1903-08-07

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I desire to ask a question with regard to the correspondence which took place on the subject of the inter-imperial conference. I am informed that the question was put to the right hon. the Premier (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) a few days ago whether he would endeavour to have this correspondence laid on the Table at an early day, and he replied that he hoped to be able to lay it on the Table in a few days. Might I ask, in the absence of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), if the Prime Minister has any further information to give us on the subject ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I told my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that I would have to communicate with His Excellency the Governor General before making any statement. This I have done. The information I have to convey to the House is that the despatch which came from the Colonial Office was a secret despatch, which we have not the right to lay upon the Table. His Excellency has communicated with the Colonial Office asking for permission, and no answer has been received.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-OLD SURVEYS.

Hon. J. G. HAGGART (South Lanark).: I would like to call the attention of the act-

ing Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to tFe necessity of furnishing the House either to-day or on Monday with all possible information that is in the department in reference to surveys that were made for a contemplated railway at the time when the Canadian Pacific was building, from Lake Temiscamingue north of the height of land, north of Lake Nepigon towards Lake Winnipeg. One of the surveys west of Lake Nepigon and to twenty-five or thirty miles north was made by a Mr. Bailey. The one on this side was by Mr. Secretan, and Mr. Gansby made another survey. I do not want the actual surveys, but the reports of the engineers as to the nature of the country would be very interesting and helpful in the debate on Tuesday next.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: I have been informed that there are no reports of the character referred to in the department other than those which have been published and that may be found in the library. I made inquiry with reference to what the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) said on a previous occasion, and this is the information that was given me in the department. Perhaps, with the details that the hon. gentleman has given, we may be able to find them.


John Graham Haggart: I can give the names of the engineers who have charge of the different surveys. There can be no doubt about it. The reports must be there.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All these reports, I think, were published at the time, and are to be found in the library. But I understood the hon. gentleman to say that there was something later.


John Graham Haggart: No ; they are not published. They are reports made for the purpose of an alternative route for the Canadian '[DOT] Pacific Railway. The surveys were made under the direction of Sir Sandford Fleming (then Mr. Sanford Fleming), who was then the deputy head of the department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that what my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) refers to will be found in the different reports of the department that are on file in the library. I understand he has reference to some that were not published. I will make further inquiry about the matter.



BRITISH CABLE NEWS SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
That it is expedient to enact as follows:-
1.	The Governor in Council may authorize the payment of the following sums, in the respective fiscal years mentioned, for the purpose of assisting in establishing and maintaining an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain, for publication in the Canadian press :-
John Graham Haggart: (a.) For the fiscal year 1903-4, a sum not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars, or at the rate of fifteen thousand dollars per annum for any period less than a year.
(b. )* For the fiscal year 1904-5, a sum not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars.
(c.) For the fiscal year 1905-6, a sum not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars.
(d.) For the fiscal year 1906-7, a sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars.
(e.) For the fiscal year 1907-8, a sum not exceeding five thousand dollars.
2.	The said sums may be paid at such times and in such manner as the Minister of Finance may determine, to any association or committee representing the proprietors of such newspapers as may associate themselves for the purpose of establishing and maintaining such service.
Provided, however, that no payment shall be made under authority of this Act until the Minister of Finance shall have satisfied himself that the benefits of the service are open, on fair and reasonable terms to all newspapers published in Canada; and that not less than one-half the cost of establishing and maintaining such service is paid by the proprietors of the newspapers participating in the benefits thereof.
3.	The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes of this Act.-The Minister of Finance.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The resolution which is before the committee, as will be seen, has reference to the granting of a sum of public money to assist in making a better cable service for the benefit of the Canadian press and, through the Canadian press, for fhe benefit of the Canadian people. I am sure that members of the committee will agree with me when I say that the manner in which our Canadian press is served with cable news from Europe, except as respects a few special despatches which they are receiving, and which are unobjectionable, is eminently unsatisfactory. I am sure that every hon. member when reading in the public press the report of something of imperial concern which has been before the British House of Commons, or in some way has engaged the attention of the people, has had reason to feel aggrieved at the tone and temper of the whole report. This arises from the fact that our Canadian newspapers -though I am glad to say they are making gratifying progress, and are making an excellent place in the journalistic world-are not, many of them, endowed sufficiently with wealth to be able to establish an independent cable service. Some two or three of the more enterprising have recently obtained special cable reports of their own, but the majority are still obliged to use the reports received by way of the United States and prepared chiefly for the United States people1. The consequence is that many things that are of interest to us in Canada are not reported at all, and many that are reported are coloured in a way that is far from agreeable to us. Several years ago I was so impressed with this fact that I asked the consent of my colleagues to make

a proposition to parliament for a public grant to assist a movement of tbis kind toward the establishing of a better service for the Canadian press. X thought then, as I think now, that the service should not be entirely supported by government, but that the newspapers themselves should bear a proper share of the expense. I had negotiations with a number of gentlemen connected with the Canadian press, in the hope that I might then be able to prepare a scheme of this character, but, as it involved a considerable outlay by the Canadian newspapers, they were not prepared at the time to respond to the suggestions we made. The proposition received their sympathy, but the financial part imposed 'too serious a burden upon the newspaper proprietors, and, for the time being, the movement was not successful.
Quite recently however some gentleman connected with the press who have been aware that the government entertained such an idea in time jiast, have approached us again and asked if we would still be disposed to carry out what was then in our minds, and I have been glad to be able to assure them on behalf of the government that if they were prepared to form an organization for giving an efficient service to the Canadian press and bear a reasonable proportion of the expense, we would be glad to make a contribution to the system. A committee composed of representatives of the press, irrespective of political parties, came here some time ago and stated that if we would agree to give a moderate degree of assistance they would themselves undertake to raise a considerable sum of money. We have come to the conclusion to ask the House to approve of the grant of the sums which we have mentioned in these resolutions $15,000 for the first, second and third years, $10,000 for the fourth year, and $5,000 for the fifth year. We are assuming that the press will develop considerably, and that while at the beginning they cannot aid as much as we would like them to do, and they would like to do for themselves, we expect that after several years they will be able to gather in the subscriptions of a larger number of newspapers and be able to carry on the service effectively after the expiration of the five years. We leave the scheme largely to the newspapers. The government do not assume to exercise any control over it. We propose to deal,' as the resolution says, with an association or committee representing the press generally.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have they not outlined any scheme yet ?	[DOT]


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not further than this, that we have intimated to them that for a time at least they should undertake to provide a service, to employ correspondents, to pay for cable bills and do all that is necessary to create an efficient service, and they have agreed to secure the co-operation of as many newspapers in
Canada as are able to contract for the service. The newspapers in the large cities will have to pay a much larger amount than the newspapers in the smaller centres, although all will receive the service alike ; those in the large communities; will have to pay more, those in the smaller communities will pay less, though they all get the same news. We leave the gentlemen of the press to work out all the details for themselves. The conditions which we impose are, first, that they raise and spend for the service at least as much money as the government does. The second condition is that they must hold the service open to every newspaper in Canada on fair and reasonable terms ; and unless they can show us that everybody in Canada who wants to contract has all the privileges which this scheme offers them they are not entitled to receive the money. We leave the working out of the details entirely to the newspaper people, and we accept the assurance which the representatives that the leading papers have given us that they will work it out on an entirely non-partisan basis, and with the co-operation of the press generally throughout the Dominion.
Mr. BORDEN" (Halifax.) I heartily and cordially support the proposal of the Minister of Finance In this regard. I am satisfied that the people of this country have not had fair play in the way of getting news from England during the past, and on the other hand the people of England perhaps have not been any better supplied with Canadian news. We have had to get a great deal of our news through sources which are coloured, not certainly from a Canadian or an English standpoint. While I am not disposed to make any reflection in that direction, nevertheless I feel satisfied from what information I have obtained, and that I have had placed before me in connection with this very matter, that certain events of great public consequence in the mother country have sometimes come to us with a certain colour which is not desirable either in the interest of the empire or in the interest of Canada. If it is possible by aid of this kind to ensure that the press of Canada shall have fair and accurate reports of events of public importance in the mother country, and that the people of the mother country shall have accurate and adequate means of knowing what is being done and published in Canada, I think a great service will be rendered to the country. I do not know how it is in Great Britain at the present time, I have not had the pleasure of visiting that country for six or seven years ; but I know that during my previous visits I have often been intensely disappointed, I might even use a stronger word, at the very great dearth of news of my country that appeared in the English papers. In many of them there was not a word regarding Canada for a considerable time, and in the more import-

ant journals only a line or two and perhaps not that. If this grant will contribute to any better result, and I have every reason to believe that it will, I think there is no person in this country who would not heartily join in supporting the proposition of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Some time, either in the month of June or July, I attended a meeting of gentlemen connected with this project in the city of Montreal. At that time they did not appear to have any clearly defined scheme in their minds, I hope it has been made clearer since. At the meeting to which I allude there were, besides newspaper men, some business men. Similar meetings I understand had been held in Toronto and elsewhere. If I understood what was in their minds, their idea was to form a kind of a joint stock company to-, gether and send news. It was in my capa-citj' of a newspaper man that I was invited to attend the meeting ; there were only a few newspaper men present for the city of Montreal. I would like to know from the Minister of Finance on what conditions he proposes to pay that pretty large sum of money. So far as I understood the idea of the newspaper men, it was to act in opposition to the existing cable, or at any rate to the existing state of affairs. The object was not very clear, and that is the reason why I inquire. Let me say before taking my seat that, being no more Minister of Public Works, I am more free to fight for the rights of my former department. I think my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is invading the realm of the minister of telegraph. If it were in my days I would kick. I make that remark in a very friendly spirit, but all the same I claim that when a department has direct charge of business-like telegraphs the hon. Minister of Finance should at least agree that the minister of telegraphs should make a report jointly with him. That is only fair. I have no personal ends to serve and I make these observations in all friendship.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In regard to the statement of my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) that it is an invasion of the Public Works Department, I may say that it is not an invasion of any department for the Minister of Finance to provide the money. I have never found that any department had the least objection to the Minister of Finance providing money. 1 am not clear that any particular department has charge of this business, but 1 may say that when the Minister of Public Works required money for the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, a matter coming within the purview of his department, as far as expenditure is concerned, it was always the Minister of Finance who brought up the appropriation and gave him the money, so that we are simply following the same rule in this case as in Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
other cases. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), whose commendation and co-operation I am glad to welcome, I am afraid connected this resolution with a matter which is a little beyond its scope when he suggested that we might make provision not only for news coming from Great Britain, but also for a supply of news from Canada to Great Britain. That is very desirable indeed.


