenance of the railway, of the stations, buildings and works belonging thereto, and of the rolling and other stock, and movable plant used in the working thereof.
The term ' rolling stock,' I think, is never used in any special Act. according to my recollection. There is no possibility of any misapprehension arising as to the interpretation and meaning of it, if I am correct in what I say, and I think the recollection of every hon. gentleman will coincide with my own. The object of the incorporation . of this clause in the Bill is more particularly to define for the purpose of this Act and of the administration of a railway commission under it, what is the meaning of ' rolling stock ' rather than leave it to uncertainty. I do not know of any legal interpretation that has been given by a court in any case of the word ' rolling stock,' but we have proposed that this commission may require that a certain kind of rolling stock shall be provided for a certain purpose and they may indicate just what shall constitute that rolling stock. They shall say whether there shall be a snow plough or a flanger as part of the rolling stock, or whether it shall consist of any other of these particular descriptions of cars which are mentioned in paragraph (v.) It is only in the matter of administration that there might be any serious question arising at all.


John Graham Haggart: The argument of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is, that any railway can come under the special provisions of this Bill and can get its charter under the Act. Is there any provision of that kind in the Bill ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These railway companies would come under the control of this commission.


John Graham Haggart: Not under the control but the provisions as to the charter
would apply to them.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, the provisions would apply.


John Graham Haggart: They would come under the special provisions of this Bill just as if they had received their charter under it and the argument of the hon. minister is that if they came under this Bill the terms of this Bill would apply to them as to rolling stock and as to the railway equipment just as if the charter had been issued under this Act and this might effect their bonds.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It cannot effect any existing contract at all. It does not apply to any existing contract. How could it affect any existing contract by any possibility ?


John Graham Haggart: That is just the question.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If so you could never change the law at all.


John Graham Haggart: My argument is this :	Here is a railway, say, the Pontiac
and Pacific Junction Company, which has received a special charter. It chooses, instead of continuing under its special charter, to come under the provisions of this Bill and all its provisions in reference to railways will apply to that company and all the other special provisions of its charter are annulled. It is just in the same position as if it had received its entity under this Bill.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, there is nothing annulled. This Bill recognizes that any special privileges or provisions or powers which have been conferred upon a railway company by any special Act are not taken away. They continue. This is a general railway Bill which applies to all railways, except where, under a special Act there has been an exception from some inconsistent provision named or power conferred. The General Interpretation Act says :
The repeal of an Act, or the revocation of a regulation, at any time, shall not affect any Act done or any right or right of action existing, accruing, accrued or established, or any proceedings commenced in a civil cause, before the time when such repeal or revocation takes effect ; but the proceedings in such case shall be conformable when necessary, to the repealing Act or regulation.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the General Interpretation Act ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes. We could not change the law at all for any purpose without damaging anybody unless we could do it in this way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have a special interpretation clause in this Bill and one in the General Interpretation Act, and I would like to ask the hon. minister whether these
do not more or less conflict. The hon. minister has quoted the General Interpretation Act.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That gives the effect of the repeal of a law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would it not be better to put in the very words he has mentioned and to say that this Bill shall not apply except in such and such cases ? He says it would not apply to those companies that are operating under their special Acts. Would it not read better if that particular exception were put into the clause that we are now passing V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We would have to put it into every clause in the Bill. Unless the context of any Act incorporating a railway company, or any special Act, requires otherwise, then, these general provisions apply. What more could you possibly ask ?
On section 2, paragraph (aa)-


John Graham Haggart: You extend this to passengers as well as to freight ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I want to make a change. I beg to move that we insert in place of ' the expression ' ' to charge,' the verb ' to charge.' My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) asked me whether we include passenger rates as well as freight rates. Certainly. We have shortened the expression. You will find the word ' tolls ' as it is defined.
Paragraph (bb) reads :
The expression ' traffic ' means and includes passengers and all goods conveyed by railways and also all rolling stock.
I propose to strike out the word 1 expression ' and insert ' verb.'


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend the minister think it a desirable amendment. I should think ' the word ' would be much better, because later on you would have to say ' the definite article ' ' the noun ' and so on.


Benjamin Russell: I do not see any objection to the word which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) thinks so ridiculous. I do not see why he should not say the verb * charge ' should mean such a thing.


Robert Laird Borden: I never saw any drafting just of that kind. It may make it more definite but it is rather unusual.


David Tisdale: In the old law the expression 'toll' or 'rate' was made to apply to passengers, but in this section you leave out the word ' passengers.'


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: You will find in section (bb) that the expression ' traffic ' includes passengers.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You want us to play hunt the slipper through the Act to find out what it means.


Robert Laird Borden: If you insert the word ' verb ' here you will hare to say in (bb) ' the noun traffic ' because the word ' traffic ' is used as a noun and also as a verb, and in (cc) you will have to use the expression ' the noun train.' I never saw an expression like that in an Act before.


Benjamin Russell: I am quite sure I have seen it, but I do not remember where.


Robert Laird Borden: It is very unusual. I should think the clause as it is at present is perfectly plain.


David Tisdale: If I were to look hurriedly at this Act to find out what ' toll ' means I would say that it did not include ' passengers.' You would never think of looking under the word ' traffic ' to find out what ' toll ' means.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: These definitions take these forms in the present Bill, because they are precisely a transcript from the English Act.


David Tisdale: Very well then.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. gentleman thinks it important, I have no objection to insert the word ' passengers.'


William Findlay Maclean: It is clearer the way it is now, and we are following the English practice.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose we can do almost anything by Act of parliament, but is it not stretching our powers by saying : that traffic means and includes passengers and all goods conveyed by railway and also the rolling stock.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The old definition is worse.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The old definition says that traffic means animals, cars trucks and vehicles, and it is a wonder my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has not had many a hearty laugh over this clause in times past. I think this present definition is a great improvement on the old one, and I propose to improve it still further by eliminating some unnecessary words so as to make it read :
The expression * traffic ' means and includes passengers, goods and rolling stock.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
On section 2, subsection ee,


David Tisdale: That is new ; what does it mean ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it is nil right.


Robert Laird Borden: In the first place, what is the use of saying that undue pre-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
ference means and includes an undue preference ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The operative section in the Act is section 253. It is an important clause, and I think it is pretty comprehensive.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It seems to me the expression undue preference is defined in that section. If that is the only section relating to it, I do not see why you need this definition here.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The expression undue preference is used in other parts of the Act. This clause may perhaps not be really necessary, but I do not think it is harmful.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Does the minister not think it might limit the meaning of the expression, and take away from the court the discretion which they should exercise ? They would have to refer to this clause to find what undue preference meant, and they could not go beyond that.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is covered by section 253, why not limit it to that section ? At any rate, I cannot see any reason for saying that undue preference shall mean undue preference.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The courts have placed a distinct and precise meaning upon these words. What was aimed at here was that undue preference should be included, so that whatever meaning might be attached to those words should not be in the slightest degree circumscribed, but that if there was any additional expansion of the idea possible, it should be included. I do not attach very much importance to the clause.


David Tisdale: It is a new clause, and section 253 is very full.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I will strike it out.
Subsection struck out.
On section 2, subsection ff :
The expression * working expenditure ' means and includes all expenses of maintenance of the railway, and all such tolls, rents, or annual sums as are paid in respect of property leased to or held by the company, apart from the rent of any leased line, or in respect of the hire of rolling stock let to the company ; also all rent charges or interest on the purchase money of lands belonging to the company, purchased but not paid for, or not fully paid for ; and also all expenses of or incidental to working the railway, and the traffic thereon, including all necessary repairs and supplies to rolling stock while on the lines of another company ; also rates, taxes, insurance and compensation for accidents or losses ; also, all salaries and wages of persons employed in ani about the working of the railway and traffic ; and all office and management expenses, including directors fees, agency, legal and other like expenses ; also all costs and expenses of and incidental to the compliance by the company with any order of the board under this Act ;

and generally all such charges, If any, not above otherwise specified, as in all cases of English railway companies are usually carried to the debit of revenue as distinguished from capital account.


David Tisdale: I see that in this clause it is provided that working expenditure shall include ' all necessary repairs and supplies to roiling stock while on the lines of another company.' But supposing they are on the lines of the company itself ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are included in the general definition of a railway. Rolling stock is included in the general definition of a railway, which is found in subsection U.


David Tisdale: This section covers ' also all costs and expenses of and incidental to the compliance by the company with any order of the board under this Act.' This board can do almost anything, and under this clause the company might have to assume a large financial responsibility and give that a preference over the securities of the company.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Suppose a company was in the hands of a receiver, and some question arose as to whether or not the receiver would be entitled to take out of the earnings of the company what might be necessary to comply with any order of the railway board, it is clear he could do that under this Bill. But in the absence of any such provision, the receiver might hold that lie had no right to appropriate that money but that it should go to the bondholders, or even though the expense was ordered by the railway commission. If the railway commission ordered something to be done in the interests of the public, the expense of doing that should be paid as proper working expenses.


David Tisdale: I have not had an opportunity of giving the requisite consideration to the Bill to know what the board could or could not order. It would require a great deal of consideration to know that. Tlie point I am making is that the powers given the board are so broad that they might impose a pecuniary obligation on the company and give that a preference over the bondholders.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Then curtail the powers of the commission when you come to that.


David Tisdale: Suppose there was a question of damages. The board have considerable authority even in fixing damages. Would it be right to give into the hands of this board, from whose decisions there is no appeal, the power to say that any order they may make for the payment of 'money shall become a preference over the bondholders without their consent ?
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. I do not think that my hon.
friend correctly comprehends the meaning of this clause : ' and also all costs and expenses of and incidental to the compliance by the company with any order 'of the board under this Act.' That would not cover the case of damages such as the hon. gentleman refers to. This simply means that if any costs are incurred in any proceeding by reason of any order of the board-for instance, suppose the board should require an investigation into some matter or should require some returns or statistics which would entail some' expense -it would be proper that the costs should be paid out of working expenses.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the term ' working expenses ' is used in contradistinction to capital expenditure. Will it be possible for the board to make an order upon a railway company which would involve what would properly be capital expenditure 1 May not confusion arise from this definition ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Suppose the railway commission were satisfied that certain appliances ought to be put on a train, a compliance with that order might involve the necessity of capital expenditure by the company. The company might not be able to meet that expenditure out of ordinary revenue. But I think that I am correct in saying that this section could only be interpreted as having reference to the case of a defunct railway, which has gone into the hands of a receiver and in which the question might arise as to what are working expenses and as to what is capital expenditure. This question does arise, and it was deemed advisable that we should provide for it in this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, these elaborate interpretation clauses sometimes lead to curious results. For instance, there is the expression ' working of the railway and the traffic thereon.' Now the word ' traffic ' includes passengers. This would mean then, working the passengers as well as the railway.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It does not follow, because 'traffic' includes passengers that it must always be passengers.


David Tisdale: If I understand the minister aright he is doubtful whether under the present law regarding working expenses the board would have the right to take costs and expenses out of that fund. Under this section working expenses includes * all costs and expenses of and incidental to the compliance, by the company with any order of the board under this Act. This would not mean any pecuniary


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


David Tisdale: Or anything that the court might order them to pay't


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No.


David Tisdale: Only their costs and expenses incidental to such cases, but not damages.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No, I do not think so.


David Tisdale: The end of subsection 2 is absolutely new. Would the hon. gentleman say what the object is ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I confess that I am a little at sea to understand it. The subsection says :
The provisions of this section shall apply to the construction thereof, and, to the words and expressions used therein.


David Tisdale: That is to say you read the sections together and use one to interpret another ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is it not the general rule in the interpretation of statutes ? I think it is.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not know.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I have always heard that rule expressed by the court wherever a statute was to be interpreted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: It may possibly be.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not unusual. You will find it in the General Interpretation Act.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall section 1 as amended be adopted ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Carried.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, it may be necessary to come back to this at some future time.


John Graham Haggart: Better leave it open.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No; if any lion, gentleman desires to reopen it, I will raise no objection.


Robert Laird Borden: In this subsection (gg) appears the words :
And the expressions ' clerk of the peace ' and sheriff' respectively include the like persons as in other cases.
What is the meaning of that ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This is based upon 51 Vic., Chapter 29, section 2, where these words appear. I must confess I do not quite see the object of them. But I apprehend they must mean something, and it did not look to me as if it would be harmful to leave the words there.


Robert Laird Borden: i am not suggesting that it is harmful, but I do not quite see what it means.
Hon. Mr. BLAIP,
On section 3,


David Tisdale: I would suggest to the hon. minister that he should allow the sections under this heading, ' application of Act' to stand. This is really a most important division and the matter dealt with, I submit is one that he should discuss with the railway people. The next division deals with tile Railway Commission. That is a section more fitting for a general discussion, and does not involve the technical considerations that this part involves.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to discuss that very question, the application of the Act, now.


David Tisdale: My suggestion is that, as the question is so technical, it would be tetter for us to go on with the consideration of the Railway Commission until the hon. minister has had some discussion of this subject with the railway people. Of course, if the committee desires to discuss the matter now, I have no great objection.


Albert Edward Kemp: Gan we inquire now from the minister under this heading whether express companies are excluded in the Bill, and, if not, will he include them ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have not come to express companies yet.
Mr. KEMP, But if section 3 was made to include express companies, it would cover the whole thing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) would, after consideration, think it well to insert anything about express companies in this portion of the Bill.


Albert Edward Kemp: The only other place where it could come in is section 278.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: If the hon. member succeeds in satisfying the committee that the proposed legislation is not ample to cover the matters he has in mind, and if we agree upon an amendment to the Bill, we can easily refer back to this clause and put it in.
I think we had better proceed with the next portion of the Bill. I would suggest to my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tisdale) that he do not press his objection to that. The subject is very easily understood.
Mr. KEMP There is express freight as well as ordinary freight and, if the minister intends by this Bill to regulate freight rates, all kinds of freight rates should be included. There is no place in the Bill where this question can be discussed to better advantage than now. The only other clause that refers to express companies is 278, and under that there is no power such as I refer to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. I would much prefer that the

lion, gentleman should defer this, because we come to the question in due course, and then the matter of express charges will come up when our minds are directed to it.
If lie insisted on it what amendment would he propose ?


William Findlay Maclean: Has not this Bill for its object the regulation of railway charges? An important part of the charges on railways are the express rates. If the Bill is to apply to railway freight and passenger rates, it ought to apply to express companies. especially now when the railway companies are their own express companies. The Minister of Railways and Canals comes down here with a general Act dealing with railway questions, and ignores the question of express charges. I think he is failing in his duty, and we ought to bring the express companies forthwith under the operation of this Act. As I am referring to that, if it is the intention of the government to establish a board of Railway Commissioners, I want to tell the minister that there are other companies that ought to be brought under the jurisdiction of that board and within the scope of this Act. Now they all ought to come under the jurisdiction of this board of commissioners. The Minister of Justice has been looking for a way, I am told, how to regulate the telephone and telegraph companies. Here we are creating the very board that ought to do these things.
I make the suggestion now, and I think it will help! the minister to solve the question that the special committee has before it now dealing with these telephone companies, that here we are creating an important board that can deal, not only with telegraph and telephone companies, but railways and express companies. I hope the minister will * tell the House now that, in appointing a commission to regulate railways, that commission will have jurisdiction over express charges put upon traffic in this country.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: The board has now jurisdiction over the tolls.


William Findlay Maclean: Where ?


William Ross: If you turn to the latter part of section 279, you will read :
Whenever the company files with the hoard and publishes any tariff, and such tariff comes into force and is not disallowed by the board under this Act, or participates in any such tariff, the tolls in such tariff while so in force shall, as against such company, its officers, agents or employees, in any prosecution under this Act, he conclusively deemed to be the legal tolls chargeable by such company, and any departure therefrom shall be an offence under this Act.


William Findlay Maclean: But the ' company ' means a railway company.


William Ross: But it should apply to express companies.


William Findlay Maclean: So it should, but it does
not, by the present Act. Express companies
are levying immense charges on the traffic of this country, and if we are dealing with railway companies in connection with their charges on traffic, we ought to deal with express companies in the same way. This board of commissioners should have them under review, and should pass on their charges. A great deal of the traffic of this country is handled by express cars and companies. Year after year I see three or four express cars on the main trains, both of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Now we are here creating a board of railway commissioners, and why not give them jurisdiction over this matter ? Now the Prime Miuister has come in, and I will say to him what I said to the Minister of Justice a moment ago, that here an opportunity has come to widen the jurisdiction of this board of railway commissioners and to give them jurisdiction and control over cognate matters, namely, telephone and telegraph companies, and their conduct towards the people. I am In favour of the establishment of this board of commissioners, but I want their powers and jurisdiction widened so that they will not only deal with railway charges, but with express charges, with telephone charges and telegraph charges, in their relations with the general public.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I said a little while ago that it is very inconvenient to take up these questions out of their order.


William Findlay Maclean: But it may be necessary.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Let my hon. friend have a little patience. That is his great fault, an entire absence of patience. He cannot restrain his impetuous ardour, if he has anything in his mind that he thinks ought to be kept prominently to the front. What I have said to the hon. member for Toronto, and what I repeat to my impetuous friend who lias just spoken, is that he should have patience, and wait until we get down to the subjects of this Bill that are germane to the matters which he is anxious to deal with. If this Bill is found to fall short of dealing with these matters he has in mind, it will be open to him to propose amendments, and he will find a disposition on the part of the committee to yield to any reasonable suggestions. There are provisions in this Bill touching upon those cases. If there are not, let us make such provisions when the time comes.


William Findlay Maclean: Where are they ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We are not there now.


William Findlay Maclean: We are dealing with companies.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND
CANALS. My hon. friend would put the

cart before tlie horse. He declares that tlie express charges should he dealt with, and we declare that we should first provide for a commission. I can well understand the trouble of my hon. friend. He is here just now, and he may be flying away next day, and may not be back. It may not be convenient for him to be here when the subject comes up for consideration in its proper course. I say to him that he must have regard for the convenience of other people and allow us to proceed with this Bill in proper order.


William Findlay Maclean: If there is anything germane to the discussion of this clause, it is just what I now propose. We are here deciding what companies the Act shall apply to, to railway companies and their charges, and I say, let us make it apply to express companies and their traffic charges. Now does the hon. gentleman say that he is introducing a broad and general railway Act, appointing a board of railway commissioners to deal with railway questions, and vet that he will not declare in this Bill that he deals with express charges of railway companies?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Because there are express companies operating who do not do one-half of their business on railways at all. When we come down to tolls and charges imposed in respect of traffic-


William Findlay Maclean: I think it is the hon. gentleman who is impetuous, who is impatient. Now I repeat again-and I hope his colleagues will take him in hand in this matter-he has a Bill dealing with this question of transportation companies and charges, and he says that when he comes to some subsequent details he will see about these other companies. I say now is the time when he is defining his jurisdiction to say what companies are to be included. I say we ought to include express companies and their charges. If he is to regulate only the freight and passenger charges, the Bill is altogether insufficient. We were told that we were to have a broad, general Act. Why does he wish to let express companies out ? Traffic on the express companies is increasing ail the time. I hope the hon. gentleman will let the matter stand. We had better call it six o'clock.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I know my hon. friend is anxious to get off this evening, so I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock the committee took recess. Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Public works-chargeable to income-dredge vessels, repairs, $30,000.
["I can give my hon. friend that information now. The ' Challenge ' was at Kincardine, Midland, Owen Sound and Collingwood. The ' Ontario ' at Port Stanley, Rondeau and Kingsville. The ' Nipissing ' at Burlington Piers, Bronte, Hamilton, Port Hope", "and Bowmanville. The ' Queen ' at Osha-wa, Bowmanville, Dunbarton and Pickering. The 'Sir Richard ' at Hawkesbury, Grenville, Bath and Adolphustown.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.25 a.in., Friday.", 'Friday, May 8, 1903.']
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. James Sutherland).: We are asking for this $30,000 to make provision for paying the expenses of the general repairs required to be made to the hulls, machinery, dredges and scows in the different provinces which are the property of the Dominion.


Mr. SPROULE.: This is to cover repairs to all of the dredging plant ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is for general repairs and improvements.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many dredges have we now belonging to the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I think there are twenty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is $1,500 apiece. Is this repairing done at Sorel, or at the points at which the dredges are stationed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Those dredges that are in proximity to Sorel are repaired at the government shop there. But when they are in other localities they are repaired by contract at some of the shops in the towns or cities where they may be. Of course, this includes scows as well >as dredges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the work done by contract or by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is done by contract generally unless in the case of some small repairs, which are done under the supervision of the officials.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: I would like to in- * quire what progress has been made in the construction of the new hydraulic dredge for the maritime provinces, which is being built at Sorel ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would like to say that if that question were brought up when the vote for that work is under consideration it would be better, but I have information from the department that progress has been very slow unfortunately, rather slower than the hon. gentleman would expect or like.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That is not a very clear answer. When I left office it was understood that the dredge would be ready by the month of July this year. I do not know what has been done since my hon. friend bas taken charge of the Department of Public Works. I know how the office should be managed in Sorel. I would like to know what progress has been made in the construction of that dredge and when we can expect it will be ready for work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I My information is that there is no such un-

derstanding in the department. The officers of the department inform me that they had reported to the minister that they could not expect to have the dredge finished this year. There has been no change, so far as I know, or any action taken that might cause delay, so far as I am personally concerned. And so far as I know, regarding the officers of the department, they have been urging the progress of the work in every way. From the first I was informed that it was not possible to complete it this year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is out of the question to tell that to me, as I happened to be there a month before I left office. There is correspondence in the Department of Public Works-my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) will find it-to the effect that the dredge was to be ready by the month of July, and it should have been ready by that time. There is no reason, unless the work has not been proceeded with with the celerity and activity which should have been displayed, why the dredge should not have been ready by the first of July. The hull was very far advanced, the material was nearly all delivered, and I cannot understand why the dredge will not be ready by the first of July. I invite my hon. friend to look personally into that matter, because I know how difficult it is to administer patronage in Sorel. I do not know what changes my hon. friend has made in the way of distributing patronage there. I had any amount of trouble when I was in office. Although I was born near there, although I know nearly everybody there, I had any amount of trouble, and I was obliged to act in a pretty stiff manner at times. I do not know who is managing the Sorel patronage now, or in whose hands it is, but I know very well that without strict supervision it is a very easy thing in Sorel to employ three men instead of one. I invite the minister to be careful. His officers will tell him, if he takes them into his confidence, something about that. The shipyard in Sorel is one of the best on the continent, but of course it has to be administered according to strict business methods. If there is not strict supervision exercised, it will be a sink hole. I again invite the minister to be very careful as to the way patronage is to be administered there. I make these remarks because I do not want to be responsible for the delay. The officers of the department know that I am within the truth when I say that that dredge should have been ready by the first of July, or at the outside by the first of August. I cannot understand the reason for that delay.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In view of the statements made by the hon. gentleman on previous occasions, and in view of the urgent necessity of having a dredge in the lower provinces I did look into this matter. I may say to the hon. gentleman that he will be fully responsible
for the conduct of the department, for the reason that there has been no change made at Ottawa and neither has there been any change made at Sorel. The supervision is the same now as it was before. If there is any correspondence in the department to which he refers between any of the officials,
I wish he would give me the names because I am giving the information to the House and to him as it is given to me by the chief officers of the department. There has been no change made whatever; no change in the instructions; no change in the supervision, and so far as I am personally concerned any action that I have taken and any intimation I have given has been in the direction of urging that all speed be made towards carrying out this work. I have no information from any of the officers of the department or from any source, that there has been any change made whatever. The only personal action I took was to urge on the officers the necessity of having this dredge completed as quickly as possible.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Might I inquire whether the whole work will be done in Sorel or if part of the work will be done outside.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was so anxious that this work should be completed this year if possible, that I consulted the engineers of the department to see whether or not some assistance could not be had from outside. After full consideration they reported to me that the work had gone so far and was in such a state of progress, that they did not think we could get a great deal of assistance by having any of the work done outside. It was decided on their recommendation to go on and try to complete the work as quickly as possible in the shops at Sorel.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell me wlint are the reasons why the dredge is not ready now; what part of the work is behind; is it the hull or the machinery.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Generally speaking it is both. Some of the machinery has been bought and delivered but the building of the hull, &c., is not far enough advanced to use the machinery that has been delivered. There has been delay in regard to all parts of the dredge.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If my hon. friend will look again himself into that matter from a business standpoint-let me say immediately, not from a political standpoint exclusively- he will find out that why the dredge is not ready is because there have been changes in the way of administering patronage in Sorel. T take it upon myself to say that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman has any information with regard to changes I wish he would give it to me, because, not with my know-

ledge lias any change been made and the officers of the department report to me tlie same. I may say that 1 did not know there was politics in it in any respect. I thought the shop was being conducted as nearly as possible on business lines, and that when I took over the department the men in charge were men who were worthy of the confidence of the minister. If there is any information to the contrary I would like very much to have it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I do not in any way impugn either the ability or the good will of the officers of the department; very far from it. But I invite my bon. friend to administer the shops at Sorel not from a political standpoint, and I weigh every word I say now because I have passed through the mill. There are reasons which are not desirable to state in the House, why I say what I am saying, and if the minister carefully looks into the matter again with his officers- I know that the officers of the department are not going to say anything else than they say now; they have to be loyal to their department-but I am very much afraid that a change has been made in the way of administering patronage in Sorel. 1 happen to have a certain number of friends there and I believe I am right in saying what I say now. I have very strong reasons to know that a change has been made in the way of administering that part of the de-[DOT] partment of Public Works. I do not wisli to say any more except this : that shipyard has cost a large amount of money and it is a credit to the government and to the country, and it would be a great pity indeed if that shipyard be destroyed through improper administration of patronage in Sorel. All those who know the state of affairs in Sorel-I am speaking within the hearing of severa 1 members of parliament who know what I mean-all those who know the way things may be at times managed at Sorel will agree with me that it would be a great pity indeed.
I am very sorry that the dredge is not ready. The port of St. John and other ports badly need that dredge, and for the life of .me I cannot understand why it is not ready at tlie time I know it should have been ready.
I have given my personal attention to that work; I have inspected the shipyards over and over again, and well-all I can say is that it is a great pity that such delays should take place when a work of that importance is on hand.


Samuel Barker: I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works a question, not from a political but from a practical standpoint. If there is anything more than another that the present Minister of Public Works prides himself upon it is that he is a practical man. Here the minister is asking for a vote of $30,000 to repair twenty dredges. He asks a blanket vote of $30,000 for general repairs on these twenty dredges. The hon.


Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.: gentleman knows perfectly well that no public company, concerned with such a matter as this would give a blanket appropriation of $30,000 to its management. I do not understand that the practical affairs of this department are to be treated in any different way from that in which business corporations carry on their business. I say that it would be considered an absolute absurdity for the management of any corporation to ask for authority in a blanket form to expend a round sum of money over so many dredges. One dredge may require $5,000; another $1,000, and not until two years hence will the parliament of this country know how this $30,000 has been expended. At the end of that time we may find that what would only require $1,000 , to repair, will have $5,000 spent on it, while another that requires a very large repair has not had one dollar expended on it, but the latter will come up later for a very large expenditure. I think it is almost useless for the opposition to attempt to criticise the estimates unless we are informed more fully than we have been in the past what the minister proposes, not as to twenty dredges in bulk, but as to each of them. I do not ask him to state in the priuted estimates what he is going to do, but he must have from the officers of his department a report as to what each dredge requires, and I think we are entitled to that information.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are twenty dredges and perhaps sixty tugs, barges and scows. The estimate is of course made upon the experience of past years, and we must depend considerably on the ability and honesty of the engineers and other officials. No person can foresee the damage that may occur to plants such as this. It is to be hoped that the money will be expended under proper supervision, and only when it is required. This vote is taken for general repairs which may be urgently required, and we are depending, as any business man must, who has a plant of this kind, on the integrity and ability of the officers in charge. I cannot imagine that it will be of any benefit to any of the officials to expend any of this money on the plant unless it is really required. While I cannot speak personally on the matter, the chief engineer of the department informs me that this is the usual vote. I shall be very pleased, when I have an opportunity, to look into the matter and see if any change can be made to advantage. At present I do not see that anything can be saved.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Does the minister intend to expend part of this $30,000 on repairs to the dredges employed on the St. Lawrence channel works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. it does not apply to the St. Lawrence fleet at all.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Will lie be good enough to tell me, then, on what dredges he intends to expend it this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In the maritime provinces, on the ' St. Lawrence,' the ' Canada,' the ' New Dominion,' the ' Prince Edward,' the ' Cape Breton,' the ' George Mackenzie,' the ' New Brunswick,' the tug ' Cricket ' ; in Quebec and Ontario, the ' Challenge,' the ' Nipissing,' the * Ontario,' the ' Queen,' the ' St. Louis,' the ' Richelieu,'; in Manitoba, the ' Winnipeg,' the ' Sir Hector ' ; in British Columbia, the ' Mud Lark.' The other votes to which my hon. friend refers are, I think, special votes for special purposes. When we come to those items, I shall have the explanation.


Samuel Barker: What I would like to get at is this : Has the hon. gentleman received from his officers a statement of what these several dredges require now in the way of repairs ? That is the way every business man conducts his business. He does not allow a blank sum to be voted for repairs but he has a report to show either that machines are in good order, or, if they require repairs, stating just what repairs they require. If we are io be toiu two years hence that these dredges are all out of repair, then I think we are entitled to know now how much the minister proposes to expend on each dredge, to put it in a proper state of repair.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: These estimates are made up on the very basis the hon. gentleman suggests. The estimate made by the officers of the repairs required in each case is as follows : The ' St. Lawrence,' $3,954; the ' Canada,' $3,500; the 'New Dominion.' $2,000: the 'Prince Edward.' $2,500; the ' Cape Breton,' $3,500; the ' George Mackenzie,' $1,000 ; the ' New Brunswick,' $1,200 ; the tug ' Cricket,' $750 ; a new sand pump for the maritime provinces, $1,500 ; Ontario and Quebec, tugs and scows, $2,500 ; the ' Nipissing,' $2,500 ; the ' Ontario,' $2,500 ; the ' Queen,' $2,500 ; the ' St. Louis,' tugs and scows, $1,800; the ' Richelieu,' $2,000 ; the ' Sir Richard,' $2,000 ; two stone lifters, $2,500 ; one marine boiler, $2.500; a new dredge now being built at Sorel, $3,000.


Samuel Barker: I think the hon. gentleman lias got beyond $30,000 already.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so. These are the reports of the chief engineer of the department. So far he has asked for only $30,000,-which is in the Main Estimates. He goes over in detail the requests of the resident engineers and the officers in charge, and does not always allow them. He cuts these down.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Are not all these dredges at work ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: They are commencing work now.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If I understand correctly, that money is asked for repairs next year.


Samuel Barker: It is for repairs made now.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, all those dredges are in working order. I think they were in fairly good shape last year. We had them all repaired.


Samuel Barker: The question I asked the hon. minister is what amount is required now to put these in good order at present.


Joseph Israël Tarte: We are simply being asked to vote $30,000 for repairs next year. These dredges are at work now.


Samuel Barker: The question I asked the hon. minister was what is required at present to put these dredges in repair. We can then ascertain what is likely to be wanted for incidental repairs during the season.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Most of these dredges only work during the summer season, and are repaired during the winter. In every instance except one, they are at work now. If we were left without a vote of money, and with twenty dredges, scows and barges on our hands, and nothing to keep them in repair, they would soon all stop work, I am afraid, judging by our experience in the past. The expenditure for the year before will be found in the Auditor General's Report, but up to the 30tli of December this year, we expended $10,654 out of this vote. The chief engineer tells me that the repairs necessary since that time have swallowed up nearly the full amount remaining.