Mr. CLARKE.: This scheme may work out in that way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, this scheme may lead to it. You have to make arrangements with the English papers to publish your news and this is not a matter that can be directed from this side of the Atlantic. If we could do anything to induce English papers to give more prominence to Canadian affairs it would be well worth our pains to attempt to do something in that direction. I am glad to know that of late years there has been a vastly increased interest taken in colonial affairs, and particularly in Canadian affairs, and we find that the English newspapers are to-day disposed to publish much more matter from Canada than formerly. They have a number of special correspondents in Ottawa. I have had the pleasure of meeting three of four gentlemen representing the British press within a few days who have come out to visit Canada, not only those with the British press party, but others who have come out individually. I think if anything could be done to arouse an increased interest in London, and to bring about the publication of Canadian events in the British papers it would be very desirable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in understanding that this cable service will be quite independent of the American lines V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be the cost per word for these despatches, and what number of words will be received per day during the year for that amount ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information. When we say it will be independent of the American lines, what we mean is that there will be a Canadian correspondent in London and he will do work entirely for the Canadian service, and that will give us a purely Canadian service. We do not make any condition hs to what particular cable the news must come over. As to rates, I have no reason to suppose that the rates will be any lower than they now are. Just what number of words this will give each day is a point that I could hardly undertake to speak upon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are the rates now?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The press rate is 12i cents per word, or halt the ordinary commercial rate. The commercial rate is 25 cents a word, and the press rate is 12J cents a word.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What about utilizing the Marconi system ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no doubt they will, and if they do they will get the benefit of the rates for which we have stipulated. On that point we have not very much information as to the recent movements of the Marconi system. A representative of the company was here recently, he came to see me and he said that while they had suffered some difficulties aud delays, he felt satisfied that within a very little time they would be able to carry out all they had undertaken.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: As a matter of fact is there not another company that has made some better progress than the Marconi company ? I have noticed some tests between the two companies in the United States, the Deforest Company and the Marconi Company, and I observed that on two recent occasions messages transmitted by the instruments of the Marconi Company have been tapped by another company? One of these occasions was only a day or two ago.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is another company which has been making very great progress. As to the relative merits of the two systems, I would not be in a position to offer any opinion. The Marconi system is admittedly successful for short distances as the Deforest system is. As to long distances, I would not say anything as to their relative merits, but they are both successful as to short distances. At present the Deforest company has not attempted ocean telegraphy, but they have it in contemplation, and they believe that they can carry it out more successfully than the Marconi Company. They have made some proposals to the departments looking to the adoption of the Deforest system in the Canadian government service.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think it would be extremely desirable for the government to make sure as to the success of either system before spending any more money in connection with it. It seemed to me extremely inconsistent that last year we should be making a grant of money in favour of the Marconi Company, and at the same time building cable lines in localities which should be served by this company if this invention is going to amount to anything. I do not know anything of the relative merits of the two systems, but I think that possibly the hon. Minister of Finance may be able to tell us whether or not the Marconi system across the Atlantic is an assured success.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, it is not a commercial success yet. I understand, however, that they are sending messages from this side to England. The representative of the company who called on me, in answer to my question as to that, said that they were prepared to transmit any message which I might give him to any of 'my friends or acquaintances in London, but that they could not undertake to bring the return message, because the power of their station in England is not as great as the power of their station in Cape Breton. That was the reason given.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a lop-sided system.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Well, it takes two parties to make a contract like that. I do not regret the step that we have taken in assisting the Marconi system. It is a great invention, and I think Canada obtained a little kudos for holding out her hands and assisting these people to come to Canada, and if the Marconi system should prove to be a great success in the future the government of Canada will always in the history of that invention be credited with having been the first government in the world to give it a friendly hand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me, from the calculation that I have made, that they would not get a very big service for the amount of money that is proposed to be given.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They have to give an equal amount of money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would make it $30,000. If you take $30,000 and divide that by eight, which would practically give the rate per word, then divide the result by 305, the number of days in the year, you would find that the number of words that you would get would not be very many. Then you would have to deduct also from that the cost of delivery and other incidental expenses in connection with it; so that you would not get a very good service for the amount of money, unless there is some special arrangement whereby there will be a reduction in the rate that we are paying to-day.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I will have to give away some of the family^ secrets. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is too confiding when he assumes [DOT]that every word he reads in these cable despatches in the newspapers has been cabled from the other side. I have no doubt that there is an impression amongst many excellent people, when they read these long columns of cable despatches that every word came from England exactly as it appears, at the rate of sixpence per word. The fact is, that manv of these words are never cabled from England at all. These cablegrams are skeletonized, and a clever journalist can,

with the exercise of his intelligence and his experience, fill out that paragraph, save a good deal of money, and give the people an intelligent service.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is the practice on the other side.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a world-wide practice in the field of journalism, and it is a legitimate practice in the hands of capable and responsible men. If you are giving the exact words of a man or a quotation from a document, of course that must be given exactly; but for the general purpose of giving news you can fill in your skeleton cable and you can do it quite legitimately.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Without destroying the sense or warping the meaning?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly.


Mr. HOLMES.: The hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) is so seldom on bis feet that I have no objection to being called to order by you, Mr. Chairman, in order that I should give the floor to him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Holmes: As one of those who happened to be present when the delegation of newspaper men waited on the Finance Minister, I wish to say a word or two on this matter. The representations then made to the Finance Minister and made to myself in private conversation afterwards, were that the representatives of the press intended by this method to get an entirely uncoloured news-service so far as English cable news is concerned. My hon. friend the leader of the oposition, as stated by the Finance Minister, is evidently under a wrong impression as to the nature of this service. I would myself be glad if it were possible to have in the English newspapers a good summary of Canadian news, which apparently we have not at the present time. However the object of the newspaper men who waited on the Finance .uintster as representing the various leading papers of the country of both sides of politics, was that they might be able to obtain a much better and more complete cable service than they have at the present time. I do not know what information the late Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) has over and beyond what he has stated to the House, but so far as the representations made to the Finance Minister are concerned, there was no idea or intention that there should be the establishment of an independent cable service at all. The simple idea was to procure through uncoloured channels information that would be of advantage and benefit to the people of. Canada. There is also this fact to be borne in mind-as criticism is offered by the member for East Grey -that the amount that was promised by the Finance Minister is the amount that was


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: practically asked for by the gentlemen representing the newspapers. They evidently had made some estimate as to the annual expense that would be involved, and they were perfectly satisfied with the conditional assurance of the Finance Minister that assistance of the nature now proposed should he granted. They realized that this would give to them a satisfactory news-service. Anybody who had had any experience with newspapers knows perfectly well that telegraph tolls as a rule are pretty heavy, and the newspapers do not get any more cable news than is absolutely necessary because of the great expense. Under the anticipated condition of affairs, they will have an everyday cable service that will be more satisfactory to newspaper readers and to the people of Canada generally. I understood from the remarks of the deputation that they intended taking in a number of the journals throughout the country as co-partners in this scheme. Of course, newspapers are subjected to what no other business is subject to, in that there is more or less stealing carried on by the papers that come out later than the others, and consequently no help can be obtained from some newspapers for this scheme. However, it was understood that a number of the papers joining in this organization were willing to bear their .share of this expense in connection wth the proposal as announced by the Minister of Finance. It seems to me that the proposal will meet with the cordial approval of the entire House. It is one of the few questions upon which we can all agree, and I am satisfied that it will prove a decided advantage to Canadian newspapers. If the result should be to lead to the publication of fuller and better Canadian news in the British newspapers. we will have accomplished a great deal of good for Canada by voting this money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I feel deeply grateful to the member for Huron (Mr. Holmes) for the gratuitous information he has given to the member for East Grey, and also for the additional information he has given us as to the proclivity of the newspapermen for stealing their news.


Mr. BENNETT.: That is only some of them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The small press, he says.
I assume that those who acquire the habit of stealing ballots could as well steal their press despatches, and therefore it would not be much out of place for them to do so. I still believe that this scheme is not universally regarded by the press of the country as a satisfactory arrangement. I am told that the Montreal Gazette is not of the opinion that it is going to be an unqualified success, and for reasons which I need not wait to explain at the present time.
I am not opposed to the proposition because I think the principle is good. I hare al-

ways regarded it as an unfortunate thing that our news from England comes through a source that so warps it, that it is of little value to us, and does not do justice to the country or to those with whom the information originates. It is very desirable, if it be possible to attain it, that whatever news we do get shall not be coloured by the fruitful imagination of journalists, but that we should get in substance the same information that was given at the other end of the wire. That is a matter of great importance to the country, and as for news going to England, I assume that it is not so liable to misrepresentation as the news coming from England to Canada. If this succeeds in getting us correct information in cable despatches, the money, in my judgment, will be well spent.


Robert Holmes: Every one in this House knows perfectly well that when the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) addresses the House, he only speaks on subjects that he is familiar with, and hence his reference to ballot stealing must be based on personal experience.
*Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not on record as having any experience in that line like my hon. friend.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure).: As a member of the newspaper fraternity, I believe I can express the opinion prevailing in the province of Quebec, when I congratulate the government on this new departure. It is certainly a sign of the times, and I hope the benefits of the proposal will be lasting for the Canadian press and for the Canadian people. The scheme is so good a one that I am sorry it has been limited in its operation to Great Britain. We have in Canada more than a million and a half of Canadian citizens who take a very deep interest in what goes on in France. Successive governments have made praiseworthy efforts to renew our commercial relations with France; the Conservative government brought about a treaty with France and the present government is following up the efforts which were made in that direction in the past. I trust, therefore, that the government will not overlook the importance of having a branch of this cable service extended to Paris. London, of course, is the centre of the English world, as Paris is the centre for continental news, and it is in the interest of Canada that certain things which happen in 'France: should be reported to the Canadian press from Paris itself, and not receive a colouring in London, as unfortunately has happened when some little friction has sprung up. While I commend the effort that is now being made, I hope that the government will see that this Canadian Press Association will have an agency established In Paris, not only for French news, but for
continental news generally. No Canadian now goes to Europe without going to Paris, and no trip to Europe is complete without a visit to Paris. If we wish to extend our commercial and social relations with Europe, I believe that we should have a representative of the Canadian press in Paris, and that Canadian news should be sent to Paris, which is the centre of distribution for the whole continent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) that the matter which he has spoken of has not escaped our attention. When I was discussing the subject with the gentlemen of the press who called on me, I suggested to them that it might be desirable that we should take into consideration the needs of the French press, and I asked them to communicate with some of the French newspapers and ascertain to what extent they desire communication with Paris. I anticipated that it might be necessary to stipulate that there should be an agency in Paris, but I am informed, and though my information is at second-hand, I think it is correct, that the leading French papers take the view that while they .were desirous of having occasional telegrams from Paris, when something of importance occurred, they did not think there was enough news of interest to Canada to require a regular correspondent to be established there in the same sense as in London. I anticipate, however, that the committee will see that a connection is made with Paris for getting French news, and supplying as much of that to the French newspapers as they are desirous of having. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the matter has been considered, the committee has been in communication with the proprietors of some of the French newspapers, and I am assured that they are in sympathy with the movement in its present shape.


Robert Laird Borden: Have the committee or the gentlemen who are to compose the proposed association had under consideration at all the subject of supplying Canadian news to the English press ? I regard it as very important that the news which is distributed throughout the United Kingdom with regard to Canada should go as much as possible direct from Canada, and I believe that is not the case at the present time to a very great extent, except with the great journals;


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Though it is not the case to as large an extent as we could wish, it is the case to a much larger extent titan ever before. There are two well known press agencies in England, the Reuter and the Exchange Telegram Company, both of which have correspondents at Ottawa; and when a despatch goes to either of these agencies, it is distributed to a large number of newspapers. In addition to that, several papers have

their special correspondents, who, though they do not send daily telegrams, do send telegrams when anything of importance occurs. While X realize that this service is much better than it was in former years, it is not yet all that we desire, and I shall be glad if this association can be the means of improving it. The newspaper men of Canada represent to me that while they can enter into an agreement for news to be printed in the Canadian press, they have no guarantee that any news they might send to England would be printed in the English newspapers if it were sent. So that I do not think that at the present time we are able to do in that respect what my hon. friend and myself both desire. I hope the effect of this arrangement will be to help the other end of the service, and that, ere long, we shall have a better service on both sides than we have at present.
Resolutions reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
The MINISTER OP FINANCE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 240) to assist in establishing and maintaining an independent and efficient service of telegraphic news from Great Britain for publication in the Canadian press.


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

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved second reading of Bill (No. 155) respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as to railway debts. He said :	This is a Bill which has been
placed on the government orders, but which has been introduced into the House by my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers).	.
Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: In 1890 an Act respecting the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court as to railway debts was enacted as chapter 44. By this Act leave was given to the mortgagees, creditors or holders of debentures against a railway to obtain from the Exchequer Court a decree of sale of the railway. Since that time it has been discovered that there were other parties to whom no leave was given. These are the ordinary creditors and the public at large. It is proposed by this Bill to give relief to these parties. It is a well-known fact that many of our railroads are not operated during certain parts of the year, and though the public at large suffer, this government has not been able to afford a proper remedy. It is proposed by this Act to permit the Minister of Railways and Canals when a railway is insolvent to apply to the Exchequer Court for an order of sale and for the appointment of a receiver.


William Stevens Fielding: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: Is it intended by this Bill to take away any of the jurisdiction which a provincial court might exercise so far as a railway wholly situated in a province is concerned ?


Louis Philippe Demers: The purpose of the Act is not to take away the jurisdiction of provincial courts. It is in accordance with what was in the Act of 1899.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: 
Robert Laird Borden: We have railways in Nova Scotia, which are subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, but which are wholly in the province of Nova Scotia. Is it intended by this Bill to vest exclusive jurisdiction over such railways in the Exchequer Court? I do not know that there are any words in the Bill which necessarily would lead to that interpretation, but, some question might be raised ; and if it is not intended to deprive provincial courts of any jurisdiction they have at present, it would be better to state so specifically. I might bring to the attention of my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville the use of the word ' insolvent ' in subsection (a). Has he defined that word anywhere in the Bill ?