Samuel Barker: Then I understand that the department has spent $10,000 more than parliament has authorized.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: 1 did not say that. What I said was that up to the 31st of December, 1902-which is six months later than the Auditor General s Report-$10,654 had been expended out of last year's appropriation.


Samuel Barker: Are all these dredges at present in good working order ? I ask that because two years lienee somebody will be here criticising the figures in the Auditor General's Report, and should be able to know whether we started with twenty dredges in good working order, and what was the amount expended from this date on incidental repairs. Does the hon. gentleman say that at present everything is being kept in perfectly good order ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would not like to go so far. Many of these dredges are old, but they are all in fairly good shape to go to work, with one exception.


Samuel Barker: Then the money you propose to expend out of the $30,000 is simply to cover incidental repairs during the year V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As I have explained, this vote was taken for the general repairs to these dredges, scows and barges for 1903-4.


Mr. CLARKE.: The hon. gentleman says that all the dredges except one were in fair working order. What is the name of that one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The ' Challenge.'


Mr. CLANCY.: There seems to be a peculiar uniformity in the sums required for the repairs of the dredges. The sum is estimated at $2,500 in each case. Has it been found that the expenditure is of this uniform amount in each case, or has the hon. minister simply taken the whole sum and made a rough average ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend could not have listened very carefully to the estimates I gave. They ran from $750 to $3,954. It is perfectly true that in the case of dredges of the same capacity, having the same tugs and barges, it has been found that $2,500 is the average amount required to put them in repairs and keep them in order. That is the report of the engineer of the department.


Samuel Barker: I presume, as this mouey is required for incidental repairs, that the work shall be done by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If a new boiler is required, we call for tenders. In the case of a breakdown, we get the parts of machinery required from the different manufacturers. Where it is the question of some repairs-iron work or carpentering-that is done by day labour. In a city or town, where there is a shop, we go to the shop.


Mr. GERMAN.: In my opinion the government should consider carefully whether or not any more money should be voted for the construction or repairing of government dredges. In my opinion the government would do well to disj)ose of every dredge it has, and instead of endeavouring to do the dredging of harbours by government work, it would be more advantageous to have that work done by contract. Tenderers would then have the desire to procure and maintain sufficient plant in Canada to do the work called for. At present we have not many contractors with sufficient dredging plant to do the work which is frequently offered, and we find that the government will employ American dredges to do work which our Canadian contractors should be allowed to do. My information is that in the United States all the harbour work is done by contract. It is well known that the contractors will do more work and better work in the same length of time than can be done by government dredges. I know something of the government dredges at the I


Samuel Barker: present time, and I know that the government scarcely have one dredge that will do half the work in one day that can be done and will be done by a contractor, and better done too. The government dredges do not work the same number of hours as the others, nor do they work at the same rate of speed. The government have a lot of old dredges on which they are spending money year after year to maintain, but which it would be better to tie up at a dock and leave, and do the work with up-to-date dredges under men who understand their business. This would be very much better and cheaper than to continue the dredging situation that now exists.


Joseph Israël Tarte: So far as Ontario is concerned, my hon. friend (Mr. German) is about right. The government has only old dredges there. The case was absolutely the same in the St. Lawrence when this government took office. But the hon. gentleman is mistaken when he says that the government dredges that have been built during the last four or five years are not equal to those owned by the contractors. He is altogether mistaken.


William Manley German: Oh, oh.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Well, two and two make four, not five I am able to say there is not one contractor in this Dominion who has a dredge equal to those that are working on the St. Lawrence to-day. That is a clear statement and it cannot be disputed. The dredges that have been built at Sorel and the one built by the Poison Iron Works are about the best dredges on this continent. And I say, more than that, that the new hydraulic dredge that has been built by the Poison Iron Works and which is working on the St. Lawrence; to-day has a greater capacity than that of any other dredge in Canada. It has a capacity of about a million yards a month; and there is no other dredge in this country-there are very few on this continent-that can do the same amount of work. The hon. gentleman (Mr. German) says that he has had experience so far as government dredges are concerned. Well, I have had some experience too. I know that the dredging on the St. Lawrence, is carried out for thr?e or four cents a yard-not more than five cents a yard-and that the contractors elsewhere are charging as high as fifty cents a yard.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Joseph Israël Tarte: * It is not my fault
Yes, there are contractors who are charging more than that to-day.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Public Accounts Committee may investigate. It is not my business. I speak of the Department of Public Works, with which I was connected,

and I make bold to say that the dredging carried on by that department with dredges owned and controlled by the department costs three or four times less than the dredging carried on elsewhere by contract. The Public Accounts Committee will meet soon; my statements will be clearly printed, and nobody can prove that they are not right. The dredging on the St. Lawrence to-day is carried on at a cheaper rate than dredging has ever been carried on in this country. Now, if my hon. friend will think over thej position twice, he will admit that the work of improving the St. Lawrence cannot be carried out unless you have shipyards to repair your plant. The department has a large plant. Of course there will be breaks every day. The dredges are working in hard material, taking up stone and rocks, and there are sure to be breaks and all sorts of accidents. To carry out successfully a work of that kind you must have ship-yards of your own. The plant that is at the disposal of the government to-day is the finest plant that any concern on this continent owns, and it would be; a great pity indeed if it were ever destroyed. But, of course, if we are contented with old dredges such as the hon. gentleman has seen at work, I freely grant that we are working in the wrong way. These old dredges should have been replaced. But it requires money to build dredges. Every time X came before this House and asked for money, I was told that I was spending a lot of money. We have not spent enough in improving our waterways. One of the most competent men on transportation, Mr. Hays told us to-day elsewhere that we could not handle the trade that is in store for us; and he is perfectly right. The St. Lawrence channel should have been deepened and widened long ago. But it takes time to build dredges. There are not in this country any contractors who have dredges to carry out the -work on the St. Lawrence and we have been obliged to build, year by year, the dredges that are carrying out the work. Now, the dredge that is being built in Sorel for the maritime provinces will probably be the best dredge in the world.


William Ross: When will it be ready ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has given us to-night the very sad news that it will not be ready this year. I am very sorry for it. The plans for that dredge were carefully prepared by a man of large experience who was in a position to take advantage of the knowledge of the world in building dredges. He was employed first by the Harbour Commissioners In Montreal. He then went to thev United States and was employed on very large works on the Mississippi river and elsewhere. He came back to this country. Then he made a trip to
the old country to take advantage of the new knowledge on the Clyde and other places there. So that plans for that dredge was prepared with all that knowledge available. I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. German) on reflection, will admit that, under the present circumstances it would be very bad policy indeed for the department to discard all that magnificent new plant which has been built with every possible care and on which we have spent large amounts of money, and replace it with dredges owned by contractors. I say again there is no contractor in this country, no firm of contractors that has dredges, X will not say equal, but dredges that can be compared with the new modern dredges that have been built by the department during the last year. Let my hon. friend look carefully Into that question, and I say again he will find that the dredging carried out in the Department of Public Works with dredges owned by the government and under our own control costs three or four times less than the work costs when it is carried out by outside men. You cannot possibly get contractors to carry out dredging for less than twenty or twenty-five cents a yard, or eight dollars an hour-and small dredges at that. The dredging carried out on the St. Lawrence does not cost more than four or five cents a yard. These are the facts as they are.


William Manley German: Notwithstanding the hon. gentleman's (Hon. Mr. Tarte's) assertion that the government is doing work cheaper than the contractors are, I beg to differ with him. And, as this government seems to be prolific in commissions, if they will appoint a commission to look into the whole matter, they will find that the work can be done by contractors cheaper and with greater satisfaction to the country than it can be done by the government. Now, I ant well aware of the fact that the late Minister of Public Works did, with a great deal of eclat, construct and launch an enormous dredge in the city of Toronto. I believe it is called the ' J. Israel Tarte.'


Joseph Israël Tarte: Not a bad name.


William Manley German: Not a bad name, a very good name. It cost an enormous amount of money. It can do a certain class of dredging work, but in soft material only, and when that class of work is exhausted the dredge will have to tie up, and will lay there as a white elephant on the hands of the government. The hon. gentleman says that the government has much better dredging plant than the contractors. I do not dispute that, because the government is in the dredging business. But I say the government, instead of going into the dredging business, should allow this work to be done by contract. They should follow in that respect the example of the United States government. If they would inquire

into this matter carefully they will find that in the United States tlie work in harbour improvements is done much cheaper than it is done in Canada by government labour. Now, I think that our whole system of letting work by contract in this country is wrong, our system of tender is wrong. It could all be changed with great advantage. But when the hon. gentleman says that the government can do this dredging work for from three to five cents a yard, while the contractors get from twenty-three and twenty-five to fifty cents a yard for the same class of work, I differ with him, be cause he is entirely mistaken. He says that the work which that large dredge, the ' ,T. Israel Tarte,' is doing, is being done for three or four cents a yard. I doubt its being done at that figure, and I venture to say that any firm of contractors would take that work and do it cheaper than the government is doing it. Dredging work is be-injk done on the Welland canal to-day for less than one-half of fifty cents a yard, and it is a very expensive class of work. It is being done for twenty-three cents a yard. But that is just taking two feet off the bottom of the canal, a skimming process, which is exceedingly expensive. But when contractors get into a class of dredging where they can get, in contractors' parlance, a face for the dredge to work on, ten cents a yard is not a high figure, with any kind of a good dredge. Eight, ten or twelve cents a yard is a good figure, and even less in a certain class of work. I still assert that the government would do well to consider carefully whether they should not go out of the dredging business and get their work done under a different system altogether. Then we would get rid of having every year $30,000 to $50,000 to quarrel over in this parliament for repairs to these old dredges; because they will all be old shortly, and it costs an enormous amount of money to keep dredging plant in repair. Every winter contractors have to spend a considerable amount of money in repairs to their plant. It is a difficult plant to keep in repair, and parliament will have to spend a great deal of money year after year for the repair of their dredges. Dredges are continually getting old, and ns they get old it costs more to keep them in repair. I say again that I believe it would be well for the government to consider whether they should not do away with the whole system of doing this class of work by government dredges.


Joseph Israël Tarte: When I spoke .of that figure of three or four cents a yard, I did r.ot refer to the dredge which, unfortunately it seems, bears my name. That dredge.
I believe, will do work for less than one cent a yard, but the elevator dredges that are doing work on the St. Lawrence cost three, or four, or five cents a yard. There is no contractor in this country to-day who Mr. GERMAN.
lias dredges that can do work for the same price. I know what dredges are available, I know the kind of work which is being done on the Welland canal. If one of our dredges was there, it would not cost twenty-three cents a yard. The contractor who has that work must make large profits indeed. I know what dredging costs, I have inquired into it carefully, and I say without hesitation that the dredging work carried out by the Department of Public Works costs a great deal less than any dredging done by any other department here. Let us compare notes at the next meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. I make bold to say that the dredging done by the Department of Public Works under the control of the head of that department, though it may cost three, or four, or five cents a yard; you will find by comparison that it will cost twenty to twenty-five cents a yard, the same kind of work, when done under the system my hon. friend advocates. The contractors are realizing large profits indeed out of this business. Let the House understand me well, it is the best business that the contractors have on hand. I know what I am saying, I have gone carefully into the figures. I know that the contractors are all anxious to see the Public Works Department dispense with their dredging plant. There is no jobbing, and no profit to be made out of a government dredge that is being worked by the department. The contractors are perfectly right in desiring to get the contracts. They are not in the business for love. But I strongly protest against the idea of dismantling those splendid modern dredges that have been built during the last five or six years, dredges that will do work three or four times cheaper than any contractor lias done so far.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It lias not been the experience in our part of the country at least that contractors wifi do dredging cheaper than the government. For many years we have made it a point, when an item is put in the estimates for dredging harbours in our part of the country, to endeavour to get government dredges, because overnment dredges will do twice as much work for the same money as contractors will, and do it much more satisfactorily. No contractor will pretend to dredge for less than eight or ten cents a yard, and it is a fact that the government dredges have taken it out time after time for five cents a yard. Then there is this in favour of a government dredge: When a government dredge is put into a harbour it will take out the material whether it is hard or soft. When a contractor does the dredging and is paid so much a yard, the dredge goes into a locality wl\ere the material is soft, and he will take it away down very much deeper than is necessary, because he is paid for it by the yard and he is getting out

so many yards. Then when he comes into a hard place he will skip over it, and yon will find that the bottom of the harbour is very uneven after the work is done. That has been the experience in our country over and over again. For these reasons I know that when an appropriation is made for dredging, an effort is always made to get a government dredge if possible.


William Ross: I should be giad indeed if one or two of these old dredges that our hon. friend wishes to see condemned, were sent down to Nova Scotia, where we have been suffering for years for tlie want of dredging. I think it is over two years since this modern dredge was promised to us, and apparently it will be two years more before it is given to us. Now, after that dredge is completed, 1 am not so sure that it will be a success in some places in Nova Scotia. It will succeed well where there is a sandy or muddy bottom, but when you get hard and rough work it will be found that the spoon dredges are the only dredges that will be successful. But we will leave that alone and we will plead with the hon. Minister of Public Works just now to send a couple of those old dredges down to Nova Scotia, where we are suffering for the want of them. Money has been voted for dredging in the county of Lunenburg year after year, but there is no dredge to do the work. There is no part in the Dominion that is suffering so much to-day from the want of dredges as the province of Nova Scotia.


Joseph Israël Tarte: And there are not dredges enough to do the work elsewhere.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has raised a very important question that requires the very serious consideration of this committee. I find that in the various parts of the Dominion the work that seems to be most necessary and urgent is dredging in the harbours and ports. I have to some extent been looking into the matter and I find that we are in this position in Canada, notwithstanding what my hon. friend -says about it being a profitable business, that we can hardly get a contractor to undertake dredging work for us. Some dredge owners have notified us that unless we pay higher prices, owing to the increase in wages and the cost of living, they will go to the United States where they say they can get plenty of work at higher prices. If we are going to do the urgent work that is required in some parts of Ontario and elsewhere in the Dominion we will have to pay higher prices this year than we have been paying in the past. It may be that some of these dredge owners have lost money. If any hon. gentleman states that dredging can be done at so much a yard, unless he is referring to some particular location, and to some particular kind of rna-83
terial, his statement is likely to be very misleading. A man may have a contract at sixty cents a yard and lose money on it, while, if the work is to be performed at another place, be may make money at ten cents a yard. It is no criterion to go on to say that dredging can be done at so much a yard unless we know the conditions. I may say that in almost every case, unless we are prepared to give an increase in price to the contractors, we cannot get them to enter into a contract at all. We prefer to give the work to such dredges as we have in Canada but the work is so pressing in some of our more or less national ports that unless we bring in dredges from the other side we will be unable to meet the demands of the country. If we do so, we must pay the same rates as they are able to get there. We have not been able to get any offers this season from dredges on the other side. The report of the department shows that for a dredge of 500 yards or 600 yards capacity per day, we have been in the habit of paying, in past years, under certain conditions, 88 per hour, or $80 per day. There are very few places now where we can get dredges of that capacity for less than $10 per hour, and for much larger dredges we have to pay as high as $12 and $13 per hour. The dredges, it is true, that we have, are somewhat old, but I am told by the chief engineer of the department that the average is about $35 per day for the size of a plant of a capacity of 500 yards or 600 yards per day. That is a matter that has to be looked into most carefully. I am not prepared to say offhand whether it is cheaper to have dredges under the control of the department or whether it would be better to let all the work by contract. At the present time we cannot get anything like the amount of work that is urgently required to be done taken by contract at all. We are applying to the owners of plants on the other side of the line to see If we cannot reach some of the most urgent cases. The information of the department is in contradiction of my hon. friend from Welland, because the figures show that dredges of the same capacity are averaging about $35 per day. The most urgent work from one end of the Dominion to the other that I know of in the way of public works is the dredging which is required to be done, and I think every dollar we vote ought to be expended to the best possible advantage according to our best information. At the same time I think we would make a great mistake if we hesitated to vote a reasonable amount of money to make the necessary improvements to our ports and harbours.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Did I understand the hon. minister to say that the cost of dredges ran as high as $35 per day ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: Small dredges.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer says that the average



cost of the dredges of the class that we are now referring to that will be repaired by this vote is $35 per day.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that a dredge of 500 yards capacity, and does it include attendance, scows, and tugs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That includes everything.


Mr. TALBOT.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the lion. Minister of Public Works to the fact that a dredge is very badly needed to improve the navigation of the lower St. Lawrence from Quebec down. On several occasions the corporation of pilots and the harbour commissioners of Quebec have applied to the Department of Marine and Fisheries to have a certain point of the lower St. Lawrence called Chenal Beaujeu, below Crane island, widened and deepened. There is a pass at that point where at low tide steamers have only twenty-five feet of water, and in cases where they require from twenty-seven to thirty feet of water they are delayed from two to three hours. In every case where a request has been made to have this work done the explanation has been given that the Department of Public Works had no dredges for the work for that particular point, but that all the dredges were occupied between Quebec and Montreal dredging the river. The work to which I refer has not been done and the condition of the river at this point is a great impediment to navigation. The pass is a rather narrow one, being about 800 feet in width and it is curved so that not only has the river at this particular point to be deepened but it has to be widened and straightened. There are also several sand banks formed at a certain distance from the several wharfs which the government own on both sides of the St. Lawrence from Quebec down to RiviSre du Loup. The shore ice in the spring of the year will lift large boulders from the two shores of the St. Lawrence and they will be carried down by the stream, the ice will dissolve by the action of the water and by the rising of the temperature and these boulders will be deposited wherever the ice happens to break up. In several instances these sand bars and rock obstructions are formed by the ice dissolving near these wharfs. I know several localities which have applied for relief. In these localities, some thirty or forty years ago, we had at the end of our wharfs, six, eight or ten feet of water while now we have only three, four or five feet of water. I have on previous occasions drawn the attention of the Minister of Public Works to this matter and I know it is no fault of his that it has not been done before this. I believe it would meet with the endorsation of the House and the country if money were appropriated to improve the lower portion of the St. Lawrence, which, after all is the Hon. Mr. SUTHERLAND.
most important part of that navigation. You talk about dredging the channel between Quebec and Montreal, but to my mind it is a secondary consideration, because all the steamers that go to Montreal have to pass by Quebec, and the port of Quebec is the only port where you have a great depth of water on each side without any dredging being necessary. I appeal to the Minister of Public Works to ask parliament for a certain sum of money in order that we may have a dredge for the lower St. Lawrence. We are told now that the dredges are all occupied between Quebec and Montreal, but we are urgently in need of relief in that part of the St. Lawrence _to which I refer. I urge the minister as strongly as I can, to look into this matter carefully and to give prompt relief to the situation.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact, that the county of Inverness, which I have the honour to represent has within its confines three large coal mines now in course of development. One of these is owned by the well known firm of Mackenzie & Mann, and with the assistance of the Dominion and provincial governments and the municipality of Inverness, they have been able to build a railway to facilitate the shipment of their coal. The other two companies are not so fortunate. They are depending on the natural harbours in their vicinity, but their shipping trade is hampered because of the want of a dredge to deepen these harbours. Both American and Canadian capitalists are interested .in these mines, and a greater depth of water in two of these harbours is absolutely necessary to tihel successful pursuit of their undertaking. From this time out it will be absolutely futile for these gentlemen to develop their mines further, unless some assurance is given them by the government that dredges will be sent to work in these harbours. The remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Talbot) remind me that the coal mines of the county of Inverness are the nearest coal areas to the St. Lawrence. A reference to the map will show that the western coast of Inverness is right opposite the mouth of the St. Lawrence across the gulf. That being so the greater is the pity that accommodation is not afforded to these enterprising people who have taken hold of these mines to take advantage of their geographical position. I have every hope that the Minister of Public Works will see to it that the development of these valuable properties will not be impeded for want of dredging in those harbours. A dredge was employed there before, and I trust that that dredge will be sent back to complete the work so vigorously begun. I leave the matter entirely in the hands of the minister, feeling confident that he will do justice to that import-part of the country.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I wish to say in reply to my hon. friend
2(529

from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) that 1 fully recognize the Importance of the matter which he has brought to the attention of the House. In view of the great necessity and urgency there is for dredging below the city of Quebec, I cannot understand how it is that they have not had a better dredging plant there. I realize that nothing will so check the development of the resources of the country as lack of shipping facilities in the various harbours; and recognizing that, we have put a vote of $75,000 in fhe estimates to enable us to build or purchase a dredge to be used below Quebec. Now, as to the remarks of my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. McLennan) I can assure him that with such plants as we have at our disposal, it is the intention to go on with that work to which he has referred.


John Dowsley Reid: The government works are now completed on the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Kingston, and there will be more or less dredging required there. Is it the intention of the government to put a dredge on that section ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have some dredges on that stretch of the river now, and wherever we can hire a dredge we are doing so to carry on some of the most urgent work. I think I have been able to hire a dredge in the last day or two to work in the hon. gentleman's constituency, so that ships may enter the harbour and go up to the wharf. There has been a great demand from merchants and shippers in that district, and I believe I have now been successful in meeting their wants.


John Dowsley Reid: In looking up what the government has been paying for some of these dredges, I fully agree what lias been said, that it would be much cheaper and in the interests of the country, if the government had a good dredge of its own rather than to engage at exorbitant prices some of these small dredges that are practically worn out.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I misunderstood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid). The new dredge for use in Ontario will, I hope, be completed and be working during the next month or so.


Mr. LAW.: I do not feel that I would be doing my duty to the constituency I have the honour to represent, if I did not avail myself of this opportunity to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the urgent necessity for dredging in the county of Yarmouth. Anybody who has visited the town from which I come, knows that we are handicapped to a very great extent in our harbour facilities. It is true that the government has favoured us with a dredge for two or three seasons, but the work is incomplete and consequently not much good has resulted from it. The government had plans made of the harbour a year or two S3i
ago, and if the government would give us for one other season such a dredge as the new one which is being built, I have no doubt that the plans made by the resident engineer could be fully carried out, and it would be a very great convenience for the county of Yarmouth. We are the stepping stone as it were between the United States and the maritime provinces. We have one or two boats a day coming in there from Boston, carrying a very large number of passengers who are distributed over all parts of Nova Scotia. Our harbour is nothing but a zig-zag channel, and it is almost impossible for steamers to get in or out during foggy weather or in the dark. While I am on my feet, I would like to say in reference to the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. German) about the government selling its dredges and getting the work done by contract; that I do not agree with him at all. I cannot see why the government is not in a position to do the dredging as cheaply as any contractor can do it, and more cheaply. The dredges which contractors would buy and work would get old, just like the government dredges. I can only speak of the dredge ' Canada ' which we had in Yarmouth for a few seasons. I doubt if any contractors on earth could do better work than was done by that dredge for her capacity. She worked late and early, and did good work. I hope parliament, instead of curtailing this vote, will see its way to vote larger sums for dredging throughout the whole country, especially in the maritime provinces. No money that parliament votes does more good than the money voted for dredging purposes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has just said that he cannot understand why no dredging plant has been used below Quebec. When he has been a little longer in the important position he occupies, he will understand readily. There is a high tide below Quebec which allows the largest ships to reach the inner St. Lawrence. . When we took office, there was really not one dredge available for work done there. It was solid rock that had to be excavated.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Solid rock at Chenal Beaujeu ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: At Crane Island it is solid rock.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The department has heretofore represented differently, that it is sand.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Have any soundings been taken by the Department of Public Works at Crane Island ? If soundings have been taken, the report must be that there are several feet of sand on the top of the rock.


Joseph Israël Tarte: But there is solid rock at the bottom.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: And that steamers are fairly ploughing their way through that mud at the risk of their boilers.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I quite agree that there is sand, and there is rock also. However, there were no dredges available, and that work could not be carried out just then; and there was not so much hurry for it because of the tide. I would have been only too glad, if it had been possible, to have that piece of work done, which, if I remember rightly, is only two or three thousand feet long; but the reports in the department were to the effect that the dredges that were available were not capable of carrying out that work. It is unfair to insinuate that I am to blame because that work has not been done.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I did not say that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Minister of Public Works said he could not understand why that work was not done before. The tide was there, and it is still there, and there was more pressing work to be attended to. If the House will allow me to give my candid advice as to what should be done, I will say this : We all admit that there is a large quantity of dredging necessary in all parts of this country. Business is developing; harbours and rivers urgently require dredging. If I were in the position my bon. friend occupies, I would not hesitate one minute to come before this parliament; and ask for all the money necessary to build a proper plant to carry out that work. I quite grant that in some parts of the country it must be as well to hire dredges; but there is so much dredging to be done in all parts of Canada that for twenty-five years to come the largest fleet of dredges we can supply will be required. My hon. friend has only to look at the records of the Public Works Department to find thousands of requests from all parts of the country for dredging. We have to face the situation. We have been too cheese-paring in the past; we should have spent more money to improve our waterways. My frank advice to the government to-day is not to hesitate, but to go ahead. Parliament will not at all grumble at the demands which it may be necessary to make upon it for improving our waterways.


Mr. TURGEON.: I wish to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Public Works to the necessity of dredging along the north shore of the province of New Brunswick. The trade of that district has been very much hampered for the want of it. I may say that the harbour of Caraquet, the harbour of Shippegan and Little Shippegan, in fact, all the harbours of the counties of Resti-gonche, Kent, Northumberland, as well as in the county of Bonaventure in the province of Quebec, are in much need of dredging. The hon. Minister of Public Works Hon. Mr. TARTE.
has referred to the great appliances for dredging now used in different parts of the country; but if we have to wait until such appliances have completed their work in the large places, before they can come to the smaller harbours, our trade will have to take another direction. I know that the hon. minister is endeavouring to give every case his best attention. I called his attention yesterday to the necessity of doing some dredging in the harbour of Tracadie, where large lumbering interests are suffering. I hope he will be able to meet the necessities of these eases, on which I think reports were made by his own officials. A report was made in 1893, I believe, recommending some dredging in the harbour of Bathurst, one of the greatest in northern New Brunswick, and ever since we have been waiting from year to year for a dredge. I would ask the hon. minister to consider the suggestion that he should purchase at once either in Canada or in the United States a dredge for service on the north shore of New Brunswick, or in the Baie des Chaleurs. I believe we should have a dredge for that locality which could be moved from place to place according to the most urgent need. There is trade enough to be done on both sides of the Baie des Chaleurs to warrant such an expenditure, and I hope the suggestion will receive his best consideration.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It seems to me that this question has developed considerably. We started by discussing repairs generally, and we have had speeches from several hon. gentlemen, inchiding the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot), the ho"n. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law), and the hon. member who has just taken his seat, asking for dredging to be done in their constituencies. We have an hon. gentleman who is interested in the policy of the Department of Public Works. I refer to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefon-taine). That hon. minister distinctly stated that it was the intention of the government to give the Department of Marine and Fisheries the work of improving our harbours and rivers. If that be the policy of the government-and that policy was solemnly stated during an election contest-we ought to have the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries here to give his views as to what will be done in the future regarding the various matters brought up in this debate. No doubt the Minister of Public Works is giving all the information he can, but, under the circumstances, he is not in a position to formulate before this House the policy which the government intends to pursue in the future with regard to the different works which hon. gentlemen opposite have pressed on the government to-night. We should have the hon. Minister of Marine here to tell us w'hat will be his policy in these matters, when he takes over into his department that branch of the Public Works Department which deals with our harbours

and our rivers. We should have a definite policy laid down by the minister who is to be responsible.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A definite policy about what ? Is it about) repairing dredges, or what else ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: As I have said, the question has drifted far away from the repairs of dredges. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been permitted to go into other questions.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When the hon. gentleman speaks about a policy, it is only fair that he should say upon what matters he wants a policy pronounced.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: We have had the hon. members for Yarmouth, Inverness and Bellechasse urging their views, and wQ ought to have some definite announcement as to what is the general policy of the government on the matters brought up by these hon. gentlemen, and in order to have an authoritative statement of that policy we should have here the hon. minister who, according to the declaration made by him at his election, is very shortly to run that branch of public works which has to do with harbours and rivers.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Is it possible to very much improve on the advanced policy inaugurated in 1896 and carried on up to last year ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 1 have not any opinion to express on that point. My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) no doubt did a great deal to advance the policy which the late government had begun. But I would like to know whether there is to be a change in that policy, or whether it is to be followed out ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It seems to me that the answer I gave my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) was plain, frank, dear and distinct, when I said that I had already placed in the estimates appropriations to provide dredges for the important works which he and others have represented as so much required below the city of Quebec. As long as I occupy the position, I shall be responsible for the policy of the department and be prepared to declare it as soon as I have received the sanction of my right hon. friend the Premier and my colleagues. I agree that my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works appreciated much more than some others the requirements of the country, and very much more than those who preceded him. I trust that we all recognize the great necessity for the improvements started in 1896, and I have no doubt that the policy then begun will be continued even to a greater extent.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I trust that my hon. friend will go ahead quicker even than I endeavoured to do. If he does, he will get my cordial support. I did the best I could and the Department of Public Works did the best it could. I should be very sorry indeed if that department were dismantled, as seems to be announced. The department is a unit to-day. It is organized on a solid basis. Its officers work together. They are proud of their work. As a French Canadian, let me say that the Department of Public Works has been largely manned by men of my race. I should be very sorry if that department, which is the only one where French influence has a good deal of weight, were dismantled, and I would appeal from such a decision to the larger tribunal of this country. I hope such will not be the case. The announcement has not been formally and clearly made. The Department of Public Works has done splendid work during the past few years. All the officers have given their best energies to the work. It has been said that we have drifted a little far from the 830,000 for repairs to dredges, but perhaps I may be allowed to ask my hon. friend Ihe Minister of Public Works whether he has taken into consideration the report made to him with reference to the dredging of the north channel below Quebec, and whether any decision has been arrived at ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not had an opportunity of considering that report yet.
Hon. Mi-. TARTE. That is one of the reasons also why the other channel has not been dredged so far. The two departments of Marine and Public Works have been discussing whether it is better or not to im-I>rove the north or south channel. That is one additional reason why the improvement of the south channel has not been made. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has said, in discussing the item which is under debate, that he fears that he will be obliged to pay more this season for dredging work. I would like very much to know in what parts of the country and on what works he expects to be obliged to pay more?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was referring more particularly to the arrangements we are trying to make for dredging on Lake Huron and Lake Superior.


Joseph Israël Tarte: These are very broad limits.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, it is a very broad question.