Louis Philippe Demers: Yes, in section 5. As I have already stated, clause 1 of the Bill, defining the railways over which the Exchequer Court of Canada shall have jurisdiction, is taken verbatim from the statutes of 1899, chapter 44.


Robert Laird Borden: This section simply re-enacts that ?


Louis Philippe Demers: No, it goes further. While the same railways fall under the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court, as are defined in chapter 44 of the statutes of 1899, the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court is extended beyond that Act to ordinary creditors and to roads not operated.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: This legislation is rendered absolutely imperative by

the judgment of the Privy Council in Grey vs. the Manitoba and North-western. The Privy Council held that no provincial court has jurisdiction to deal with a railway as an entity, which exceeds beyond the limits of the particular province in question, so that in order to have such a railway sold, it is necessary to vest some federal court with jurisdiction over it. As regards a railway entirely within the limits of a province but which is under federal jurisdiction, owing to its having been declared a work for the general utility of Canada, I cannot see any good reason why a provincial court should not have jurisdiction to deal with it. It is an immovable and entirely within the limits of the province.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree absolutely with my hon. friend that, as regards a railway which extends beyond the limits of a province, we must confer jurisdiction on the Exchequer Court. But there is a question as to those wholly within, although as the hon. member for St. John and Iberville points out, he has used exactly the same language in that regard as is to be found in the Act of 1899. We have had no difficulty in Nova Scotia about working out these matters in respect of a railway wholly within that ^province. My hon. friend from Annapolis knows that our courts have dealt with these matters without any difficulty whatever, and it seems to me that it would be more convenient to deal with them in the province where our courts are readily accessible and not have to go to Ottawa for the issue of process and the many interlocutory applications necessary in litigation of that kind. Of course, in so far as this Bill proposes to confer upon the Exchequer Court powers which are not exercisable by any provincial court, and which are in the public interest, you migh leave it as it is with respect to interprovincial railways; but in the ease of a railway situated wholly within the province, it would be better to have those powers exercised by the highest court of the province. Has my hon. friend from St. John considered that point in his Bill ?


Mr. WADE.: I would be very sorry indeed to see any of the powers of our provincial courts taken away. I do not think that the wording of this section deprives them of any jurisdiction. It only confers jurisdiction on the Exchequer Court in eases where it is not vested in a provincial court. If there be any doubt, it would be well to add a clause providing that this Bill shall not detract from any jurisdiction now vested in our provincial courts.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a little more in it upon which I would be very glad to know the opinions of members of the bar throughout' the House. This Bill does confer powers upon the Exchequer Court which are not at present exercisable by provincial courts. But in respect of a railway situated
wholly within a province, is it better to confer those powers upon the Exchequer Court or the provincial court of the highest jurisdiction ? At this moment there is no good reason why those powers should not be exercised by the highest court in the province in respect of a railway wholly situated within that province.


Louis Philippe Demers: The Bill only concerns railways over which the Privy Council has decided that the provincial courts have no jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree that the Exchequer Court is a proper tribunal to have jurisdiction in respect of any railway extending through more than one province. But why should not the provincial court of the highest jurisdiction exercise those powers in respect of a railway situated within a province ? I take, for example, the Dominion Atlantic Railway, or the Nova Scotia Central Railway, which are entirely within the province of Nova Scotia. Suppose you want to exercise the powers here conferred upon the Minister of Railways and Canals or upon any creditor, to sue for a decree against such a railway because it has become insolvent, or has for more than ten days failed to efficiently continue the working or operating of such railway, why should you not have the decree made by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia instead of by the Exchequer Court ?


Mr. BELCOURT.: It seems to me that the suggestion of the leader of the opposition is a good one.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If it were decided to carry out the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition, all that would be required would be to strike out the words ' or as regards any railway otherwise subject to the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.' This would restrict the jurisdiction to those railways not wholly within one province. But the question arises as to whether it is or is not wise to give the federal court which is under our control absolute jurisdiction in all matters connected with railways that are under federal authority. It seems to me that this would be desirable rather than to follow the suggestion of the leader of the opposition. There is no reason why a railway that is under federal jurisdiction, even if it is wholly within the limits of one province, should not be made subject to the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court, the same as with a railway extending beyond the limits of one province. It seems to me it would be better to make uniform legislation. That would not exclude the concurrent jurisdiction of the courts of the province in dealing with those railways that are situated wholly within the province. My hon. friend will remember the decision in" the case of Redfieid vs. Corporation of Wickham, where the Privy Council held that

a provincial court had a right to sell a railway. I will read from that decision
They do not suggest that, according to the policy of Canadian law a statutory railway undertaking can be disintegrated by piecemeal sales at the instance of judgment creditors or incumbrances; but they clearly show

And this is the important part

-ittoait the Dominion parliament has recognized the rule that a railway or a section of railway may, as an integer, be taken in execution, and sold, like other immeubles, in ordinary course of law. They justify the statement of Chief Justice Dorion, in the present case, that 'it is now well settled by the jurisprudence prevailing in this country, and recognized by the Act 46 Vic. c. 43, that a railway can be seized and sold for the debts of the company who owns such a railway.
That was a railway which came within the operation of our Dominion Act, but, being entirely situated within the limits of the province of Quebec, it was held that the provincial courts had jurisdiction, and the railway could be taken in execution and disposed of by the sheriff absolutely in the same way as any other property.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with everything that the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) has said with regard to the operation of the law. The old rule, of course, was that, in respect to a railway you ' could not cut down the trees, but only take the fruit '-you could put a receiver in charge and use the revenue to pay a judgment creditor.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That, however, never prevailed on this side of the water.


Robert Laird Borden: That prevailed in England. And they put it on the ground of public policy-that a railway was intended to be a public service, and you could not interfere with the service at the instance of the creditors, but you could give him relief by giving him the rents and tolls through a receiver. I do not knoW whether I clearly apprehended the reason on account of which the Minister of Justice said that these powers should be conferred on the federal court. Would he be good enough to repeat briefly the reason that he gave in that regard ? I suggested that, in the case of a railway wholly within one province, it would he more convenient to confer the jurisdiction upon a provincial court. The hon. gentleman made some answer to that.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not thiuk I answered that. No doubt, it would be convenient in one way to have the court of the province continue exercising its jurisdiction. But I said that we conferred jurisdiction upon the Exchequer Court in these cases to deal with railways under federal jurisdiction, whether they were under our jurisdiction because they have been declared to be works for the general advant-


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: age of Canada, or because they connected with certain railways mentioned in the Railway Act, or because they extended beyond the limits of one province; and it seemed to me better, for the uniformity of legislation, that we should give federal jurisdiction over all. This could be done without interfering with the existing jurisdiction In the provincial courts with respect to those railways which though federal in their character, are situated entirely within the limits of one province, and the suggestion as to that point I am ready to agree to.


Robert Laird Borden: But the hon. minister will see that you do not secure uniformity even if you do adopt his suggestion, for the provincial courts will still have power to sell a railway at the instance of the creditor under the powers which are vested in it apart from any statute. Is there any reason why you should not give to that court the additional powers that are created by this statute ? In one sense it would be more uniform to give the powers to the Exchequer Court, but we do not attempt uniformity of that kind in other things. With respect to insolvency we confer jurisdiction upon the provincial courts ; even in the case of the elections to this parliament, we confer jurisdiction on provincial courts. This is a matter of some importance to provinces situated at a long distance from this capital, the place where the Exchequer Court has . its headquarters.
For example, take the province of British; Columbia, or of Prince Edward Island, or of Nova Scotia, it is a very difficult thing for them to transact business in the Exchequer Court on account of the long distance. In cases of this kind you would naturally have a great deal of interlocutory business, there is no local judge, and you may have to have the business transacted in Ottawa. It might be a very desirable thing that the local solicitor or counsel should be present at motions and proceedings of that kind. Unless you can give some strong reason for restricting jurisdiction to the Exchequer Court, it would seem to me to be the wiser course to let the provincial courts within the province deal with these matters so far as railways wholly situated within the province are concerned. That would be my own view, though I realize that there may be some reason for the opposite view. It is not a matter I am pressing very vigorously.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like the hon. gentleman to say whether he can see any objection to giving concurrent jurisdiction to the provincial court and the Exchequer Court. The provincial court is now undoubtedly vested with jurisdiction to deal with these particular railways, and is there any difficulty or any objection to granting to the Exchequer Court jurisdiction also over these railways, so that it might

be optional with a creditor to select his own court ?


Robert Laird Borden: Speaking offhand, I do not see any objection to that. My hon. friend suggests that all statutory powers which are created by this proposed Bill are to be Conferred upon provincial courts concurrently with the Exchequer Court, so far as railways only situated within the province are concerned.
Mr. WADE; Is it not a fact that at the present time provincial courts have complete jurisdiction over railways, no matter whether they are railways declared to be for the general advantage of Canada or not, and no matter whether they are entirely situated within the province ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is right.


Fletcher Bath Wade: It has no power to order the sale of a railway that extends beyond the province. Our provincial courts have not that power.


Robert Laird Borden: I am only saying that there are certain powers which are statutory powers and are not vested at the present time in the provincial courts because they are creatures of this statute.


Fletcher Bath Wade: What power ?


Robert Laird Borden: The power, for example, to sell a railway because the company has failed to work it for ten days. I wish to make myself clear to the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Wade). I mean that so far as you are creating powers here which are not at present vested in any provincial court you should vest these powers in a provincial court at least concurrently with the Exchequer Court so far as railways wholly situated within a province are concerned.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I asked whether that is not the case now. Have they not absolute power ?
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax;. I am talking about powers created by this statute, which do not exist outside this statute.


Fletcher Bath Wade: That is the very thing.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understand the leader of the opposition to say that in this Bill, we are conferring certain specific powers upon the judge of the Exchequer Court, we are -granting that court certain powers that are not now vested in it, and the leader of the opposition suggests that we should give to the judges in the provincial courts these same powers with respect to this particular class of railway that we are vesting in the Exchequer Court.


Robert Laird Borden: Exactly.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is suggested to me by a layman that there might
be a difficulty in giving the courts concurrent jurisdiction. You may have one creditor going to the local court for the purpose of having the railway brought to sale, and another creditor going to the Exchequer Court. There might be a conflict of jurisdiction between the two courts. There does appear to be something in that. We will have to guard against that.


Robert Laird Borden: You can easily guard against that. A court in which a second action is taken always stays proceedings until the first action is determined. There are cases where an action is taken in two different courts each having jurisdiction. For example, an action might be brought in the province of New Brunswick and another in Nova Scotia, both going on at the same time, one brought before the other. The usual course is that the court in which the second action is brought stays proceedings until the first action has been determined. That is also the rule which has been acted upon in England within a very few years past, and acted upon in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. Not long ago a similar case was decided in England, I forget the name of it, perhaps the Minister of Justice is familiar with it-a case where an action had been brought in either a French or an Italian court, and the action was also brought in England during the pendency of that foreign action. The English court, if my memory serves me correctly, simply stayed proceedings until the foreign action had been determined, then they gave the judgment in accordance with the decision which had been arrived at in the foreign court. There would be no difficulty on that score.


John Graham Haggart: I would ask the promoter of this Bill this question. Suppose there is an action brought in the province of Quebec by a creditor of a railway company before the Exchequer Court, and there is a sale ordered of the property. Is that sale adjudicated by a provincial court in the province of Quebec, that is, does the provincial court transfer the property absolutely, and are the proceeds received from the sale of the property distributed by the court among the different creditors according to their rank ? Would the judgment of the Exchequer Court have two different effects in different provinces ? Iii the xwovince of Ontario it would be only a sale of the franchise, in the province of Quebec it would be an absolute disposition of the property. Now suppose a party holds bonds under a Dominion statute, or securities, or perhaps a mortgage, on a judgment obtained before the Exchequer Court against a Dominion railway which has a Dominion charter in the province of Quebec ; now if this property is disposed of as the court in the province of Quebec has a right to dispose of it, that is making an absolute

sale, that would not be the case if he held securities.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I understand that the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition would meet that difficulty, because the suggestion of the hon. gentleman was that we should confer upon the provincial court the same powers that we confer upon the Exchequer Court so that the powers which could be exercised by the courts in each of the provinces would be the same as those which are exercised by the Exchequer Court. The difficulty of tlie hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) would be met by the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: The security from a company which has a Dominion charter which the holder of a mortgage has is the franchise of the company which can be sold if the debts of the company are not paid, but if you get judgment in the Exchequer Court here against a company in the province of Quebec you can sell the property absolutely although the property might only bring one-fifth of the value of these prior securities should the court order. There is no sale in Quebec that is not an absolute transfer of the property. Then, the courts act as the receiver and distributes the money received for the property according to the rank of the security.


Robert Laird Borden: If a company were authorized, in Ontario for instance, to give a mortgage on its franchise, and covering not only its franchise, but its rolling stock, permanent way and buildings, you surely could sell these on foreclosure proceedings ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but you could not by an ordinary execution. You could only sell the franchise or the right to run the road.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Subject to the claim of the mortgagee.


Louis Philippe Demers: That was the law, but in 1899 this parliament decreed that the Exchequer Court could sell the railway. The Act was passed in 1899 permitting the Exchequer Court to sell the property, but I do not see anything in the Railway Act authorizing the sale of the franchise.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I think I am compelled to agree with the hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) in regard to this question. We have to be a little cautious as to how we apply certain provisions that are in this proposed Bill. As far as the general jurisdiction of a railway situated exclusively in a province, although the railway may be subject to the legislative jurisdiction of Canada, is concerned, our courts have already full and complete jurisdiction over Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
them in the matter of the foreclosure of the mortgage, the sale of the road, and appointment of a receiver in connection with the property.


Louis Philippe Demers: Not in Quebec.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Of course I cannot speak for Quebec, because I am not familiar with the law there, but it seems to me that in the province of Quebec to that extent they must have jurisdiction. I can speak with authority in regard to our own province as the matter has been thoroughly threshed out in the case which has been referred to by the hon leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), the English principle to which he referred was also settled in that case, and the distinction which prevails between the situation of English railways and our own was clearly defined. By the English statute law they do not permit the company to mortgage anything more than their tolls. They do not permit them to mortgage their property or their franchise, hence, the only thing you can do under the trust which they give to secure their bonds and debentures is to apply for the appointment of a receiver, operate the road under the receiver and in that way collect the tolls for the purpose of paying their debts. But, under the charters that are granted here the company not only mortgage their property, but their franchise, and you can take foreclosure proceedings in regard to all the property and the franchise of the company, and the party purchasing them will have all the powers that the company possessed in the way of operating the road. All these powers our court possesses at the present time in regard to roads which are wholly within the province and the only restriction upon its power of sale is where the road is partly in one province and partly in another. The hon. leader of the opposition has asked that they should be clothed with that jurisdiction, which this Bill proposes to give to the Exchequer Court only, an extraordinary jurisdiction to cover two classes of cases, one is where the company have not paid their debts or met their liabilities, and the other is where they have failed to operate the road. In other words, any creditor of the company may go before the Exchequer Court and proceed against the company, and ask for an order for the sale of the road, or if the road has not been in operation for ten days, any person may do the same thing. This a very large and a very extra ordinary jurisdiction which we are conferring upon the Exchequer Court, and it seems to me that it might be dangerous to give that jurisdiction to the provincial courts, because, as has been said by some one, we must look at the effeet that legislation of this kind would have upon the securities which have been issued by the company and which are held abroad. Anything that has a tendency to weaken these

securities is not wise legislation, and I think that where this extraordinary jurisdiction is sought by any person it should be before a court that has general jurisdiction, and there cannot be any hardship in taking these proceedings before the Exchequer Court. It should not be given to the provincial courts to act in the matter, especially in cases where the railway is under the legislative authority of the Dominion parliament. I do not apprehend that the provincial courts would not act just as wisely or just as carefully in the matter or not give quite as good a judgment in each case as the Exchequer Court would, but what I am looking at is the effect of this legislation upon the securities of the railway company. When it is proposed that on the motion of any party the provincial court could proceed to have the road sold, I think it would be better to have the matter remain in the hands of the Exchequer Court, because it does not weaken the jurisdiction of the provincial courts in regard to any other matters.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), If there is any weakening of the securities it is effected not by the court to which the jurisdiction is assigned, but by the legislation itself. If it is possible that the securities may be weakened by conferring this jurisdiction upon the provincial courts, why the same result would not be effected by conferring it upon the Exchequer Court is rather too fine a point for my intellect to grasp.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I will explain why I think so.


Robert Laird Borden: You could only explain it in this way :	You think one
court would exercise it wisely and that the other court would not exercise it wisely. I think the provincial courts are just as capable of exercising their judgment wisely and discreetly as the Exchequer Court. I think this power should be conferred upon the provincial courts concurrently with the Exchequer Court.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I took care to say that the provincial courts would give as wise a judgment as the Exchequer Court. I do not think there is any trouble about their judgment; and there is no doubt that they would do right ; but I do say, it would have a much more serious effect on the security if it were known that any court in a province could take this extraordinary proceeding. It would have much more serious effect on the securities than it would, if this jurisdiction could only be exercised by a central court, and that court the court of the Exchequer. I think the general public would have more confidence, that it would not be exercised hastily. I think further, that there should be some striking urgency for any proceedings to carry out the provisions of this section, and such an urgency as would make it worth the parties while to make
application to the .Exchequer Court rather than to some local court. If we make it too general it will be dangerous legislation.


Mr. ERASER.: What the hon. member (Mr. Wade) says goes to prove the contention of the leader of the opposition that there must be some difference between the two forums. If there is a confidence on account of going into one forum that would not obtain in going into another, it must be because one forum is deficient.


Fletcher Bath Wade: There would be this difference. In one case there is one court and one judge before whom these proceedings could be instituted ; in the other case there might be sixty judges.


Austin Levi Fraser: That would make no difference unless you say that the sixty were inferior to the one.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Mr. FRASER.: I can very well understand that the Exchequer Court on account of its mode of procedure, on account of having rules that are better fitted than the rules of the Supreme Court-for example under our Judicature Act in Nova Scotia-may be a better court to wind up a railway company in that its machinery might be more operative, but, I cannot understand the other proposition. I think perhaps that this section is too broad. There are three cases in which the Minister of Railways and Canals or any creditor or a company may ask for an order to decree the sale of the railway : (1.) When the company has become insolvent;	(2.)
If for ten days it has failed to efficiently continue the working or operating of the railway, and (3.) If it has become unable so to do There might be a bridge down for example so that for ten days they would be absolutely unable to operate the railway. These words are too broad. Has the minister looked into that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would suggest that this section be allowed to go through, with the understanding that before the third reading, we will consider it in the light of this discussion, the extent to which we may he able to improve the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: That will be quite satisfactory.
On subsection (b).


Fletcher Bath Wade: I think there is one very strong objection to the operation of that section. It says :
Or, at the instance of a mortgagee of such railway or section, to order or decree the foreclosure of the interest of the person or company owning or entitled to such railway or such section, with the rolling stock, equipment and other accessories thereof, or the equity of redemption therein, whenever in like circumstances of default the high court of justice in England can, at the time this Act comes into force, so order or decree with resnect to mortgaged premises situate in England.

As has already been pointed out, they do not order the sale of the road ; they simply put the road into the hands of a receiver and take the tolls, and I submit that these lines should be striken out, or otherwise we will render the whole Act inoperative. I would make another suggestion in regard to this clause and the preceding clause, and that is, that the power of sale should include the power of selling the franchise as well as the railway equipment and accessories. The franchise would hardly be considered within the term ' accessories.' I presume that the mortgages in the past always covered the franchise, but we do not say in this section that we will sell the nvortaged premises ; we say we will sell the railway and the equipment and the accessories. Where you are defining, it seems to me that these are words of limitation and would exclude the franchise, unless it is expressly provided in the statute.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I wish to draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the words of the statute. Provision is made for the sale :
Whenever in like circumstances of default the high court of Justice in England can, at the time this Act conies into force, so order or decree with respect to mortgaged premises situate in England.
Not, with respect to railways, so that we give to our Exchequer Court in dealing with this railway, the same power as the~ High Court in England with respect, not to railways, but mortgaged premises; thus avoiding the very difficulty that my hon. friend suggests.
On section 3,


Mr. FOWLER.: What do you mean by the word ' making ' in this clause ?


John Graham Haggart: If I understand it aright these are alternative powers ; they may make a sale of the road or they may appoint a receiver.


Louis Philippe Demers: Under the direction of the court.


Robert Laird Borden: They are rather interlocutory powers; things to be done in the meantime pending a suit.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The clause seems somewhat involved. The word ' making ' seems to be out of place.


Mr. RUSSELL.: It seems to me that some of the functions given here to the receiver are more than what are ordinarily given to receivers. Some of them are rather the functions of a manager, and it might be well to use that term in the statute.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As used in our statutes, we know what the word *receiver' means, and I would not like to change its meaning very much. But I do not see very well what meaning can be attached to the word ' making.' The receiver Mr. WADE.
is not appointed, as a rule, for the purpose of building a railway, but for the purpose of operating a railway. I do not see the sense of the word being used here.


Fletcher Bath Wade: I think the word, as it is used here, is important, and it should be left in, because the railway might not be completed, and it would be necessary for the receiver to go on and complete it. I had some experience of that kind myself. I was the receiver of a railway for some six years. In that case the road was not completed, although it was nearly so, and it was necessary for me to obtain a special order of the court to have power to go on and complete the road, and I did so. The same thing may often be the case, and it may take months to get final order from the court to give the receiver power to complete the road, which may be necessary in the interest of all parties concerned. I think the word ' making ' should remain in the Bill.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: What the hon. leader of the opposition said is, I think, correct, that this is not an Act for the building of a railway, but for the sale of a railway. If it were intended that the receiver should have power to build a railway, or a section of a railway, he might go on and wreck the property worse than it was at the time he was appointed receiver, and the consequence would be that the creditors would get nothing, and the railway might not be sold, but be kept in the hands of the receiver. This is going to be an Act which will be the foundation for the Exchequer Court dealing with railways in Canada in future ; and. in view of the very extensive building of railways in Canada, we should wisely see that nothing is put in this Act other than what would be used in the interest of the creditors and the railway itself. If a railway has to go into the hands of a receiver, the stockholders are not likely to get anything ; but if the stockholders lose, I do not want those who have advanced money on mortgage or the workmen to lose. But do not let this man who is appointed receiver go on and build the railway in sections. I think that is too much power to give to a receiver, who, as the hon. leader of the opposition said, is only an interim official appointed to keep the railway in operation and to see that the money, as it comes in, is deposited in a bank and kept. That is what I look on as a receiver, and not a person to build railways.


George William Fowler: The word * making ' is so wide in its meaning that it would enable the receiver to extend the railway in all directions, and even to build branches. He could ruin the whole property if he were so minded.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It has been suggested to me that the word ' making ' was put there for the purpose of meeting a specific case which we have in the

province of Quebec. There are six miles of a railway to be completed to an important centre, and the word is put in to enable the receiver, if so ordered, to complete that road. The section provides that the receiver shall act under the direction of the court; and, that being the case, I do not see any great objection to the word.


John Graham Haggart: The receiver is not necessarily an interim receiver. He may continue to manage the property for years.


George William Fowler: The receiver would be an interim one, no matter how long his duty would last.


John Graham Haggart: All receivers are interim in that sense.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 1 think the words are clear enough. 'A receiver is appointed for the interim preservation of the property.


Benjamin Russell: It is well known that in the western states a great many railways, which went into the hands of receivers because of over capitalization or because they were built where they were not needed, were operated much more successfully than those which remained in the hands of the original companies. This power being exercised, as has been pointed out by the Minister of Justice, under the constant direction and control of the court, no such difficulty as my hon. friend apprehends will be encountered in the operation of these roads. As to giving the receiver the right to complete the road under direction of the court, that may be very necessary in order to enable the road to make any profit. As regards extending the powers of the receiver, I remember distinctly that when my hon. friend from Annapolis (Wr. Wade) was receiver of the road to which he has referred he was also made the manager, and he could not have operated it as successfully ns he did if he had not been given the functions of manager ns well as those of receiver. The courts have found it necessary to appoint receivers to be managers as well, in order that they might have the powers included in both offices. If you give by this Bill to a receiver all the powers of a manager, it may be Immaterial whether you use the word ' manager,' but there may be powers which it is necessary for the official to have which are not expressly given by the statute but would be dependent on the general principles of law, and in that case unless the term manager was used in the statute these powers would not be possessed.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the word ' making ' used in this section serve the purpose intended by the Minister of Justice ? It seems to be rather a casual way of dealing with a pretty large subject. A matter of that kind is perhaps worth the dignity of a separate section and a somewhat more 259
elaborate provision. I would suggest that the word ' completion ' would be much better than the word ' making.'