Joseph Israël Tarte: But my hon. friend knows the works on which he expects to spend money. He says that he expects to be obliged to pay more for dredging in certain places. Surely it is a fair question to ask him what these works are. I do not mean to embarrass him


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not feel at all embarrassed. I said the hon. gentleman's question was a general

one, and I thought it called for a general answer. I thought the answer I gave him would indicate to one familiar with the work, as he is, the points I wished to refer to. But if he wishes the details, I may say that on the Kaministiqula river we have been paying fifteen cents a yard. The owners of dredges there decline to work any more at that figure. At Point Edward, Sarnia, where the great transportation companies of the country are urging us to carry on dredging so that the vessels may approach the wharfs, and not be obliged to do business through American ports, we have to pay from $1 to S3 an hour more. We have no option, for there are no dredges offering. We have advertised and communicated with different parties and are doing our best to make an arrangement at the lowest possible price. I think it was in answer to the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that I said we might have to pay higher prices. We have to take into consideration the question of departing from the policy of maintaining our own dredges. It is a serious question, and the mere statement on the part of anybody that it costs more will not be sufficient. It will have to be decided by a careful calculation based upon the actual figures.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If the hon. minister has the information at hand, I would very much like to know how much dredging he will do at Point-Edward ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The appropriation for the current year is $10,000. But I do not think it will complete the work. The main estimates now under consideration, contain amounts that, with few exceptions, are for works that have been undertaken and are in progress. When we are discussing new works, I shall be able to give further information. The chief engineer advises me, that, with the amount of money we have we shall make a fairly good approach to the wharf, so that the trade will not be stopped at that port.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is a very important work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much does the hon. minister expect to have to pay for dredging at Fort William ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The material to be removed there varies very much. We have rock, hard-pan, boulders mixed with sand-a great variety of material. As has been explained, it makes a great difference whether a dredge has work to do that allows it to stay in one place and go deep, or whether it can skim along and take off only a few feet. Also, the distance to which the material has to be removed is a factor in the calculation. We have been asked as high as twenty-five cents a yard in that section.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the hon. minister going to pay twenty-five cents a yard ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not if we can help it. That is a serious question that has to be considered. The government is like a merchant or anybody else, it must simply make the best arrangement it can. We are negotiating now, trying to get the best prices possible. If we cannot get the work done at the price we want to pay, then it becomes a question of paying the price demanded of us or stopping the work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I hope the hon. minister will be able to give us further information with regard to the work at Port Arthur. I was there last fall, and I know that the people are very anxious to have the work gone on with. I believe it is a work of very great importance, for Port Arthur and Fort William are ports that are increasing in importance every day. We are indebted to the minister for the information lie has given us, and apparently given us under great difficulties in view of the fact-as it appears to be from what has been said by the hon. ex-minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that this important department is to be disorganized. We are also indebted to the hon. ex-minister for the valuable information he has given us. I agree with that hon. gentleman that the policy of the department ought to be to construct first-class modern dredges, and carry on the work as a government work. The hon. minister says that the cost of operating one of these dredges, with a capacity of six or seven hundred yards, including tugs and scows, is about $35 a day. If the hon. gentleman's statements are correct, and contractors are not satisfied with $8 an hour or $80 a day, I think he should take a larger appropriation for the purpose of constructing government dredges, for it is evident that it will pay to have new dredges. It is better to spend money in building modern dredges than to pay $8 or $10 an hour for dredges of no greater capacity than 600 yards a day. But would not the ex-minister be a little more explicit ? He has warned the committee that there is some scheme on foot to dismantle or disorganize the department. If the department is well equipped-and I understand that it is-it would be a national misfortune to have it destroyed. If it is the policy of the government to give up this national workshop at Sorel, and give over the work to contractors, we should be informed of it. It is of great importance to us that we should know what the hon. gentleman means by the warning he has given us. Would not the minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) frankly give us the information ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What information does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) refer to ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman's predecessor in office has twice drawn attention to the fact that there is a scheme on foot to dismantle this department, to disfigure it, to render it less efficient than it is, to discontinue the policy which has been followed for the past five or six years, and which has been attended with such gratifying results. If there is anything in that statement I think we are entitled to know it before we vote any more money.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot give information on a subject of which I know nothing. I think I have answered every question the hon. gentleman has put me frankly and courteously. If the hon. gentleman knows of any scheme, it is for him to answer and not for me.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I am ready to answer it. We have read a lot of electoral speeches and newspaper articles to the effect that the dredging branch of the Department of Public Works and the harbour improvements are to be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But as the government has not yet proposed any such change to the House, I do not think this is the time to discuss it. The hon. gentleman is quite right in asking for information. But as the Prime Minister is not here, I suppose nobody will answer it in his place. While I am on my feet, I will take the opportunity of advising my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to be very careful indeed in the work to be carried out at Port Arthur and Fort William. Perhaps he has not yet had time to look carefully into that important question. Fort William and Port Arthur are the centres of the trade between the west and the east. We should provide those two harbours with every possible improvement. There has been some work done in the past, but a good deal more requires to be done in the future. I think my hon. friend would do well not to make any bargain that would bind him to do that work piecemeal. The Mission river should be dredged, deepened and widened. Before I left office I instructed one of the ablest officers of the department, Mr. Coste, to make a report of the whole situation. I have been there myself and have inspected all these points, which are of great importance indeed. Let us make Port Arthur and Fort William the rivals of Duluth. Duluth is but a comparatively short distance from these centres of Canadian trade. Fort William and Port Arthur are outlets to our grea North-west, and they should therefore be equipped in a proper way. This is not the time perhaps to discuss that question, but I thought it was well for me to ask my hon. friend not to give any contracts now before looking carefully into the situation and coming before us with a complete plan. I thought last year we had about completed all the necessary works in the Kaministi-quia river. There was not much left to be done.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Some dredging to be done near the mouth, I think.


Hon.   J@: There is always dredging to be done if you want to do it. But a general plan should now be adopted and carried out.
air. BRUCE. I beg to draw the attention of the aiinister of Public Works to the fact that there is nothing in the estimates for the port of Hamilton. I notice that there are applications for all the little fishing villages along the coast of the St. Lawrence, but there is nothing in the estimates for the great port of Hamilton, a port large enough to float the whole British fleet. Looking over the Public Accounts, I notice that $10.000 was expended last year on a little ditch leading through the shallows into Toronto, but not a dollar for Hamilton. I trust the Minister of Public Works will not forget Hamilton when he comes to disperse his $13,000,000 of a surplus.


Mr. INGRAM.: The Minister of Public Works referred to Point Edward in Sarnia as if he intended to do some dredging there. I might ask him what he intends doing at Port Stanley ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have completed arrangements to have a dredge at Port Stanley very early during the season. Probably it will be necessary to go more' fully into that matter when the supplementary estimates are brought down.


Andrew B. Ingram: I was not in -when the item was first read, and do not know what explanations the minister gave. May I ask him how many dredges there are in Manitoba now, and if the ' Sir Hector ' is one of them ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I believe one of the tugs in connection with the dredge there is named ' Sir Hector.'


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the dredge you have out there an old one or a new one ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One is an old dredge and one is comparatively new.


Andrew B. Ingram: Last year the department was doing some repairs on the old dredge. I would like to know whether the repairs are completed, and if they are, will that complete all the repairs ?


Peter Macdonald: I want to say a word to the committee at this stage. I allowed a wide latitude to the discussion of this first item so as to give the members of the committee an opportunity of expressing themselves on the general question of dredging, but they are now leaving that and taking up some items which are immediately below, which they can discuss when they reach them. I now desire to inform the committee that having given them such wide latitude in discussing the question of dredg-

ing, when I call the next items I expect a relevancy of discussion on each of them. Now, in order to give the hon. member for West Elgin an opportunity of speaking, we will call the second item, which has reference to the Manitoba dredge.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: We have not called that yet.


Peter Macdonald: No, but it is not in order to discuss the general dredge question on the item of the Manitoba dredge.


Andrew B. Ingram: Very well, I will put myself in order by asking about the first item. Wha't about the vessels comprising this item of $30,000 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have explained at considerable length this item of $30,000. But as the hon. gentleman may not have been in, I will explain it again. This is to provide for defraying the expense of urgent and general repairs to th'e hulls and machinery of the dredges, tugs, scows and barges, which are the property of the government, in the different provinces of the Dominion.


Air.   THOAISON@North Grey: We have wandered considerably from the matter that is before the committee, but there is one question which I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works, and that is if the government own any dredge of sufficient capacity to dredge out the present administration ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Air. Chairman, you have been good enough to allow me the same latitude as you have allowed other hon. gentlemen before me. I would like to refer to a question which was asked the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir AVilfrid Laurier) last week, and to the answer that he was supposed to give us before this. Last week a question was asked in regard to the division of the Public Works Department and the right hon. First Alinis-ter promised to bring an answer down last Alonday, but the answer has not yet been given to the House. I think it is quite important that we should know something about that sub.iect. that we should know whether the department is going to be dismantled or not. Several days have elapsed since last Alonday and I will say


Peter Macdonald: Order. I decided upon this matter the other night that the question of the policy of the government in dividing the various duties in connection with the Public Works Department and the Department of Alarine and Fisheries was not a question that was referred to the Committee of the Whole and that it was wholly and entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the questions that were placed before us for consideration. Having looked into that matter more carefully since I gave that decision the other night, I must inform Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
the committee that if they want to find out the policy of the government they must find it out in the House when the Orders of the Day are called. Any hon. member can ask the government to explain their policy in regard to this matter, but it is a question, in my opinion, that we cannot take up and discuss in committee. It is out of order. It is irrelevant.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: 
Andrew B. Ingram: This is a very serious matter We find that a minister differs from bis colleagues and he is obliged to leave them. What follows ? A number of gentlemen come here to Ottawa to urge the appointment of a successor to that minister, and finally Mr. Prefontaine is selected. But instead of getting the Department of Public Works he was trusted with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and he returns to Quebec and holds out the hope to his electors that the departments will be divided, and that he will administer the Department of Marine and Fisheries as well as a large portion of the Public Works Department. I would like to point out to the Minister of Marine


An hon. MEMBER.: He is not here.


Andrew B. Ingram: He is not here aiid is hardly ever here. I want to point out that while the province of Quebec administered the Department of Public Works-and probably it was right that a minister from that province should preside over that department-yet now that the department is put in charge of a representative of the province of Ontario it will be a reflection on the largest province of the Dominion to have that department cut in two. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) who is

now the minister discharges the duties of his position with credit to himself and the country in view of the short period he has been in office, and it would be a reflection on the province of Ontario to denude him of any portion of his functions. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) no doubt took part in preparing the announcement in the speech from the Throne, that there would be a reorganization of this department. He was bold to take upon himself to declare in the province of Quebec that the department would be divided and to circulate his declaration in the press, but when he sat in this House a few nights ago he was not so bold. He was not-may I say, man enough-to get up and say whether the statement he made in Mai-sonneuve was true or not true. We found the other evening that the gentleman who is now leading the House (Hou. Mr. Fielding) was afraid to trust his friend (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) who had been too glib on many other occasions, to reply to the question put to him, and so he endeavoured to protect the baby Minister of Marine and Fisheries-I mean baby in the sense that he is the younger mediber of the cabinet. Then, when the attention of the Prime Minister was drawn to this matter, in order to relieve the tension, he promised that he would announce the policy of the government on this question in a day or two, but we have waited for many days and no announcement has been made. In view of the announcement in the speech from the Throne; in view of the statement made in this House a few days ago, we want to know now what the policy of the government is before we vote any more money. I warn the government that it will be a very dangerous thing for them if they attempt to divide that department. If the_ present minister (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is not administering his department well, then the honourable thing to do is to ask him for his resignation, but do not cast a reflection on the province of Ontario by saying in effect that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is not capable of administering ihe Department of Public Works. If I were to believe all that I have read in the Montreal 'Herald,' and all that I have read in the Montreal ' Witness ' with respect to the conduct of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) when he fllled an important oflice in the city of Montreal; if I were to believe all the statements that have come from his own political friends, then I would hesitate much to see a change made in the Department of Public Works, which is one of the great spending departments in this Dominion. I warn the government that in the province of Ontario, and I have no doubt in the other provinces as well, there will be a strong feeling, of resentment at such a change taking place.
I trust that if the government have any idea of making this change, they will at Mr. INGRAM.
once change that idea, because I can assure them that this country will not tolerate a change of that character.


James Clancy: The ministers cannot afford to sit there in complacent silence and take no notice of what has been said from this side of the House. I ask the leader of the House if it is not fair play that we should now know what the proposed reorganization of the Department of Marine and Fisheries is to be. It was announced in the speech from the Throne, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries no doubt sat at the Council Table when that announcement was prepared. Knowing what the mind of the government was before that, he went to his constituents and made the announcement in more detail, and now the leader of the House is in all justice bound to tell us what is the intention of the government with regard to this matter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no wish to be discourteous, but I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) has overlooked the fact that the question was asked some days ago, and that all the information that it was proper to give to this question was then politely given. Life is too short to have these things repeated every day.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has with politeness and splendid indefineteness answered my question. Let me remind him, however, that when questions are not answered they can be asked again. We will take care to remind the hon. gentleman that the question is not properly answered. Does he mean to say that when a policy is announced in the speech from the Throne, it becomes a state secret. Does he think that this is not a proper thing for the country to know, especially when we are voting money for this department, what are the details of a change of such importance.
1 would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is dealing with the House as candidly and frankly as he ought to on a question of this kind ? When he says that life is too short to answer, he is not quite courteous, implying that it was not a proper question to ask. That is not the way to dispose of the matter, because it is a question on which the House has a right to have information when we are proposing to vote money for the services of the country. I would be the last to press for information on an important question of policy that had not been matured; but this matter has been thought out, and now the hon. gentleman says life is too short to answer the question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Life is too short to keep on answering it.
Mx-. CLANCY. Did the hon. gentleman ever answer it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.
MAT 7>
1903


James Clancy: What was the answer ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps my hon. friend was not here. The answer was that when any Bill for a change in any of the departments was presented, the House would he fully advised of its object and purpose.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman knows that we have not to depend on the courtesy of the hon. gentleman leading the House when a subject takes the shape of a Bill, because it is public property.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend knows, he need not ask.


James Clancy: It is because I do not know that I ask. For the hon. gentleman to say that the information will come with a Bill is not an answer. The hon. gentleman knows that the First Minister thought the matter of sufficient importance only a day or two ago, to say that he would put the House in possession of the information in the early part of this week. We have reached past the middle of the week, and I think the hon. gentleman ought to say that he will give the House the information, as promised by the First Minister.


John Dowsley Reid: In view of the announcement in the speech from the Throne, that this department was to be reorganized. I think it most unfair that these estimates should have been placed before this committee first; and also, in view of the fact that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries absents himself from this House while these estimates are being passed, and when he could have stated his policy in case he should have the spending of the money. Under these circumstances, and as there is no doubt of the reorganization of this department taking place during the present session, I think these estimates should be allowed to stand, until this reorganization takes place. I therefore now beg leave to move


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish to suggest, then, that these estimates stand until the reorganization is announced to this House.


Mr. McCREARY.: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time this wrangling were at an end. We sit here night after night endeavouring to pass estimates, and we have not yet got half through with the estimates of one department. I think that if some of these gentlemen lived three or four thousand miles away from here, they would not be so much disposed to waste the time of the House. The hon. member for East Elgin said that it was a serious matter whether this money was expended by the Minister of Public Works or by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It may be a serious matter, from a party point of view, but I submit that not one
per cent of the people of Canada care which department spends the money, so long as it is spent properly and well. I see three or four officials here, who have been coming here for several nights, while these estimates have been before the House. IIow long is this thing to go on ? It is a crying shame that the money of the people of Canada should be wasted in this manner. If there is anything in these items which hon. gentlemen opposite object to, !t is their duty to move that it be struck out ; but they are afraid to do that, because it might affect some of their friends. If this tiling is to go on we should meet here on Monday morning at nine o'clock, and sit right on doing business till Saturday night.
I thank God the time is coming when the dog will wag the tail instead of the tail wagging the dog-when the western members will make these members come here and stay here. It may not be at the end of this census, but it will be at the end of the next census. We had three or four weeks of oratorical fireworks over the budget, during which we had a rehash of speeches that are gray with age-yes, some of them are bald-headed, and with whiskers on them. If you look at ' Hansard,' you will find some of these same speeches were made twenty-five years ago. I trust that the men who are objecting to these estimates will seriously consider the losses that many western business men have to suffer in coming here. It is no wonder that it is hard to get men in British Columbia or the North-west Territories to come down here. If they could get through in two or three months, they would not mind ; but, very few can afford to be away from their homes half the summer. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to take these things into their consideration.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not one of those who take up the time of the House speaking on the budget. I have not spoken on the budget since I have been in the House. I have my own reasons for that. I think a good many government supporters wish to have an opportunity of speaking, and that is a good time for them to do so. I think the hon. gentleman has not seriously considered this question, or he would not have spoken in the manner he has done. We find a minister leaving the city of Ottawa and going to the province of Quebec and giving the public information which has been refused to the members of this House. Is that a proper position in which to place the members of this House. If the hon. gentleman; when he made that statement in Quebec, made an incorrect statement he should be manly enough to get up here and deny it.


An hon. MEMBER.: What was the statement ?