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Perhaps it would be better to allow the section to go through omitting the word ' making ' altogether and then make special provision for the completion of the road as suggested by my hon. friend.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 4,
The remuneration of the receiver shall be fixed by the said court, and shall, as also shall the expenses lawfully incurred by him as receiver, including the expenses of working, operation, maintenance, renewal and institution and defence of actions aforesaid, be a debt of the company and be the first charge upon the railway, or section, and upon the rolling stock, equipment, accessories and earnings thereof.


Robert Laird Borden: This section
provides that the remuneration of the receiver shall be fixed by the court, but it does not provide that the other expenses sliail be approved likewise by the court. The receiver therefore would pass upon his own expenses.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: In order to save time perhaps we might as well let this clause stand, and I shall endeavour to have an amendment drafted by some of the officials of my department to meet the case.


Robert Laird Borden: It might be as well also to have a special section drafted giving the receiver the right to complete the road.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I agree with my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: If the power does not already exist in the Exchequer Court to make regulations as to practice, it might be as well to have a section conferring that power. The general powers of the Exchequer Court may be sufficient, but I doubt if they would cover these matters.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It has power to make rules with respect to matters now within this jurisdiction, but I think not with regard to new matters such as these.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 5,
A railway company is insolvent within the meaning of this Act. in all cases which constitute insolvency under sections 5 and 6 of the Winding Up Act, except that paragraph <g) of section 5 of that Act shall not apply to cases where possession of any railway or section thereof has been taken by trustees for bondholders under the provisions of section 94 of the Railway Act, and except further that the delay to secure or compound allowed in the case mentioned in section six of



the Winding Up Act shall be fifteen days instead of sixty.


Charles Marcil: 1 would
like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the case of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway in this connection. This road was transferred, in 1900, to trustees for the bondholders. It is, to all intents and purposes insolvent, owing a large sum of money. I would like to know whether they are exempt under this law ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is impossible for me to say whether the law would not be applicable to a particular case, because I am not aware of the facts. But I apprehend that the Atlantic and Lake Superior is vested in trustees under terms of mortgage.


Charles Marcil: Trustees for the bondholders ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That would be under terms of mortgage. I think the creditors under this Act would have the right to apply for the appointment of a receiver.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. R. Prefontaine).: To make the point clear, I would move that the following words be added at the end of section 5 :-
But such transfers to trustees shall no I exclude such railway from the provisions of the present Act.


John Graham Haggart: Suppose the bondholders got possession of the railway under the Act of 1899, and they did not pay their debts and became insolvent, what remedy would you have against them?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I would like to consider this amendment. It would be better to let this section stand.
Section allowed to stand.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the committee reports, I would direct the attention of the Minister of Justice, and also the attention of the hon. member for St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers), to subsection (a) of section 1. Perhaps our attention was more particularly directed to the form of that section than to the substance of it. You will observe that under the terms of subsection (b), a creditor can have the railway sold. But still, in addition to that, it is provided in subsection (a):
At the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals, or of any creditor of any person or company owning or operating such railway or section, to order or decree in such manner as it may prescribe, the sale of such railway or section of railway, and of all the rolling stock, equipment and other accessories thereof, whenever such company has become insolvent, or has for more than ten days failed to efficiently continue the working or operating of such railway or section or any part thereof, or has become unable so to do.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Now it seems to me that this is a pretty wide power to confer upon a creditor. If he has a lien or charge, he can enforce it. But if he has not, is there any special reason why he should be empowered to move against the company in this way. You xre giving authority to sell the entire railway in three cases, insolvency, failure to operate or inability to operate. It seems to me it would be sufficient if you conferred that power upon the Exchequer Court at the instance of the Minister of Railways and Canals. I do not think that powers of that kind ought to be invoked simply to enable a creditor to get the payment of his debt. The power might be used oppressively. I think the creditor has ample protection under subsection (b), so far as the payment is concerned.


Louis Philippe Demers: I do not think that by the old law the ordinary creditor is protected.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Demers) is that the ordinary creditor, who is without a lien or claim upon the property, is without recourse. It is not open to him to take any steps, and it is unfair that he should not have, in any of the three cases, the right to apply to court for a receiver, or exercise some recourse against the company.


Robert Laird Borden: In my own province the creditor would get a lien upon the reality by registration of judgment. But I suppose that is not the case in the province of Quebec.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Has not the ordinary creditor, then, a perfect remedy ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The leader of the opposition says that the creditor obtains a judgment against an individual, and, if the individual has property, the creditor becomes by registration a judgment creditor secured by mortgage. I have never entertained any doubt of that being the law in the province of Quebec. The creditor could take suit, register his judgment against the property, and then it becomes a mortgage. It is suggested to me that that is not possible in this case, but I must say I have never entertained any doubt that that was the law.


Robert Laird Borden: Assuming that that is the case, I would suggest that the ordinary creditor has very good protection under subsection (b).


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: If the action is against the railway company there might be some difficulty there.


Robert Laird Borden: There would toe no difficulty in my own province, as there is a registry office in every county through which the railway runs.
Progress reported.



PENITENTIARIES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 217) respecting penitentiaries (tlie Minister of Justice) was read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: Is this Bill a consolidation ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE (Hon. Chas. Fitzpatrick).: It is really a consolidation of existing laws for the convenience of those who are consolidating the statutes. There are certain changes, but they are of no importance except the one with respect to the schedule of salaries. The only important thing in this is the schedule, and when we reach that I will point out in what respect changes are made. I am endeavouring to reduce the salaries in two or three directions.
On section 23,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is new. I have found it convenient in the course of my experience, when an inspector goes to a penitentiary for the purpose of making an inspection, to occasionally give him power to take control immediately of the penitentiary so that he may be in a position to make an examination with greater freedom than if he were subject to the warden.


George William Fowler: It might be necessary to summarily suspend the warden.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.
On section 27,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Under the present law the appointment of officials is distributed between the Governor in Council, the Minister of Justice, and the warden. I do not think that it is right that the warden should appoint clerks, keepers and guards. The minister should have the responsibility for these appointments so that he may be able to answer to parliament, and this section provides that he shall have it.


George William Fowler: Would it remove these appointments from politics if they were left to the warden rather than to the minister ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The minister ought have the responsibility direct, and as a matter of fact it eventually comes back to the minister, because the warden applies for his authorization to make these appointments. At present the minister can fall behind the warden and put the responsibility on him. It is a roundabout way of getting rid of responsibility and it should not be so.
On section 28,


Mr. MORRISON.: Does this section alter the present condition of affairs which allows the warden to reside outside the penitentiary inclosure ?
259J


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There is no change in the law. The warden's residence is always declared to be part of the penitentiary.


George William Fowler: At Dorchester it is outside the penitentiary.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: And at St. Vincent de Paul it is separated by a street from the penitentiary, but the grounds of the residence are maintained by the convicts and in order that we may have control over them, the residences are proclaimed to be part of the penitentiary.


George William Fowler: There is a farm at Dorchester and it is under the same rule.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, and the roads connected with the farm are also proclaimed part of the penitentiary or otherwise it would be impossible to keep control over the convicts.
On section 33-warden, &c., not to exercise any other calling,


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I move to strike out the words, ' except by consent of the Governor in Council. That is a power I do not care to exercise. I think it is safer not to do so.


George William Fowler: Would that apply to the
chaplains ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Even with respect to chaplains,. my desire would be to give them larger remuneration, and endeavour to have their duties confined exclusively to the penitentiary. That would not imply that a minister of the gospel would not be able to render services occasionally for one of his friends, but he should not have any regular charge. It has been suggested that instead of appointing regular chaplains to the penitentiaries, we should authorize the ministers of the different denominations in the locality to attend the penitentiary in turn. I do not know how that would work. Of course, in the penitentiaries there are men belonging to different religious denominations, and the complaint is that we have ministers of the Church of England to attend constantly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does the hon. minister propose doing about that ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I throw out the suggestion, because I want to hear what others who are qualified to speak on religious subjects have to say about it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 34,
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I move that the following be added to subsection 2 :
111 tile event of a penitentiary being established in and for the North-west Territories, the salaries of the several officers and em-

ploye&s of such penitentiary shall be the same as those prescribed In schedule ' a ' for the officers and employees of the Manitoba penitentiary.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 35,-gratuities or retiring allowances.
Mr. MOItltlSON. What is meant by retiring an officer to promote efficiency ? Is it supposed that if a man is found obnoxious or inefficient, he can be retired without a retiring allowance.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: This section is new. My experience is that men who have been in the service of a penitentiary for a number of years get very lazy and indolent, and it would be very much to our advantage to be able to remove them and put in their places men who would be able to perform their duties more satisfactorily. In some of our penitentiaries I have been able to reduce the staff by six or seven by placing young and active men in place of those who have grown fat and lazy. It is a good tiling for the men to have the possibility of removal before their eyes, but if a man has been in the service for a number of years, I would not want to remove him without giving him some retiring allowance.


George William Fowler: Does that apply to the warden V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes, it would apply to the warden.


George William Fowler: I think you ought perhaps to except the chief officers.


Tile MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I think we might let the whole section stand. _


George William Fowler: I think it is a very good provision if it is confined to the inferior officers.


Mr. INGRAM.: Are the wardens and deputy wardens, considered civil servants ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: I notice that you provide for a gaurantee by private bonds as well as by the bonds of the company. Have not the departments given up the idea of private security, and do they not require bonds by guarantee companies ? I notice also that in case of the absence of the head of the penitentiary and the deputy head, you give the chief keeper power to act. That does not seem to be the rule throughout the departments of the government, but it is one that I strongly approve of.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I find that the best way to maintain discipline and secure the effective co-operation of your employees is to make them feel that you are standing by them. With respect to security by private bonds, I think that is Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
rather a mistake. A man who gets a public position asks his friends to sign, and generally they do not like to refuse. If it be in the power of the minister to insist on the bond of a guarantee company, we get rid of much difficulty and hardship.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 229) for the relief of Ellen Mc-Dermid.-Mr. Birkett.
Bill (No. 228) for the relief of Stephen Wilson.-Mr. Wade.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['As Monday will be Private Bills day, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill will take up a good deal of the time, and we shall then probably go into the estimates.']
Edward Frederick Clarke: I desire, Sir,>
to draw attention to the conditions of the regulations which have been issued in connection with the granting of the King's medal to soldiers who served in South Africa. There were two medals given. There was the Queen's medal given to all who disembarked in South Africa before May 31st, 1902, the day when the war ended. In this connection, I may say that several contingents of the Canadian Mounted Rifles were deprived of this medal because they disembarked a few days later. There was also a second medal, the King's medal, given to those who had served for eighteen months on South African soil, or up to the 31st May, 1902, and part of whose service was after December the 1st, 1901. Complaint is made that, owing to the nature of the regulations, it is impossible for any Canadian soldier who served in a Canadian corps to' get this medal. It could not have been the intention of the imperial authorities to deprive His Majesty's Canadian subjects of the honour of obtaining this medal. About two hundred non-commissioned officers and men served in more than one Canadian contingent during the war. The first service was for twelve months, and % those who served in that contingent, if they had re-enlisted at the earliest practicable moment in another Canadian corps intended for service in the Boer War, and immediately returned to South Africa, could not have put in the length of service in the field necessary to entitle them to this medal. There are, as I have said, about two hundred non-commissioned officers and men who went from Canada in the first contingent and who, on their return, re-enlisted andj went with the second contingent. But it was impossible, owing to the length of time it takes to