Andrew B. Ingram: That the Department of Public Works was to be divided and that

264S
he was to administer a portion of that department in addition to his own. That declaration the hon. Minister of Marine has not contradicted in this House. He was accompanied by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) and North Ontario (Mr. Grant) to the city of Hamilton, and if we cannot get the information we desire from the hon. Minister of Finance, perhaps these hon. gentlemen, who had the confidence no doubt of the Minister of Marine at Hamilton, may be able to enlighten the House. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) is not open to the charge of criticising the items of the expenditure. If we were to depend on the government supporters for criticisms of these items, there would be no check on the expenditure at all. We are therefore within our rights when we ask for information on these important items, and in doing so we are not asking any favour from our hon. friends opposite. Hon. gentlemen opposite are very apt during elections to accuse the opposition of not having moved to strike out certain items of expenditure. But do they forget that during the eighteen years they were in opposition, and when they were given credit in the press to some extent for the manner in which they discussed the estimates, out of over $600,000,000 asked by Conservative administrations, only a trifle of that total was objected to by the then opposition. It is not the duty of an opposition to simply object to am item and then call for a division. You cannot point to any opposition in any enlightened country which follows that course. If we were to do that, we would be here from January to December. It is not our policy, nor is it our duty to place ourselves on record, by calling for a vote on every particular item. AVe recognize that the hon. Minister of Public Works has not been long in the position, and are therefore not knrrassing him with all kinds of serious questions. We could ask him very important and serious questions, but as he is a new minister in that department, it would be unreasonable to expect him to answer serious questions in connection with items with which he cannot possibly be acquainted. Therefore our courtesy to that hon. gentleman has been such, that we even find government supporters finding fault with us; for the mildness of the criticisms we offer from time to time on the expenditure of his department. The opposition are entitled to ask any questions they chose with reference to the estimates, and we propose to exercise that right. Whether our criticisms be mild or severe it is for us to consider. We are not here by reason of the good graces of hon. members opposite, but are here because we have secured the i otes of the people in our respective [DOT] constituencies and have won our elections in an honourable manner and are proud of it. I am very glad that these remarks are | Mr. INGRAM.
so highly applauded and that lion, gentlemen on both sides appreciate that fact. I would wish Very much that hon. gentlemen opposite could make the same statement.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about Gamey?


Andrew B. Ingram: I am very glad to have that interruption. Sir, if the gentlemen who who have sworn against Mr. Gamey, if I may put it in that way-
Some lion. MEMBERS. Order.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am quite in order. If the gentlemen who have sworn against Mr. Gamey have sworn quite truthfully, there is one thing I can congratulate Mr. Gamey on, and that is that the money deposited in court and before the commission, if the statement of these hon. gentlemen are to be believed, he will have the satisfaction of spending for his private purposes or whatever purpose he chooses.


An hon. MEMBER.: What has that to do with the items ?


Andrew B. Ingram: We are not confined to the items now, but have a roving commission and we propose to take advantage of it until the government are prepared to come down and give us the information we require. The chief object of this government seems to be how best they can accommodate themselves to every wind that blows in order to secure votes and keep in office. I remember when the government came into office in 1896, they were most innocent and unsophisticated, they were in their childhood and kindergarten days, and whenever the opposition asked a question, they got up and answered it frankly. They changed their tactics, and you cannot get them to answer any question now until they get a good 'ready' on, and I tell you it takes a long time for the government to get a 'ready' on. I am glad to find my hon. friends opposite so heartily enjoying themselves. I am glad to find them taking my remarks so pleasantly, and I trust I shall always have my remarks accepted as pleasantly by lion, gentlemen opposite. The members of tlie government seem lost to all sense of duty and fair-play, and persist in remaining silent in their places and refusing to give the information we ask and to answer the very important question we have put. I do not know whether my hon. friend the1 Finance Minister considers that the very indefinite answer he has given is going to satisfy the public or the opposition. But I can assure him that from time to time, we will persist in our efforts to secure the information we ask. The government will certainly make a very great mistake if it should divide up the Department of Public Works and hand a portion of it over to the Minister of Marine (Hon. Mr. Prfsfontaine), who seems to think that it is no part of bis duty to occupy his seat in this House

at any time in the day. Considering the fact that he is a kindergarten minister, he is not making the best use of his opportunities. One would naturally expect him to attend school and try to get information from time to time as to how he should administer his department. But he does not seem to think it any part of his duty to remain in this House. But let me draw attention again to this fact, that it would he of great service to the hon. gentleman, who is now filling the position of Minister of Public Works, to have the hon. Minister of Marine in his place to give him his assistance on items affecting the harbours aud rivers of the province of Quebec. If he were in his place and ready to give information that would be of advantage to the House, there would not be members on the other side, like the bon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) finding fault with us. Why does not he lecture the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries for not being in his place and doing his duty ? Where is the bon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries ?


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: I think that in justice to the bon. minister (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) it ought to be stated that he is in Montreal attending a conference with the Minister of Labour, the representatives of the steamship companies and the representatives of the stevedores, for the purpose of trying to bring about a settlement of the strike.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am very glad to hear that, and I am prepared to compliment the hon. minister on doing his duty in this particular instance. Now, will the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) explain why the hon. minister absents himself so much as he does on other occasions ? There is not a single man to explain why the minister's place is vacant from day to day. But one hon. gentleman rises when it happens that there is a defence to be offered for the minister's absence.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: If the bon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) will allow me one question, I would like to ask him why this question is not put when the bon. minister is here ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The question was put the other day when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was in his place, and he had not the moral courage to answer it. But he blushed over it-he blushed a deep red, when he found the Prime Minister taking his place.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: He could not blush blue.


Andrew B. Ingram: Perhaps not, but I think lie felt very blue at the time. I do not wish to take up more of the time of the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Go on.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some hon. gentlemen who live a long distance from Ottawa, evidently are not anxious to go to their homes.


William Alfred Galliher: I don't mind.


Andrew B. Ingram: Evidently the hon. gentleman' is comfortably situated in Ottawa, and has made up his mind that it will take up some time to get through the business of the House. I did not think he would l>e content to stay here considering the black eye he got the other day. This lead question is as serious a question in its way as the question of the Department of Public Works. It might be a good time now for the hon. gentleman to put his oar in, to use a common phrase, and ask the government what they are going to do with regard to lead. This is a broad motion we are discussing now, and all the malcontents in the House have a golden opportunity, an opportunity they should take advantage of, especially as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) seems to be in good humour. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) might impress upon the minister the importance of putting a duty on lead. I will give the hon. gentleman an opportunity to rise. Well, the hon. gentleman does not speak. Now I do not wish him to go back to his district and say be has not had an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Minister of Finance to this question.


William Alfred Galliher: I thank the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) for so carefully looking after the interests of my district; but I do not mind informing him that I am quite capable of attending to that myself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have had some valuable information from the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). He says that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is attending a strike. It would seem that most of the members of the government have been on strike all session, for they have not been here. Nor will they allow any body else to work in their places. They have their pickets out, one in China, one ill England, one in Montreal ; and I do not know where the rest of them are, but when we require information of them, there is a notable absence of them from this House, which makes it very difiicult to carry on the work of the session. I think we are quite within our rights and properly discharging our duty when we ask the government at the earliest possible moment not only to make, as they did early in the session, an explanation of the ministerial changes which took place before the opening of parliament, but an announcement of their policy. They have intimated in the speech from the Throne that they are going to reorganize some of the departments. Surely we are not going to continue the work of the session until we know what reorganization is to take place. We are voting money on the demand of the Minister of Public Works to he spent-if we are to believe what we see in the ministerial press -by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, ' yet we have nothing from the Minister of

Marine and Fisheries as to the line of policy he will follow in spending the money. This House has a right to know the facts; and I respectfully submit that it is the duty of the government to state those facts at the earliest possible moment. The Prime Minister, in giving the explanation of ministerial changes, said that it was not so important to give this information now as at one time in the past, because, in these modern days these changes had not the importance they had at one time, for in these days of publicity there was nothing he could tell the House of which the House was not already informed through the press. That is exactly why we are asking these questions- because an intimation was given through the press some time ago, and notably in the province of Quebec during an election campaign by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that certain important changes would take place whereby a great deal of the work now being done by the Public Works Department would be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, so that he would have the expending of large amounts of money and would be able to inaugurate a policy of his own. I would like to inquire, Mr. Chairman, what so greatly amuses the hon. member for London (Mr. Hyman). Has he no interest in the business of this House ? When will he be able to give information as to the changes to take place in the department he is going to come into ?


Mr. HYMAN.: I do not know why the hon. gentleman (Mr. Spronle) should draw attention to me, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Simply because I saw the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hyman) doing that for which he often, as Chairman, calls members to order in the Railway Committee.


Charles Smith Hyman: For smiling ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, for interrupting a member of this House when he was speaking. I was interrupted


Charles Smith Hyman: I beg to say, Mr. Chairman, that I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman in any possible way.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have nothing to take back. I want to say what I intended to say when I had only part of the sentence out. I was interrupted by an outburst of mirth that could be nothing but an interruption-there was no sense in it.


Charles Smith Hyman: I inform the hon. gentleman that it is the leader of the opposition who is smiling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A smile carries with it no noise, but the noisy laughter from the other side-if I were to quote Scripture, I might characterize it, but I will refrain from doing so. I say that we are not only within Mr. SPROULE.
our rights, but we would be doing less than our duty, if we do not ask for this information and demand an explanation from the government. What are going to be the departmental changes they are going to make? What is going to be the policy of the government with respect to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which has been charged with the expenditure of the money we are asked to vote to-night ? We have a right to know that before we allow a dollar of this money to be voted. There is no justifiable reason for making any reflections upon the opposition when they are only doing their duty in this House to the people who sent them here. I think the government would greatly facilitate progress of business if they availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to give that information to the House.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I think at this stage it would be in order to read from what I may call an official report of the speech made in Montreal by the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on the occasion to which I have alluded just now. The speech was not made during the election campaign, it is true, but a little while previously, before a Liberal club in the east end'of Montreal. This is a verbatim report of the speech which he made.


An hon. MEMBER.: Are you going to read it all ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: I will if the hon. gentlemen opposite wish to hear it.


Mr. DOUGLAS.: If it is a good speech read it all.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It was a good speech, well reported. I will begin by reading it in French. I call the attention to this of my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. Cowan), who has a great many French Canadians in his constituency, and he may understand himself the version which I am going to read.


An hon. MEMBER.: From what paper are you reading ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: From ' La Patrie.' Have lion, gentlemen any objection to ' La Patrie ' now ? Do they think a verbatim report of a speech in ' La Patrie ' is not a correct report ? I may say that the same reports were published in the ' La Presse,' which I do not think hon. gentlemen will repudiate. Here is what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said on that important occasion, when he was giving what he called the policy of the government:



[Stage Direction]
Mais on vous dira : le departement des Travaux publics est un departement qui d£pense des millions, qui a un patronage enorme et, par Ie fait qu'on va l'enlever a la province de Quebec, on va enlever tout ce patronage-la a la province de Quebec. Messieurs, soyons rai-sonnables, examinons la situation telle qu'elle est. Les travaux publics, a l'heure qu'il est,

ont, en effet, une depense a controler de plu-sieurs millions. Ceci est depense en batisses publiques, en entretien de batisses publiques, y compris les batisses du parlement d'Ottawa, et la construction de nouvelles batisses partout, dans chaque partie du pays, Ob il est besoin. De plus, le departement des Travaux publics, jusqu'a aujourd'hui, s'est occupd a faire le creusage de nos rlviSres, a faire les travaux d'amdliorations dans le port de Montreal avec 1'aide, bien entendu, de la commission du havre et avec l'aide du departement de la Marine et des PScheries. Mais si l'on met chacun a sa place et si l'on dit au ddpartement des Travaux publics, et cela non pas purement et supplement par des paroles, mais par des actes ; si l'on dit simplement vous n'aurez sous votre contrdle, strictement parlant, que les travaux des batisses publiques et les ameliorations publiques qui ont rapport avec l'entretien du pays ; mais tout ce qui a rapport a la navigation, tels que les travaux de creusement des rivieres, tels que les travaux de construction de quais, de construction d'dldvateurs, tels que les travaux de cales sSehes et ainsi de suite, si l'on dit : Tout cela, cela depend de la navigation, et cela depend par consequent du dgparte-ment de la Marine et des PScheries, et qu'on le mette dans une loi, est-ce que vous n'avez pas la toutes les garanties que vous pouvez dgsirer? Mais l'on vous dit aussi : " C'est pour en faire accroire a la province de Quebec qui a toujours etd sacrifice." Eh bien, messieurs, encore une fois, je vous le repbte, soyons raisonnables. Si je vous dis, comme je l'ai dit d'ailleurs deux fois, que j'ai accepts un portfeuille dans les conditions qui viennent d'etre sanctionndes, c'est parce que j'ai cru sincbrement aux promesses qui ont StS faites, aux declarations qui ont etd faites, et c'est parce que je suis con-vaincu que cette parole donnee, cet engagement pris seront rdalisds. II ne peut pas y a voir de doute la-dessus. Et je peux vous dire plus, messieurs, et je demande si l'on peut me contredire. On a prdtendu que 1'honorable James Sutherland, actuellement ministre des Travaux publics, avait intriguS et avait insists pour avoir ce ddpartement. Eh bien, je vous declare icj et pe defie la contradiction lh-des-sus : l'honorahle M. Sutherland n'a abandonnd le ministere de la Marine et des Pecheries qu'S, contrecceur et-malgre lui, et parce que tout simplement il dtait entendu qu'une partie des travaux, ceux dont il ne veut pas s'oceuper et qu'il prdtend de voir appartenir au ddpartement de la Marine et des Pecheries, devaient paser au ddpartement de la Marine et des PScheries. Je pourrais vous dire qu'il a mSme dtd suggerd -ceci je ne suis pas en position de l'affirmer- mais il a 6t6 meme suggere que tous les canaux du Saint-Laurent seraient mis sous le contrdle du ddpartement de la Marine et des Pdcheries.
Now, in case my hon. friend tlie Minister of Public Works has not understood all this quotation, with the permission of the committee, I will translate it into English :
But we will say, the Department of Public Works spends millions of dollars and has an enormous patronage, and therefore we are going to take away from the province of Quebec this patronage which has always belonged to Quebec.
Mr. BUREAU.: You say ' we.' Is the French ' we ' or ' on ' ?


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: It is ' on ' here. In the bad French in which this speech was delivered, ' on ' means ' we.'
Gentlemen, let us be reasonable, let us examine the situation as it is. The Department of Public Works at this moment are spending several millions of dollars. This sum is spent in public buildings and their maintenance, including the parliament buildings at Ottawa, and in the construction of new buildings in every part of the country where they are needed. Moreover, the Department of Public Works until now has had the dredging of rivers, has carried on the improvements in the port ofj Montreal, with the assistance, of course, of the harbour commission and of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But if we put every man in his place, and if we say to the Department of Public Works, not only by words but by deeds, you shall only have under your control the works on the public buildings and the public improvements which relate to the maintenance of the country, but everything which concerns navigation, such as dredging the rivers, the construction of wharfs, the construction of elevators, the building of dry docks, and so on, if we say that all this concerns navigation and therefore concerns the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and if you put this into a law, is it not true that you have there all the guarantees which you can desire ? But you are told: This is to make the province of Quebec believe that you are not sacrificed. Well, gentlemen, again I repeat, let us be reasonable. If I tell you as I have already said twice, that I have accepted the portfolio under these conditions, and that they have been sanctioned, it is because I sincerely believe the pronjjses which have been made, the declarations which have been made, and it is because I am sincerely convinced that these promises and declarations will be realized. There can be no doubt of this. I could say more gentlemen. I will not be contradicted upon this point : It has been pretended that the Hon. James Sutherland, the present Minister of Public Works, has intrigued and insisted upon having this department. Well, I can tell you, and I defy contradiction, that the Hon. Mr. Sutherland gave up the Department of Marine and Fisheries against his own will, and because it was understood that that part of public works with which he did not *wish to busy himself, and which he preteals belongs to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, should pass to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I could go further. It has even been suggested, though I am not in a position to affirm this, but it has been suggested that all the canals of the St. Lawrence should be put under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Now, Sir, there can be no two opinions about the declarations that were made in this important speech. It was not a speech made in the excitement of an electoral contest, it was not a speech made upon the hustings, where you are face to face with your opponents, but it was a speech deliberately made before a Liberal club, by this minister who came there to propound what he called his policy and the policy of the government. He said there in so many words that everything which related to navigation, the building of wharfs, the dredging of rivers and harbours, the building of dry

docks, &c., was to be put in bis department. Now, Sir, have we not a right to ask the government whether this is really their policy ? After what has been said in the speech from the Throne, have we not a right to know whether this is really the policy of the government ? Have we not the right to have that policy of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, which will control these important works, and to have a statement given to the committee by the hon. gentleman who is authorized to give those explanations, and who will have these works under his control ? Will any lion, gentleman say that we are wasting the time of the committee in bringing this question before us ? I will not retort by saying that there are some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, particularly some hon. gentlemen who come from the same part of the country as the hon. gentleman who spoke a little while ago, who are wasting the time of the House. They come here to express the views which they think they should express in the discharge of their duties. We come here to do the same thing. We are all animated with the same wish to do our duty to the best of our ability, but at this advanced stage of the session, taking these declarations into consideration, and taking the importance of these works into consideration, I say that we should be in a position to know whether or not this policy of dividing the department of Public Works and giving part of it to the Marine and Fisheries is to be carried out by the government, and whether or not it is to be carried out at this session.


James Clancy: Mr. Chairman, I do not make any apology for again renewing what seems to me to he a very fair request. I quite agree with hon. gentlemen who say that we have no time in this House to waste. A very serious charge is made. It is that an hon. minister of the Crown absents himself from his place in the House because he is unable to rise and make a denial of a serious charge which was made agailist him. I was not present at the time and I wish to be set right if I make an incorrect statement, but I have been told that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. I'refontaine) was in his place in the House when he was confronted with having made this statement by an hon. gentleman on this side of the House, that he refused to answer, and it is a noticeable fact that the hon. minister has not been found in his place since, when this question has been likely to come up. I see it reported in two papers in Montreal that the hon. gentleman is not in Montreal but that he has returned to Ottawa, though I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman who had the courage to make the explanation believed that he was presenting a statement of fact. I repeat that it is not wasting the time of the committee to insist upon the rights of the committee to have an an-Mr. CASGRAIN.
swer to a question of that kind. It is not taking any unfair advantage of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to discuss this question, because the charge is made that he has absented himself from the House and is absenting himself from the House in consequence of this very awkward question. If a minister of the crown will publicly make declarations of that kind they are not to be taken as individual utterances. The country understands too well and hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House understand too well the gravity of an utterance of a minister of the crown. He is always supposed to speak for the government and especially upon such an important question as this. My hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has read here, and no hon. gentleman, it seems, is prepared to get up and contradict it, from a speech in which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, speaking before the Liberal Club only a few months ago, in the city of Montreal, declared that it had been the work of certain newspapers unfriendly to the government to say that the present hon. Minister of Public Works had been conniving against the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries in regard to the shuffle of the portfolio. He gave that statement a denial but he added the very important statement that the Department of Public Works was to be divided, and he went so far as to specify the items which were to be taken from the Department of Public Works and placed under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It was said by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that that great spending department had been administered by a minister from the province of Quebec for many years. I am not going to discuss the propriety of placing the department under the charge of a minister from the province of Ontario. I have no right to discuss the propriety of doing that, but I have the right to call the attention of the committee to the fact that a compromise was to be made, that if the department was to be taken from some gentlemen representing that great province-I will not say from the people-that gentleman was to be compensated in some way by dividing the work and giving it over to him. This is not a light matter and it is not one upon which there should be a single moment of the time of the House wasted. I think it is a serious question and I am disposed to discuss it in that light. I repeat again that a minister of the crown was charged with having left his place in the House, with having refused to answer any question when he was in the House, and that he is not found in his place when he might know that this question would come up at any time. The government have been silent on the question, and I was astonished at the hon. gentleman who claimed that the time of hon. members from the western part of this Canada of ours is more valuable than that of hon., gentlemen from

the east. He said that the eastern members of the House were wasting time. I confess that I expected a good deal more from that hon. gentleman. I did not expect that he would rise in a spirit of banter and take upon himself the right to lecture this side of the House upon what is the proper course to adopt. I think it is the proper course to adopt to insist that hon. members of the House should be in possession of such information as they are entitled to.
I think this is a matter of such gravity that the government cannot afford to entirely ignore it. These hon. gentlemen sit silent in their places afraid to make a declaration upon a matter that is so pressing in its nature that it does not seem to me that a single moment should be lost in placing before the committee the information which is asked for. If hon. gentlemen were desirous to get on with the work they would give the information that we are asking for. I regret that we have not accomplished more than we have up to this time, and .1 would ask the hon. gentleman who is now leading the House (Hon. Mr. Fielding) if be thinks it is the best way to get on with the work of the committee to pursue the course which he is pursuing in regard to this question. I am sure that there is nothing about it that the committee cannot fairly ask to be given to it. On the other hand, I am well persuaded that the course adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite will not facilitate the work of the committee.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Mr. Chairman, I would take the liberty of asking the hon. gentleman who is now leading the House (Hon. Mr. Fielding), in view of the very serious statement that has been made here to-night, that the present hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. PrGfon-taine) said that this divison had been sanctioned by the government, if an Order in Council has been passed, or if any action has been taken by the government in reference to dividing this office, and, furthermore, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) if it is true that he voluntarily handed over such work as was too onerous for him and that he was willing to make over to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries the work which was outlined by that hon. gentleman in his speech in Montreal. I would ask the Finance Minister, who is leading the House so ably, and in his own inimitable manner: what are the facts of the case ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I much regret that I am unable to add anything to the very valuable information I have already contributed to tbe debate.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) if the statement made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is true ; that he voluntarily said he could not carry 84
on all these works and that he was willing to hand over certain of them to his brother minister from Quebec.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not imagine that the statement was ever made.


Samuel Hughes: That is a serious reflection on ' La Patrie.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as I am personally concerned I never said to the Premier, or to any other person either in this House or out of it, that I wanted the portfolio of Public Works or any other position in the government.


Samuel Hughes: Or did not ask to be relieved from these works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If I had my own way I do not think I would occupy any position in the government. I consented on the request of tbe premier to take the position. I think, Mr. Chairman, this matter has been very fully discussed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There are a few items under the consideration of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The premier has made an announcement to the House on this matter. So far as these individual items are concerned they are matters of routine for maintaining tbe plant that belongs to the government, and whether there should be changes or not it would make very little difference. We have had a very lengthy discussion and we know what the feeling of the opposition is, and we might proceed with the business of the House. When the Prime Minister is in his place, he will make any announcement lie has to make in regard to the matter.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I did not expect that this debate would be raised to-night, but the question we are discussing is of pretty large importance after all. There is no doubt whatever that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made the speech that has been read to-night. The speech was reported word for word verbatim by Mr. Haines who was then my private secretary. It was reported for ' La Patrie ' and * La Presse ' at the same time.


Samuel Hughes: By different reporters.


Joseph Israël Tarte: No, by the same man.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Samuel Hughes: They both must be right then.


Joseph Israël Tarte: There is no doubt whatever that the report as altogether correct. word for word. It was stenographed 1 in the ordinary way. I had taken charge of



< La Patrie ' and X instructed Sir. Haines to go in the ordinary manner and take a report of what the Minister of Marine said. It was a very interesting occasion indeed. A minister of the Crown was making his first speech as a minister. The speech was reported in all the newspapers, in the English papers as well as the French. The lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries said then, and he stated it over and over again, not once hut ten times at least during this election campaign, that the dredging part of the Department of Public Works would be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. As to that there cannot be any dispute whatever. The point has been raised here now and it is just as well to have it out. We are discussing the items of dredging for the Department of Public Works, and if this money is to be spent by the Department of Marine and Fisheries then the minister of that department should be the man to answer the questions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is not fair to ask the House to vote money for the Public-Works Department if that money is to be spent in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Whether the hon. minister (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) has said what he was not authorized to say, or whether he has said what he was authorized to say ; that is his own business, but there is no doubt that he said it. He stated so in his own election and also in the election campaign in Terrebonne and Two Mountains.


Samuel Hughes: And he has never been asked for his resignation.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It has never been disputed that he made the statement. If the policy he then announced is not going to be carried out, well and good, and I hope it will not be carried out; but if it is to be carried out, then the House should be informed of it so that we should not be asked to vote money for one department and for one minister that would be spent by another department and by another minister. There might be questions asked from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine) that would not be asked from my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland). I for one would ask from the hon. gentleman who is Minister of Marine and Fisheries questions that I am not inclined to ask from my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland).


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, bear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: My hon. friend who leads the House (Hon. Mr. Fielding) should recognize that we should not proceed any further until we know. The Prime Minister stated a few days ago that he would be prepared to make an announcement within a short time, and it is only good pa rlin mention. Mr. TARTE.
tary practice not to proceed any further unless the present leader of the House is prepared to tell us that no change will be made. If the Department of Marine and Fisheries is going to spend the money which we are voting to the Department of Public Works, we have the right to know it. If the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had not made this statement I would not speak as I do but he has made the statement, and he is accountable for it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I have been asked to account for what I have said on former occasions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is my right and the right of parliament to know whether the statement made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been authorized or not. If it has been authorized we have no right to vote the Department of Public Works, money that the Department of Marine and Fisheries will spend.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Joseph Israël Tarte: He should be treated as


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. Say it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How will I say it ? He should be treated as constitutionally as I have been treated.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: Since I spoke last I have to announce another very important bulletin. I did not question the statement made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) until I read the Montreal ' Herald,' and I cannot account for the friendliness of the Montreal ' Herald ' to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries these days, unless it is that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is in Japan, and his newspaper is taking liberties that it would not take if he were here. The Montreal ' Herald ' in its Ottawa news announces that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has returned to Ottawa, and for the information of the House I will read what he says. I am sorry I am not able to read the same article in French, so that the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) could see again the word ' ungh.' With us that is a common word in the Indian language ; but I was not aware that it was so commonly used in French. Here is the correspondence in the ' Herald.'
Ottawa, May 7.-Hon. Raymond Prdfontaine returned from Montreal last night where he was looking into the situation with respect to the longshoremen's strike.
Mr. Prefontaine says he saw both the shipping interests and the longshoremen, and from what he has heard of both sides he does not see any possible solution to the strike, other

than that it will have to be allowed to work itself out.
So it would appear that neither the government nor the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are in a position to render any assistance to bring to' an end the strike now going on in Montreal. Then, he said :
So far as the longshoremen are concerned, the strike is practically over.
That seems a strange sentence to follow what I have already read.
They admitted this to him, and said that until they were willing to submit to the stevedores terms, with respect to discrimination against union men, the fact that the stevedores have now some 1,500 men engaged in their places, shuts out all but five hundred of the strikers and they now say, what is the use of giving in, it will, they say, do them no good. They argue that they may as well stay out and endeavour to bring out other unions in sympathy with them.
Yesterday, the stevedores had at work 1,111 longshoremen, 146 carpenters, 188 checkers, and 126 teamsters. These men have all been engaged for the season, and the strikers recognize that if they are taken back that the shipping interests will have to pay compensation to the men now engaged in their places
Mr. PrSfontaine says that there will undoubtedly be large loss to trade and to shipping, but there is no way to help it. Of course the entire number of men cannot be replaced at once but they will be replaced in a very short time, the most important feature to his mind is the replacing of the teamsters who have left a job paying $10 per week. The transportation companies claim that they will be able to do this and are doing it. Mr. PrSfontaine thinks that it will be but a short time until the whole matter is straightened out.
These contradictory sentences are something I do^not understand.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Reporters' work.


Mr.   I.@: MjEAM. Then, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I suppose, is not to be held responsible for this. Would the hon. gentleman say that the reporters who reported his speeches on other occasions made incorrect reports ?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That is not a report of his speech.


Andrew B. Ingram: It is a report of an interview. I am not bale to trace out the closing sentence in the interview, and therefore I will have to leave it. What I want to point out is that the statement made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil) does not appear to be in accord with this statement.


Charles Marcil: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I would state that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries came to Ottawa last night, but returned to Montreal this afternoon at 4 o'clock along with the Minister of Labour to attend a conference between the shippers and the longshoremen, as a result of a visit to Ottawa this afternoon of the president of the 84*
longshoremen's union, Mr. O'Neil. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is certainly performing a great duty for the city he represents in attending that conference tonight.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, in view of the absence of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I think these items should stand until he is present, because they may come under his department. Now, I propose to deal with some questions which have been raised here before. I do not see the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) in his place. I notice that when the North-west members have a 6eld day in this House, such as they had yesterday, they generally follow each other. But the hon. member for Selkirk did not take part in it; he was the silent member yesterday. He has broken out to-day. We were told in that discussiou that freight was congested in the Northwest; but we heard to-day in another part of this building that in the city of Montreal 1,500 cars .had lain on the sidings for months. If one of the members for Assiniboia were here-I understand that we are not going to have him long with us, because he is going to accept a seat in another part of this building-he could explain why this congestion took place in Montreal. Perhaps he could also explain why the discussion was entered into yesterday. In my innocence I said I did not believe the hon. member for Western Assiniboia had any ulterior motive; but I found that in another place to-day reference was made by the mover of a certain Bill to the importance of moving the congested freight in the North-west Territories. Whether there was any connection between that discussion of yesterday and what took place in another part of this building to-day, I do not know. Then, I do not wish to miss the chance of giving the hon. member for West York (Mr. Campbell) ani opportunity to explain about those market gardeners. That is another serious question; and I am bound to say, from my long acquaintance with that gentleman, that he does not lack moral courage in getting up in this House and expressing an opinion. I know he did not miss an opportunity when he used to discuss the question of free trade. I do not know whether he has changed his views; if he has, I would like him to explain the change. An hon. gentleman interjected the question to me, what about Mr. Gamey ? My leader, who came in a few moments ago, may wonder why the* remarks I am making are so rambling. I may say that while I was making a few remarks a short time ago, strictly to the question under discussion, several of these interjections were made, and that is my excuse for making these rambling remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am glad the expressions of assent on the other side of the House bear out the statement I am making. I

am glad to see the hon. gentlemen smile. It is only on rare occasions that they do.


Mr. COWAN.: A pretty dry smile, though.


Andrew B. Ingram: I heard one hon. gentleman remark that the House was not very full to-night, and my observation is that hon. members are not full except on this important question. On this important question they are full


Mahlon K. Cowan: Of wind.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman refers to wind. I am aware that the only representative of a gas county comes from Essex. And finding that he has a large supply on hand, I will give way to him.