reach South Africa, for any of these men to put in the full service in the field whicfi would entitle them to receive the medal. A petition has been prepared by these men asking the government to request the imperial government to modify the regulations in this respect. It certainly does seem an invidious distinction that Canadian soldiers of the King should be the only ones who served in the war who, owing to the regulations, cannot receive this medal. Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, as well as the regular troops, have received the medal. But it is impossible for any Canadian who served in a Canadian corps to receive it. The medal is greatly coveted by those who have seen service and who would like to wear it as an honourable reminder of the services they have performed on behalf of the empire. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Militia is not here, because I propose to read for the information of the House a copy of the memorial submitted to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, asking him to take action, so that the men who volunteered twice for service in South Africa in Canadian contingents may receive this medal.
The petition is as follows :
To His Excellency the Governor General of Canada iin Council.
The humble petition of the undersigned late non-commissioned officers and members of Canadian contingents who have served twice in South Africa, during the Boer war, 1899-1902, humbly showetih.
1.	That the present regulations for the King's medal demand eighteen months service in South Africa.
2.	That the voyage from Canada is longer than from any other colony, the double trip occupying at least four months.
3.	That under the present regulations, no Canadian can obtain the King's medal, from his service in Canadian contingents.
4.	That your petitioners, whilst few iin number, being scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific, feel confident in addressing your Excellency that they voice -the feelings of all the non-commissioned officers and men (who your petitioners believe, number some 200). who served twice in South Africa, during the Boer war.
5.	That your petitioners therefore humbly pray that application may be made to His Gracious Majesty that the regulations for the King's medial be altered to provide that in all cases in which a man has gone twice from Canada to South Africa for the purpose of taking part in the war, fourteen months service in South Africa may be held to entitle him to receive the King's medal.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
Dated this 25th day of April, 1903.
I am perfectly satisfied that, if the attention of the imperial authorities were drawn to the peculiar disabilities under which our Cauadian soldiers were placed in view of the conditions of the regulations, some mitigation of them will be ordered, so that these men may obtain this much-coveted medal. I should like to know from the government if this petition was received, if it was forwarded to the impfrial authorities through the proper channels, and if any recommendation or any request was made by His Excellency to the imperial authorities that the regulations for the issuing of the King's medal might be altered to the extent suggested to His Excellency in connection with the service of the Canadian volunteers ? I repeat that I am sure it was not the intention of the imperial authorities to frame the regulations in such a way that our Canadian soldiers, who did such splendid service in the South African war, should be excluded from this honour. If the government have not taken action, I think they should do so, in order that this invidious distinction may not be perpetuated. I am sorry the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) is not present. I gave him notice of my intention to bring this matter up on going into supply, and had hoped to receive from him information as to whether the petition had been received and what action had been taken, and, if it was forwarded, whether any answer has been received.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I regret the absence of the Minister of Militia and Defence. In his absence I would not feel at liberty to make any statement on the subject referred to by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). But I will see to it that his attention is called to the matter, and, if any action has been taken, the information will be given to tbe hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) at a later stage.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I would like to say a word in support of what has been said by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke). There can he no question, that the regulation which provides for the issue of the King's medal to those who have served eighteen months in South Africa was meant to cover the case of those who enlisted a second time. I believe that all the colonial contingents were enlisted for a year's service. It is merely the fact that Canada is more distant than the other colonies that shuts our men out from this honour, whereas the very fact of that distance entitles them all the more to the honour, if it is to be given to any. I am sure that shutting our men out was the furthest from the thought of the imperial authorities and I have every confidence that if the matter is placed before them the oversight will be rectified to the advantage and to the credit of those amongst our people who deserve it. I take the opportunity of speaking on this subject because from the constituency which I represent more men went to South Africa than from any other constituency in the Dominion of Canada, and therefore, I believe there are more of my constituents interested in this matter, possibly, than those of any other member of the House. I know personally a number of men who were out in the first Canadian Mounted Rifles, and also in the third contingent who took part in the battle of Hart's

River, the final battle of the war, the one which practically decided the war-and it is no news, I presume, to members of this House that, in the estimation of those competent to judge, it was very largely the presence of the Canadians at that battle which produced the result which was achieved by that battle and in closing the war. Before sitting down, I would like to say that there was a Canadian corps which did serve throughout the war with very considerable distinction. I refer to the Canadian Scouts, organized at first by Captain, Howard, and afterwards commanded by Captain, or Major, Ross. I do not know whether the Canadian authorities have taken any cognizance of this corps or not; but it was known as the ' Canadian Scouts.' It was principally composed of Canadians, though not altogether, and it served with the greatest possible distinction for the longest possible term. And, certainly, while I do not think that anything we can do can add to their credit, I am strongly in favour of doing what we can to secure for ourselves as much credit as possible from their very gallant and distinguished actions.


Mr.   I@: I would like to add a word in support of what has been brought before the House by my hou. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) and supported by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver). It seems to me that a very good case might be made out-has been made out-for these Canadians who served twice in South Africa. The fact that the war ended when it did, prevented them from coming within the terms of this regulation, notwithstanding that they had gone to South Africa for the purpose of giving a second term of service which would have brought them well within those terms. Under the circumstances, I hope the government will be able to make such representations as will do to these men what I believe is no more than justice by placing them in the list of those who are entitled to receive the medal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister be good enough to tell us if the South African Constabulary will participate in the receipt of these medals ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will call the Minister of Militia and Defence's attention to my hon. friend's (Mr. Sproule's) question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
["I will call the Minister of Militia and Defence's attention to my hon. friend's (Mr. Sproule's) question."]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: There are a few items still left in the supplementary estimate's of last year. One is item 114, the expenses of the commission to inquire into the tobacco trade. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) informed me that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) expressed a desire to have this item discussed Mr. OLIVER.
at another time so that he might be present If it be agreeable I would be glad to have the item passed, with the understanding that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier should be able to speak on it on another occasion. I do not understand he wished, to oppose it, but there were some facts in connection with it to which he wished to refer. With this item and another item passed, the whole Supply Bill for the last year will be ready. There are many services in it that are very urgent and I will be glad if the committee would pass these two items, particularly so that we may take concurrence. Although the Minister of Justice has to some extent consented that it should stand over, and we will let it stand if desired, that means the standing over of the whole Supply Bill. I would be glad if the committee will pass the items, with such information as the Minister of Justice can give now, reserving the right of the member for Jacques Cartier to discuss the subject in some other item.


John Graham Haggart: On what item ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On any item.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: My arrangement with the member for Jacques Cartier went further, and I absolutely agreed that the item should not be pressed in his absence. He mentioned that the amendment to the Criminal Code deals with the subject and might be discussed at the same time, so I think my hon. friend will have an opportunity to say ail that he wishes to say when we deal with the amendment to the Criminal Code, which is passed as a result of this investigation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that would be satisfactory, so long as we have full latitude to discuss it.
Galops rapid-deepening and widening, $25,
000.


John Graham Haggart: What item will we be able to discuss-that on ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Any canal item.


Mr.   BUAIN@: The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) requested me to ask that this item should stand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has been standing several times at the request of the hon. gentleman.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose he will have the liberty of moving to strike it out on concurrence ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When will the hon. member be here ?


John Graham Haggart: He will be here on Monday ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we pass the item now, the hon. gentleman can make his motion on concurrence on Monday.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We will bare an opportunity of discussing it on concurrence ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, but it is equally urgent that we take concurrence and get the Supply Bill. Therefore, I hope the hon. gentleman will be able to be present on Monday.


Mr. BLAIN.: If he is not present then, we will not ask it to stand any longer.
Railways and canals-Intercolonial railway- to strengthen bridges, $165,100.


John Graham Haggart: You were to give full details about that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understood the hon. gentleman wished to have a statement in detail as to the bridges to be strengthened. Of this sum $77,000 is a revote standing over from last year. I have here a list of the names of the bridges, which is of some length, but I will read it if the hon. gentleman desires. The number of spans in each case is also given.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount expended up to date, and what is the probable amount required to finish this work of strengthening ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The statement is made up to January last, at which date these papers were prepared. The amount expended up to that date was $451,680. I have given the hon. gentleman the names of most of the bridges for which the additional amount of $87,000 is required. There is also a list of bridges which are to be doubled up, as it is described in the department. As respects this $77,000 revote the items are given as follows : Balance due on bridges tendered for $31,000; floors ditto, $4,000; painting ditto, $1,400; false work, $4,500; doubling up, $3,500; inspection, &c., $1,811.10. These items make $77,711, which is the revote of last year's estimate and the other items which I have read represent the items which make up the additional expense to $87,000.


John Graham Haggart: Does that complete the whole work of strengthening ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The deputy informs me that he thinks this will finish the work of strengthening these bridges.


George William Fowler: What expense has been put upon the bridges at Torryburn and Brockville ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The list I have read only refers to the bridges which it is expected to deal with during the present season and the money has not been expended yet.


George William Fowler: Is there any estimate as to the probable cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not in tiie case of each separate bridge. The estimate is general.


John Graham Haggart: That is a total amount required for strengthening these bridges of over $600,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: $451,000 up to the end of January.


John Graham Haggart: And $165,100.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There has been some expenditure since that to which is added the appropriation in these estimates. The hon. gentleman's figures, I think, are about correct.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister say how many bridges the department have on hand now that there are doubling up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The list contains seventeen bridges which are to be doubled up out of this vote.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do we understand that $3,500 is for the strengthening of bridges 1 The hon. gentleman gave an item of $3,500 to cover the doubling up of bridges. He surely does not intend to say that that is going to cover all the cost of strengthening these bridges.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: $3,500 has reference to moneys expended in doubling up in the past. It will not pay for this list that I have read. The list that I have read in detail is for the bridges to be doubled up out of these estimates.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then you are only estimating $3,500 to be expended that way ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The amount set apart for doubling up is $33,988.


George William Fowler: Are all these repairs to bridges chargeable to capital account ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is not for repairs to bridges. It is really for the betterment of the road by the strengthening of the bridges, and is therefore chargeable to capital account.


George William Fowler: Is the strengthening of the bridges being done because these bridges have become weakened by the lapse of years ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is because of the heavier locomotives and rolling stock which are required to pass over these bridges. Having increased the weight of the locomotives and rolling stock the bridges which were good in the past are not strong enough now to bear the additional weight.


George William Fowler: Are they new bridges ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Doubling up of course, means the taking of two bridges and putting them together. These are not new bridges, but they are good bridges.


George William Fowler: Do you charge the cost of doubling up two bridges to capital account ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Where one bridge is transferred from one place to another it is not charged to capital.


Andrew B. Ingram: We want some details of the number of bridges which you are doubling up in that way and we would like to have in connecuon with that the reasons for doing this. This method is not adopted by other lines of railway very extensively. I have never heard of it before.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the case of old bridges doubled up the amount charged to capital account is the cost of making the change, not the cost of the bridge itself. The bridge itself, having been charged to capital account originally, remains in capital account, but the new bridges are charged to capital account.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: Would it be fair to charge that to capital account ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If you take a bridge from one portion of the road and put it in another portion of the road you still have it on the road and you have lost nothing.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I mean the expense of doing this work.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I think the expense of the work of changing the bridge from one part of the road to an: other is fairly chargeable to capital account.


George William Fowler: I think we should have some details as to what becomes of the bridges which are replaced on the road. Do they go into scrap or are they used elsewhere ? We want to know where credit is given for them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In one or two cases these bridges are being transferred to the Prince Edward Island road and of course they are charged up against that road and credited to the Intercolonial Railway. Where the bridges are being doubled up they are still utilized on the road. I have asked the deputy minister whether any cases have occurred in which they have gone into scrap and he thinks not.


Mr. CLARE.: If you move a bridge and build a new oue and charge the expense of that to capital account that cannot be right.	.


Mr. BARKER.: I suppose it would be a proper thing that the value of the bridge occupying the place of the old bridge which is removed should be deducted from the capital charge. I take it that when a bridge is found on the main line insufficient to carry the weight of the heavier locomotives now in use and you have to remove it and put a stronger bridge on the main line, removing the old bridge to the branch, the charge should be credited with something Mr. FOWLER.
for the value of the bridge which is dispensed with on the branch.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would be quite correct if the bridge were sold off the road. If the bridge remains in the service of the road and is made use of elsewhere, you still have its value for the road.


Samuel Barker: Yes, but if you do not make this substitution and have to replace the bridge on what I call the branch line for illustration, you have to do that out of revenue, and if you simply take a bridge from the main line and put it on the branch that will simply be relieving the working expenses to that extent ; so that, if you strengthen a bridge on the main line and take the old bridge to another point you save the working expenses of that line of what would be necessary to renew the bridge on the branch. There is always a charge made for that purpose against revenue, and it saves capital so much money.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am advised that the bridges are used either for the doubling up process, or, in one or two cases they have been moved to Prince Edward Island. If you take two bridges and put them together they still remain on the road. It is not a question of renewing; it is simply adding to the equipment of the strength of the road, and in the new bridge you have so much additional capital on the road.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps I did not make myself quite understood to the Minister of Finance. If you renew a bridge on the Prince Edward Island Railway you would have to do it at the expense of revenue, but instead of renewing it at expense of the revenue you bring an old bridge from the main line and put it there. You charge the whole expense of increasing the strength upon the main line to capital. Surely revenue has gained by this manipulation, and revenue should bear some portion of that charge. The result of this is that revenue has escaped the charge of renewing in the case of the Prince Edward Island Railawy. I am quite sure the deputy minister would thoroughly understand that if he were keeping his accounts for an ordinary railway company.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The error in my hon. friend's statement is that lie asserts that this work in Prince Edward Island is renewal.


Samuel Barker: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is a fatal error. It is not a renewal; the bridge is used on a new line and properly charged to capital account.


Samuel Barker: All the same, if a bridge that has gone out of service but is still of value is taken off the main line, the capital

account should receive credit for tlie value of the bridge. A manufacturer would easily make that charge as a matter of bookkeeping. If you are building a new line in Prince Edward Island and had. to buy a bridge you would have to charge that to capital account, but the Minister of Finance goes to the main line of the Intercolonial Railway and gets that bridge for nothing.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What the hon. gentleman says should be done is just what has been done in this case. The bridge is taken from the Intercolonial Railway to Prince Edward Island, and it is charged against the Prince Edward Island road and credited in the Intercolonial Railway accounts against capital account.


Samuel Barker: If that is so it is all right.


John Graham Haggart: The bridge having been taken off the Intercolonial Railway goes into the stores account, and when it is taken out of the stores account it is charged to the Prince Edward Island Railway. Is it credited then to capital account on the Intercolonial Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am informed that it is.


Samuel Barker: Can the minister point to any place in the public accounts where a credit of that kind is shown ? I have never seen it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend could not well see it in this case because the transaction has not taken place yet.


Samuel Barker: But these things are going on for the last three years and we have been complaining that we cannot get at the truth as to whether these accounts are credited or not.
T'he MINISTER OF FINANCE. 1 am glad to assure my hon. friend that what he thinks ought be done is being done in this case.
Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) The Minister of Railways and Canals explained last year this bridge was taken from the Mira-miclii river and transferred to Hillsborough.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It would seem that any old bridge is good enough for Prince Edward Island. Has the minister the information he promised us as to what is being done with the approaches on the Hillsborough bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will give this information on another item.


Andrew B. Ingram: It seems to be that you must have an interminable number of bridges of the same span on the Intercolonial Railway, because you have been doubling them up for the last three years. Unless the spans are about the same length I cannot see how you can double them up.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of the bridges proposed to be doubled up the spans of some of them are as follows : 27 feet, 44 feet, 36 feet, 23 feet, 29 feet, 56 feet, 32 feet, 28 feet, 54 feet, 541 feet, and so on.


Andrew B. Ingram: How do you double them up ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: By taking two of the same size.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where do you get two of the same size in that list ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If I do not find them I will be in trouble. There are two of 44 feet and one of 29 feet and another 28 feet, and I suppose, although I am not an engineer, that they can double them up to that extent.


John Graham Haggart: Stretch the short one.


Samuel Barker: This is the first time I have heard the statement made specifically that when bridges are removed in this way a charge on capital account is made to the Prince Edward Island Railway, and a credit given to the Intercolonial Railway. How much has been charged for this particular bridge to the Prince Edward Island Railway and how much credited to the Intercolonial Railway, and where does that appear in the accounts ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It has not been charged yet because the transfer has not been made, but the amount to be credited to the Intercolonial Railway is .$32,000.


Samuel Barker: Is that the amount charged to the Prince Edward Island Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: What was the original cost of that bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will get the information later.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: How old is that bridge?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The bridge was built in 1876, but it is not right to say that any old bridge is good enough for Prince Edward Island. My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) is pointing out that it is a very valuable bridge and that we should be careful to charge it. The bridge is not strong enough for its present purpose but it is a perfectly good bridge and is perfectly adapted for the traffic on the Prince Edward Island Railway which is a narrow gauge line and does not require such a strength of bridge as the Intercolonial Railway.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Could I get any idea of. what is the difference in cost between that bridge and a new bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the same question as was asked by the hon. member (Mr. Barker).


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: It seems to me that it is very poor policy to take a bridge twenty-seven years old, and practically useless, and transport it to Prince Edward Island at great cost, and put it on a substructure costing half a million dollars or more. This amount is being charged up to Prince Edward Island, and when we come and ask for a few railway facilities or means of transportation across the straits, there is always the cry that Prince Edward Island is asking too much.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not from this side.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Yes, from that side. I think it poor policy to send us second-hand stuff, which probably in a few years will have to be changed ; and, according to the manner of bookkeeping of the last few years, this will be charged up to capital account, and it will be detrimental to the Prince Edward Island Railway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend does not help his case by stating that the bridge is worn out and no good. That does not happen to be the fact, but it was essential to my hon. friend's case to put it that way.


Mr. IIACKETT.: From what part of the Intercolonial Railway was this bridge taken?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: From the Miramiclii river. It has not yet been taken, but is to be taken.


Edward Hackett: This was a light bridge when it was constructed, and I understand that the ordinary life of an iron bridge under good care is fifty years. The bridge, which is over half worn out, you are placing on a superstructure that is costing the country an immense amount of money, and in twenty or twenty-five years you will have to replace it by a new bridge. As the hon. member for East Prince says, it is poor economy. AVhen you are building a new railway in Prince Edward Island, and when you are constructing a bridge across the Hillsborough river at a great expense to the country, the least you can do is to put new material into it. But it appears to be the policy of this government, and especially of the Department of Railways and Canals, to send any old bridge across to Prince Edward Island, where it will have to be renewed in a few years. That is a policy of which I disapprove, and in the name of the people I represent, I must protest against it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman has fallen into the same error as his friend from the other district in suggesting that this is a worn-out bridge. All I can say is that it is not an old bridge, and that the ordinary life of an iron bridge is very much longer than the term the hon. gentleman has mentioned. At any rate, I Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
am informed on competent authority that this is a stronger and better bridge than any new bridge which would be built for the railway at that point.


Mr. HEYD.: I want to ask these hon. gentlemen, do they want us to throw away this bridge and build two new bridges ?


Edward Hackett: I would suggest that the government use this bridge in doubling up the bridges on the Intercolonial Railway, and give us a new bridge on the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: No, put it on the Grand Trunk Pacific.


John Graham Haggart: I cannot understand how these bridges appear as a credit capital account on the Intercolonial Railway. First of all, if they are taken from the Intercolonial Railway they go into the stores' account, and they are afterwards used on the Prince Edward Island Railway. By what process of bookkeeping is credit given to the Intercolonial Railway capital account for the amount expended on the Prince Edward Island Railway ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am informed that the stores' account will show it.


John Graham Haggart: That does not appear in the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway. The expenditure for the purpose of strengthening and renewing the bridges on the Intercolonial Railway within the last few years has been over 81,000,000, besides an expenditure for repairs on the different bridges of nearly $700,000. The department has been running heavy locomotives on the Intercolonial Railway during the last two or three years ; and how is it that the government risked the lives of the employees on the railway during that time if these bridges were not sufficient to sustain the locomotives ? I suggested that if the bridges were not strong enough to bear the locomotives, new bridges should be built in the first place. But after the purchase of these heavy locomotives, and after they have been running three or four years, here is an expenditure of over $1,000,000 for the purpose of building new bridges and strengthening old ones. We have had no explanation as yet in regard to capital account.
The! MINISTER OF FINANCE. I thought that was made quite clear.


John Graham Haggart: It is clear, I suppose, to the Finance Minister. The bridges, after they are removed, are put into the stores' account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And credited there to capital account.


John Graham Haggart: No, credited to the stores' account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am advised that this bridge, when it goes to Prince Edward Island, will be credited to the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway and charged to the capital account of the Prince Edward Island Railway.


Samuel Barker: I understand, from the statement of the hon. Finance Minister, that it is the intention that this particular bridge or material which is sent to Prince Edward Island shall be credited to the Intercolonial Railway. The Minister cannot tell us that that is done in any other particular case, and he cannot show that it will be done in this case-because the change is yet to be made. Now, the bridges are put into the stores' account when they are removed from the railway. I quite understand that the stores, having received this bridge along with $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 of other material, may issue bridges or anything else, and charge something to expense account and something to capital account. That must have been going on for years, and what I would like to understand is this. When we find year after year a sum put into the public accounts as charged to capital account, is that a charge of everything that is put in, or is it only a balance that is charged after crediting certain things and deducting the credits ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In the case of an item on capital account, where there is to be a deduction later, we would have to take the full vote on capital account to enable us to have the money to buy the material ; but when the material enters into the actual construction of the road, then the account is credited with the proceeds of the article to be sold, and only the balance is charged to capital account.


Samuel Barker: What I understand is this: Supposing $5,500,000 has been expended on capital account in the actual operations of the year and $500,000 is credited the item for such things as these, what appears in the public accounts is only the difference between $5,500,000 and $500,000. In other words you only charge up $500,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would be correct. But you might have to take a larger appropriation, in the first instance, to enable you to buy the goods. In the statement of the account later, it would be as the hon. gentleman has1 said.


Samuel Barker: Eet me suggest this. It would be of very great value to the House if the Department of Railways and Canals would show in its capital account the gross amount expended on capital and the credits on account of capital, so that we would see clearly that such items as these are credited to capital and only the net expenditure actually charged. I have over and over again in the last three years endeavoured to get at the facts, but I have never yet been able to ascertain that in any individual case
a credit has been given. The hon. gentleman can only tell us now that it is intended to be given in this case. He cannot tell of any particular case where such a credit has been actually given. It is most desirable that in future the railway reports should show the gross expenditure on capital account and what credits are deducted, difference being in the amount actually charged against capital account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It looks to me as if the suggestion of my hon. friend has much to commend it. I would not like to commit myself too hastily, but I shall talk it over with the officials of the department. I do not see on the surface why the hon. gentleman's suggestion should not be carried out.


Samuel Barker: It would be of great advantage to the country.


John Graham Haggart: But the hon. Finance Minister says it has been done already.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The lion.* geutleman's suggestion is that it should be shown in the account as well as done.


John Graham Haggart: $500,000 is voted for the purpose of building a bridge. The whole amount is expended upon the bridge, but there is $50,000 from the old bridge, which ought to be credited to the new structure, but which goes into the stores account. By what process is credit given back again to the construction of that bridge or does it ever appear in any of the books ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. member for Hamilton tells me it does not, and I must not contradict him. I am sure it does appear in the stores account. The only question is whether it could not be shown in the manner he suggests. I am sure it does appear in the stores account.


John Graham Haggart: No doubt it does but not in the capital account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But for these credits the capital account would be so much larger.


Samuel Barker: I think the hon. minister will admit that no person can take the public accounts and say whether anything has been credited or not. There is a certain sum charged as expenditure on capital account, but there is nothing to show whether that expenditure was half as much more and was reduced to the amount charged.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: As I understand the position, assuming that $100,000 was expended on a new bridge on the Intercolonial Railway and $10,000 received for the old bridge, instead of charging $100,000 to capital account, they only charge $90,000. If that is the method pursued, the result is correct, but it does not show the amount actually expended and the amount credited, and I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton that that ought to be shown.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to know the total amount expended for the strengthening of bridges and putting In new bridges on account of these new locomotives. The total amounts expended on the Restigouche and the Miramichi bridges are two independent items. Add the two together and the amount expended on the other. I think it must be over $1,000,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total amount is' made up to the 31st of January last. We have not the figures to the close of the fiscal year. Leaving out the bridges at Miramichi and at Restigouche, the amount is $461,680.


John Graham Haggart: That is what the hon. gentleman said before. Then there is the vote of $165,000 to be added to that, and the hon. gentleman says that will complete the repairs on those bridges.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I stated rfhat this appropriation for the year will probably finish the work, but the general manager says it will take another year. There will be something further to be done.


John Graham Haggart: You do not know what the amount is ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have not the estimates at haud.


Andrew B. Ingram: For the total repairs of bridges ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For strengthening the bridges ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I have always understood that the department makes an estimate of the probable cost of strengthening bridges on the Intercolonial Railway. Will the hon. gentleman tell us what is the estimate cost of strengthening these bridges ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was an estimate made by the general manager and the recollection of my deputy is that it was about a million and a quarter dollars.