Robert Laird Borden: Apart from any jesting manner in which this subject may have been dealt with to-night, I would submit to the hon. Minister of Finance that the period has arrived when we should have some information on this matter. It was announced in the speech from the Throne that a measure would be introduced for the reorganization of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Yet, although this House has been in session for two months of the four during which it is supposed to last, this measure has not yet been brought down. We also had the announcement made previously by a Minister of the Crown that this department was to be reorganized in a particular matter. This question was brought to the attention of my hon. friend the Prime Minister in a rather urgent manner as far back as last Friday, and he promised that a statement of the policy of the government would be made at a very early day. Is there any reason why it should not have been made long ago ? The announcement that the Department of Public works was to be reorganized was made by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries some three or four months ago. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister lectured Lord Dundonald yesterday by stating that he should only give advice to the people through the hon. Minister of Militia, and I presume that, on the same principle, an announcement of this kind should properly be made in parliament, so that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has laid himself open to the same strictures as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister passed on the General Officer Commanding our militia. As has been said by the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Hon. Mr. Tarte), this is a question of some importance to the country, and certainly now that parliament is in session we should have an authoritative announcement regarding it. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when in opposition, always insisted that the proper time to ask for a redress of grievances was before the passage of supplies, and it certainly is a grievance that


Andrew B. Ingram: when a minister of the Crown was able to announce the details of a measure months ago, the government should be unwilling or unable, now that parliament is in session, to declare its policy. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works appealed to me. Well, while I am glad to (assist him in passing the routine items, he must be aware that there is force in our objection that we ought to know when voting this money, who is to have the expenditure of it.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am quite willing to take the assurance of the hon. Minister of Public Works, if he is in a position to make an announcement, for I have never yet known my hon. friend to make any promise, either in public or private matters, which he has not carried out. I am quite willing ;to accept his statement, if he is in a position to make one, but I do not think that, in justice to the House, he should expect us to pass these items until we have some definite declaration as to whether the expenditure is to be made by the Department of Public Works or by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I am sure that my hon. friend will look at this matter in a reasonable way and either make some definite announcement or allow the item to stand until the government is in a position to do so. I think that is a fair position to take and one which I think my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works would be prepared to take if he were on this side.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In asking the House to vote these items, I have not the slightest hesitation in stating that I have every reason to believe that, as long as I occupy the position of Minister of Public Works, I will be responsible for the expenditure of this money.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Is that in contradiction to what the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries said ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: From my standpoint at least, I have felt called upon in my position of Minister of Public Works to answer every question put to me directly, and have always endeavoured to do so, and I can assure the House that I have every reason to believe that the statement I have made is correct.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Then we are to understand that these items will be expended by the Department of Public Works the next year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is what I have said.


Robert Laird Borden: In that case, we on this side ought to accept that assurance.
Item voted.

Dredge vessels, Manitoba, $12,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is intended to practically renew the dredging plant which has been in service a long time. There is considerable work to be done there.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is the dredge at work now or is it going to be put at work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am told that it will be able to do the work this season.
New dredging plant, maritime provinces- hydraulic dredge, $200,000.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a very large item and we should have full information regarding it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for a new hydraulic dredge which is not yet completed. It is to be hoped that it will be completed and ready for service at the beginning of next year.


Samuel Hughes: What is the total cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is $520,000.


Samuel Hughes: Is it a suction dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Combined suction and elevator.
Mr. CLANC1'. I understand that this refers to the dredge * Fielding ' now being constructed at Sorel, and that the hon. minister says it will not be completed nntil the end of the year. Does he refer to the fiscal or calendar year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The calendar year.


James Clancy: That is, it will not be ready for work this coming season ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The best hope I can give, after consultation with the engineers of the department, is that it will be ready for a year fi;om now.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Has the hull been launched or is it still in the yard ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has not beeni launched.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When was it begun ?


Joseph Israël Tarte: The Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) seems to be anxious to know more about that dredge-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I put a question which I think I have a right to
do-


Joseph Israël Tarte: Quite so.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Perhaps, I ought to apologize to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Tarte)-


Joseph Israël Tarte: Not by any means.
I was merely offering to answer a question, ou which, perhaps, I am a little better informed than the Minister of Public Works is. That is all I meant.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It was begun a little over two years ago.


Joseph Israël Tarte: far from the mark in saying that. At any rate I do not blame my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. He has no interest in delaying the work, and I am sure he has done everything he could to push it forward. I do not know whether he has gone down to Sorel to visit the shipyards. But X know that his colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prd-fontaine) has gone several times-in view, I suppose, of the fact that he thought he would lie entrusted with carrying out these works. But I have only to say that I am surprised that the work is not to be completed by the time it was understood that it would be completed when 1 left office.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have had a most interesting discussion on the subject of dredges and dredging. There has been a considerable conflict of opinion on the question whether this work ought to be carried out with dredges under the control of the government or let out to contractors. It seems to me that an important element in the consideration of the question is to know how soon the dredges can be got ready. We have been told by the exMinister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that when he came into office in 1896 there were practically no dredges at all, and that it has been necessary, in the time that has since elapsed, to equip the department in this respect. It seems to me that it was a very fair question to ask when the dredge was begun, and it is only proper that when a question of that sort is put, that we should have an answer that we can rely upon. I put the question to the minister in whose department the work is being done and who ought to be able to give the information. After consulting his officials on the floor, he told me that the work was begun two years ago and that it will take another year before it is finished. Is that correct or not ? For the ex-Minister of Public Works says it is not. The House ought to be enlightened on that point.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Let us discuss it.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, t My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) must know that when I make a statement wflth regard to matters that have taken place in the department, I make it on the authority of the officials of the department and not from my own knowledge. I remember very well the hon. gentleman's statements in the House and out of it to myself privately. We were all anxious that the work should be proceeded with, as the hon. gentleman's idea was that the work could be carried on more quickly at Sorel than it has actually been carried on. I felt anxious about it because I knew that the dredge was urgently required. After examination I do find that there is a difference of opinion between the officials of the department and my hon.


Joseph Israël Tarte: friend as to when it may be completed. If everything goes well, we expect it will be ready at the beginning of next year. The first vote-


Joseph Israël Tarte: The first vote I know all about.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can only speak from the information I find in the records of the department. I think the hon. gentleman will admit that there is no official of the department who would willingly make a wrong statement with regard to the business of the department. I found that the first vote was in 1901-2. The work in one sense was not commenced then, though it was fully in hand. The material was purchased, goods were purchased, and the work has been going on more or less ever since. Up to the present time there has been expended $285,000 on this work.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I want to explain further in regard to that work. The Minister of Justice seems to be anxious to know aH about it. The first time an amount of money was placed in the estimates was in 1901-2. Everybody knows that after an item is voted in the House, the work does not start immediately. Parliament is prorogued, and then preparations are made to go on with the work. The money was placed in the estimates, but that was not the beginning of the work. I instructed Mr. Robinson, after a certain time, to prepare plans, and that took a good deal of time. Practically the work has been going on for over one year. Now I do not wish to leave the committee under the impression that I blame the Minister of Public Works for the delay. Nothing of the kind. I know he has done everything he could, and I am only sorry that the dredge is not completed.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I understand the exMinister of Public Works, he complains that possibly the distribution of patronage in a different way is causing the delay. Is there any information to be given to the committee on that subject ? This is a serious matter. This dredge is going to be a valuable addition to the force, and is going to cost a large sum of money. The hon. gentleman, before leaving office, I understand, had purchased the greater part of the material for the construction of the dredge, and he makes the suggestion tonight that possibly- the method of administering the patronage of the department is causing delay. Is there any change in the method ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am unable to answer that question with regard to time. The first vote was taken in 1901, the second in 1902, the next in 1903. This is the fourth vote that is being asked for in connection with this work. I may

say that no change has been made that 1 am aware of in regard to this work.


Mr. LENNOX.: The ex-Minister of Public Works appears to be speaking of something that he knows pretty well when he says definitely that there is a question of patronage that enters into this matter, and prevents the rapid completion of the work. He suggests what has not been answered by the Minister of Public Works, that by reason of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries having in contemplation to carry out that which he had announced upon a public platform, and to secure for himself enlarged powers and patronage, is himself delaying the matter in order that he may secure that larger control of public works, and obtain possession of that larger patronage. I think we should have some explicit statement by the present Minister of Public Works that this difficulty which seems to have arisen will in some way be averted.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What difficulty does the hon. gentleman refer to 7


Haughton Lennox: I will explain more fully. I say that he should assure us .that this difficulty shall not continue to stand in the way of carrying out this work. I repeat that it appears that the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries has promised in the province of Quebec that he is to have a larger share of public works.


Peter Macdonald: I call the hon. member to order. The question of the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in regard to the division of the duties of the two departments has been ruled out of order.


Samuel Hughes: No, only as to one item.


Peter Macdonald: If it is not relevant to one item, you cannot raise it on another item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I draw the attention of the Chairman to this fact, that we are endeavouring to get information as to the cause of the delay in finishing this dredge, and it .is in connection with that item for the dredge that we are discussing the statements of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Peter Macdonald: I am now ruling on the position taken by the hon. member for Simeoe (Mr. Lennox), who was going on to discuss the question of the division of the duties pertaining to the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, a question that had been under discussion the whole evening on another item. Now this is what Bourinot says :
It is irregular to discuss any matters in committee which are not relevant to the resolution
under consideration.
Now I do not see any relevancy between the statements made by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as to the future intentions of the government to make a division of the duties pertaining to these departments, and the item in the estimates which is before the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I think, Mr. Chairman, you misunderstood the matter which has been brought up. I do not think the hon. Minister of Public Works has the slightest objection to giving the information. The question is simply as to whether the money is to be expended by the Department of Public Works, or by some other department. It is absolutely relevant and it is not exactly the question which you have been settling.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: G?he hon. gentleman was not in when I made that statement before, and I am sure if he had been he would have been perfectly satisfied. As to any change of patronage, or any change in the officials, I have stated most' distinctly that there has been none at all. There has been no interference in any way and no change that I am aware of. If there is anything more in this regard upon which he wants information, I have not the slightest idea what he is hinting at.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Chairman, I am quite willing to submit to your ruling in the matter. It is not very material to my purpose in dealing with the question that I have to deal with whether I shall pursue exactly the same lines that I was pursuing or not. But I was asked a question by the hon. Minister of Public Works and I propose to answer it, and I hope, that I shall have the hon. Minister of Public Works copying my example and answering the question explicitly and definitely. What I submit is this : We have had a statement by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that the difficulty which has arisen and which has caused the delay has been the question of patronage. We have had it further stated by the ex-Minister of Public Works that it has arisen in connection with the question as to what power shall be exercised hereafter by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works to state whether that state of things exists or not. If it does exist, why then, it is a very serious difficulty and one that should be developed by this committee and one that should be a- reason for not passing this item.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will answer in the hon. gentleman's own language and say that it does not exist. I hope that is clear.


Robert Laird Borden: We, of course, understand in regard to all the other items the assurance which the hon. minister has 1 already given equally applies ?


Tlie MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
New dredging plant-Ontario and Quebec, $75,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am asking for this amount of money that we may be able to provide a new dredge for the important work that is necessary to be done below Quebec. I know that it will take some time to build this dredge. If it is possible to purchase a dredge, as I have been ready to do, I would be very glad to do it. But we cannot commence, I think, too soon to appropriate some money for the purpose of building a new dredge. I am informed by the chief engineer that a dredge suitable for the work can be built for $75,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that a dipper dredge ?
' The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.
Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: If I understand the hon. minister, this dredge is going to be used below Quebec ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: It is a dipper dredge 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Must we understand that this is to dredge the channel opposite Crane island, for instance ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No. This is for dredging at various points along the river and harbours and at the approaches to wharfs.


Joseph Israël Tarte: That dredge will not be called upon to work in deep water ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will not be used for channel work. It would not be suitable for that.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is that dredge to be built to dredge, for instance, the approaches to wharfs ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, for instance, we have an application from Murray Bay.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Is it going to be a steel dredge ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What will be its capacity ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Between 2,000 yards and 2,500 yards.


John Dowsley Reid: Where is that dredge going to be built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If we could have it built at the govern-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ment shops it is the intention to do so. There is such an urgent demand that if we could purchase a dredge we would be glad to do it, so as to be able to do the work during the present year. If not we will have to build a dredge.


John Dowsley Reid: About what capacity of dipper is used on a dredge of that size ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that it will be a three or four yard dipper.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Of course, there is some difference between buying a dredge and building one. I think the committee ought to know whether the hon. minister intends to buy a dredge or build one.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think there is a very material difference. There is a lot of work that we must do. It has been represented to me that we might possibly buy a dredge. I do not know of any dredge for sale at the present time; in fact, from the inquiries the department has been making, I do not believe there is one in the Dominion of Canada to-day suitable for the work that can be bought. If we could buy a suitable dredge, I think it would be the best policy to buy one. But we are taking the vote for the purpose of procuring a dredge and from my information there is not one which could be bought and we may have to build one.


Joseph Israël Tarte: What are the dimensions of the dredge going to be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the dimensions or plans prepared yet. I am asking for this vote for the purpose of procuring a dredge or building one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. minister a question in connection with the item we have just passed which I did not have the opportunity of asking at the time. What will the other dredge cost to complete and what will be the cost of this dredge that we are now discussing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The large dredge is estimated to cost $520,000, and the chief engineer informs me that according to the plans and specifications which he proposes to draw for this one, it cam be completed for $75,000.
New dredging plant, Manitoba-self propelling snag-boat to work in Red and Assinlboiue rivers, $10,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you purpose building that in Manitoba ?


Mr. PUTTEE.: I would like the lion. Minister of Public Works to explain this item and to state whether there is any probability of having that boat built this year ? This is a revote. This boat has been needed

badly on those rivers for some time. The item, I believe, has had a great deal of consideration. I would ask if there is any probability of having the boat built this year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I find that this amount has been voted for some three or four sessions, and on Inquiry from the engineers I find that no action has been taken. I have asked for a further report as to what work is to be done and as to the necessity for this snag-boat. Until I get that information from the resident engineer, I could not pledge myself to spend this money, although we are asking for it.


Samuel Hughes: I see that the item just passed of $75,000 is for Ontario and Quebec. Is there anything for Ontario in that ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will have the new dredge for Ontario ready in four or five weeks. It has been customary to take this vote in this way.


William Forsythe McCreary: It was almost impossible to get material or labour for this class of work in the west last year. As a matter of fact, I believe it will require 25 or 30 per cent more to build the same kind of a snag-boat this year, because material and labour have advanced, and I think the resident engineer will ask for $12,500 more in the supplementaries.


Samuel Hughes: Where do the snags come from ?


Mr. DAVIS.: You will strike one soon.


William Forsythe McCreary: The Red River and the boundary line of Lake Winnipeg is filled with trees and snags and one thing or another, and vessels drawing two or three feet of water cannot pass along that river at low water until it is cleared.
New dredging plant generally, $60,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of this ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is for the construction of new plant to meet the exigencies of the government dredging service. I may say that these applications have been sent in as urgent in regard to the dredges in the various provinces. It covers new barges and tugs, &e. I may say that if all these applications were granted they would amount to over $300,000, but the chief engineer after going over them thinks he could do with a vote of $60,000 to keep the plant in work-.ing order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this for new plant or repairing ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Practically for new plant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where will these be built ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They will be purchased by contract.


Mr. BLAIN.: How many shops has the government for the construction of dredges?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have only one shop at Sorel.


Richard Blain: How is it possible to construct this new $75,000 dredge when the $500,000 dredge will not be built until next year.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That large dredge will be out of the way and the other work will be going on. I have had little opportunity of looking into the shop at Sorel, but the Information I have received from the engineer of the department is that for repairing and building such a dredge as this, and tugs and scows, we can do that cheaper than by , going to the other shops. As to doing this very large and important work where we have to purchase considerable machinery, I am not prepared to say at the present time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How will the minister provide for this new plant ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We will advertise for tenders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Every shipyard will have an opportunity to supply them?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Dredging-Quebec and Ontario, $75,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where is this money to be spent


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This vote is taken for the maintenance of the government dredges. There is one at Kingston, and my intention is to send one to Port Hope and one to Gananoque, and to different parts of the province.


Andrew B. Ingram: We should have a statement ns to how many places the work will be done in.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot remember all the places now, but, if my hon. friend is agreeable, I will bring down the programme and lay it on the Table.


Andrew B. Ingram: Very well.


Richard Blain: Will the minister also bring down the information I asked for, as to the different counties in which these dredges were at work last summer.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can give my hon. friend that information now. The ' Challenge ' was at Kincardine, Midland, Owen Sound and Collingwood. The ' Ontario ' at Port Stanley, Rondeau and Kingsville. The ' Nipissing ' at Burlington Piers, Bronte, Hamilton, Port Hope

and Bowmanville. The ' Queen ' at Osha-wa, Bowmanville, Dunbarton and Pickering. The 'Sir Richard ' at Hawkesbury, Grenville, Bath and Adolphustown.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 12.25 a.in., Friday.

Friday, May 8, 1903.