Andrew B. Ingram: Surely there must be some mistake. That includes the bridges at Restigouche and Miramichi ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The estimate is substantially correct-over a million dollars, including the large bridges as well as the process of doubling up. It would be subject to some deduction if bridges were sold off the road, but that has not yet been done, most of them being used In doubling up.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then the department in making up these estimates would estimate what it would cost to strengthen the old bridges and what it would cost to buy the new bridges. Could the hon. gentleman tell us the items of these two classes of work ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not give the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) that information at the present time.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I have not yet understood the method of bookkeeping in dividing these items between capital and revenue accounts. Suppose a bridge costs $50,000 and $1,000 to put it in place, and it is to be replaced with a bridge costing $100,000, which it will cost $2,000 to put in place. Surely it cannot be said that the $1,000 spent in placing the original bridge is not lost ? At least $1,000 of the cost of putting in the new bridge should be charged to revenue.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I have not understood my hon. friend's (Mr. Lefurgey's) question.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If it costs $1,000 to put the first bridge there, and you are taking that up, you have lost $1,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A good deal depends upon what you do with it.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: But the expense of putting it there is lost. Either that, or, what would amount to the same thing, the same amount in the cost of putting in the new bridge should be charged to revenue.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Even if that were correct, it would not be a large item.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: If you were putting in a hundred bridges, it would amount to $100,000. Of course, that is not large in these times.


Samuel Barker: The question raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Lefurgey) involves a point that we have been discussing for the last two or three years. Supposing a bridge as originally put in costs $1,000 and it is being removed and a bridge costing $5,000 is to be put in its place. The question is what is to be done with the original charge of $1,000. The revenue should be charged with whatever is necessary for the work up to its original value, and capital should stand the difference and also the $4,000 of the betterment. The objections that I have been trying to press upon the government are these. In the past the government have been practically adding the whole $1,000 to revenue account, and revenue has not been charged anything for superintendence. Suppose that this bridge costing $1,000 in the course of time becomes worth only $500, revenue should be charged with $500 and capital should be credited with $500 against the new one.


John Graham Haggart: According to the statement of the minister it will require $1,250,000 to do this work. I should judge from the estimates for this year that he expects that the expenditure for the year will be $1,000,000, and it will require some $200,000 more to complete the work. How

was it then, that the minister made the statement last year or the year before that the total expenditure would be only about $000,000. [DOT]


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The figures are certainly in excess of those the hon. gentleman mentions. I do not recall what the minister said. In view of the figures, $000,000 would fall very short. I think there must have been some misunderstanding as to what the minister said.


John Graham Haggart: 
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would be far short of the actual


John Graham Haggart: Just about half.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Before we pass this item, I would like the committee to fully understand the method of bookkeeping of the Intercolonial in this matter. I think the minister has acknowledged that the illustration I gave of the bridges is practically the way they are keeping their capital accounts. The Intercolonial charges to capita] many items such as a man in keeping his accounts of his own business would charge to the expenses. That being so it can easily be understood how the Minister of Railways and Canals has been able to show a surplus on the Intercolonial. If the people fully understand this, they will certainly condemn the administration for this attempt to deceive them by their method of bookkeeping.
Intercolonial Railway-air brakes to freight cars, $25,000.


John Graham Haggart: The minister promised us, when this item was under discussion before, that he would give us a full account of how many freight cars were to be furnished with air brakes, and the cost. AVe would like to know also whether this is done under contract or whether there is a supply on hand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The contractor is the Westinghouse Air Brake Company of Hamilton, Ontario. The total number of freight cars, June 30th, 1902, was 9,689. The number equipped with air brakes at that time was 5,568; so that there remained to be equipped 4,121. There were equipped in the year 1902-3, 449 cars, so that at tlie end of the year there remained to be equipped, 3,672 cars. The average cost per car is about $50.


John Graham Haggart: AVhen will this work be completed, and what will it cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: About one-third of the total number remain to be equipped, so it will take several years.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the contract price ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am informed that is the schedule price which the Westinghouse establishment charges to all railways.


Andrew B. Ingram: AATiat is the cost per car for the air brake, and what is the cost of the draw-bar ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: About $50 per car for the air brake, and $40 for the draw-bar.


Andrew B. Ingram: The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals last year stated that the air brakes would cost about $40 and the draw-bars $25. There ought to be some reliable figures.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps the difference arises from the fact that the one item includes labour of putting on the brakes, while the other does not.


Samuel Barker: The minister says there are 9,609 freight cars. Is that the total
stock-list of freight cars ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Well, there are several hundred freight cars out of service that will have to be purchased or rebuilt. Does the hon. gentleman include these in the number for which he is going to take a special vote? -because nowadays, the hon. gentleman knows, he can buy them equipped with all these appliances. I would like him to explain that, so that we may not be putting four or live hundred too many on one side of the account.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The fig-gures I quoted include every car on the list.


Samuel Barker: Then the cars out of service, there are 400 or 500 of them, will be bought as new cars, and they will be bought, no doubt, with the full equipment of modern cars. The hon. gentleman will not want to buy the Westinghouse equipment to put upon them as if they were old cars.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am told that when the cars get out of service they will be rebuilt in the shops and charged to renewals, with the exception of the airbrakes, which will be charged to capital in as much as the old cars did not have the-air-brakes.


Samuel Barker: This is an opportune time, as the general manager is here, to ask why they have not already been dealt with in that way instead of the government buying new cars.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is because of the increasing business of the

road they need both, not only to buy new ones but to repair old ones.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps the minister could tell us why these cars that are out of service, and have been out of service year after year, have not been restored instead of buying new cars. The hon. gentleman knows there would have been a very large addition to the working expenses of the railway. But by not doing that and by buying new ears, there has been no addition to the working expenses of the railway, and there has been a large addition to the debt of the country.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The manager informs me that they were doing all they could in this direction, they are constantly buying new cars as well as constantly repairing and improving old ones, to the extent of their facilities.


Samuel Barker: The extent of their facilities seems to be getting behind, and we are paying year after year large sums to increase the equipment at Moncton to enable the department to do this work. I would like to point out that a far more profitable answer is this, that if the department had replaced these cars in their shops, the charge would have been to working expenses ; but by buying them from the United States and elsewhere, it has gone to capital account; and the company is supposed to have been making a profit on the road when there has really been a large loss.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: I am advised that the proportion of these cars which are out of service now is not larger than that of other railroads. They have perhaps in the past not been able to overtake them, but they have now caught up, and there is not more than the usual proportion of cars out of service.


Samuel Barker: Two years ago I went into that question particularly, and I cited the reports of the Grand Trunk Railway and other companies as to their equipment of locomotives, and showed that the Grand Trunk Railway, two years ago, I think, it was, was actually ahead of its stock list, while the Intercolonial Railway was 700 cars behind.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That was correct a few years ago, but I am glad to be able to say we have done better since.


Samuel Barker: No, you have done worse.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the capacity of the box cars they have been buying ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 60,000 and SO,000 pounds, the size of modern cars.


William Humphrey Bennett: What has been done under the recommendation of Mr. Muhlfeld as to the equipment of certain cars and locomotives with what was known as the Chapman ball bearing apparatus ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Nothing has been done.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was anything done on the report submitted by Mr. Muhlfeld ?
The'MINISTER OF FINANCE. He made a report, but the officials tell me it was not acted upon.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then there are none of these ball bearings in use now on any of the locomotives or rolling stock of the Intercolonial ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: None.


Andrew B. Ingram: While dealing with that phase of the question, I would like to know what has been done with Mr. Cleveland's patent for cylinders ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is being used on several locomotives at the present time.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand Mr. Cleveland has had his patent put on some 18 locomotives on the Intercolonial, they have been on for some time, and that gentleman can get no information as to whether they were regarded as satisfactory.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that the reason why they have not furnished information as to the success of these appliances is that the officials wish to test them for a longer time.


Andrew B. Ingram: They have been on for some years, I understand.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The first was put on three years ago. These gentlemen have been making changes in the appliance since that time and improvements as they claim and the officials have not felt justified in giving any report up to the present time.


Andrew B. Ingram: And no report as to how it acted in the first place or as to these improvements from time to time ? I understand that in the state of Michigan there is a gentleman who has got out a patent which is becoming a very serviceable one. By reason of using it the locomotive consumes less fuel and greater speed is attained and the patent is becoming very valuable. It does seem to me strange that after these gentlemen have submitted this appliance to test on the Intercolonial for three years they could get no report upon it. It is not fair to these men and there must be some cause for not giving a report.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am informed that the people interested in this appliance have received some reports as to what is being done, but they would like a more general report. They have reports from time to time as to the fuel consumption, &c., which are important elements in the matter, but they have been applying to the department for a general report, no doubt,

with the desire, should it prove satisfactory, that they should supply some more of these appliances.


Andrew B. Ingram: When may we expect that they will be able to get that report ?
The* MINISTER OF FINANCE. One of the gentlemen concerned in the pateut, I am informed, has spent most of his time at Moncton up to a comparatively recent date and is perfectly familiar with the operation of the appliance. He was there observing it himself and therefore did not need any report.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am bound to say that if I read the letter that I have in my possession, it would ensure the hon. Minister of Finance that this gentleman has become very tired waiting around Moncton to get a report. I think if I read the letter it would raise the hair of the hon. gentleman' head, but I do not feel like doing so because I do not think it would be a good thing to put on record. He complains very bitterly that he cannot obtain any report from the Intercolonial in reference to this test, that he can get no satisfaction at all and that the officials of the Intercolonial Railway simply Ignore him. There are three gentlemen interested in this patent, one of them is in San Francisco and another is in Toronto. One of these gentlemen was here endeavouring to get some information, but he could get no satisfaction from the department and he was forced to leave Ottawa. He is a poor man without the means to enable him to remain around and I think he has hardly been treated fairly. If his patent is no good he should be told so at once.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Does the hon. gentleman mean that the gentleman who was recently here was the one who has been at Moncton ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that there are several parties connected with this patent and I am not sure that they all take the same view.


John Graham Haggart: Who are the other gentlemen connected with it ? There are three of them, are there not ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are Teterson and Cleveland and there are several members of the concern. There are two Tetersons and two Clevelands.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am informed that the patent office only recognized two-Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Peterson. The trouble, Mr. Cleveland tells me, is that there are some parties associated with the concern in Moncton, some gentlemen who have become interested in it in a way, Mr. Cleveland thinks, that is causing it to be a case of freeze-out, and Mr. Cleveland objects to being frozen out. Yet, he and the other two control the patent as far as the patent office is concerned.
'The MINISTER OF FINANCE. They will have to settle the patent question among themselves.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the Intercolonial Railway should give them some satisfaction.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it the intention of the department to go on and instal this Chapman double ball bearing apparatus on certain locomotives and cars on the report of Mr. Muhlfeld 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The
privilege has been accorded to these parties to make a trial of this apparatus, but they have not so far availed, themselves of it.


John Graham Haggart: At their own expense ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, there is no present understanding as to any further action.


John Graham Haggart: Have you much of a supply of these air-brakes on hand ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are some on hand.


Hon.   S@: Not a large quantity ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think not.
Sir. INGRAS1. Can the hon. minister say definitely whether the estimate he is making for the air-brake and draw-bar includes the labour or not ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This $50 I have quoted as the cost of the air-brakes does include the labour of putting them in.
Sir. INGRAS1. And the $40 for drawbars also includes the labour ?
The S1INISTER OF FINANCE. Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: I find by a circular issued by this company that the arrangement is not as the hon. minister has stated it to the committee. The hon. member for SVest York (Sir. Campbell) is president of this company and with the view of selling stock they have issued a prospectus purporting to give a copy of a report by Sir. Sluhlfeld. It says :
The railway to pay the cost for the expense for the application of the equipment only to such an amount as may be occasioned by the removal of the present equipment. If, after one year's continuous service, the equipment has demonstrated that it can fulfil all of the requirements, in accordance with the claims made for it by the inventor, and the company who may control the invention, the railway to pay the additional amount to defray the cost for the initial application.
The S1INISTER OF FINANCE. Is my hon. friend reading from a prospectus ?


William Humphrey Bennett: From the prospectus which is purporting to give a copy of the report of Mr. Muhlfeld, superintendent of machinery and rolling stock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Mr. Mulh-feld has not been in the service of the Intercolonial for some time.


William Humphrey Bennett: He was in the service at the time this report was written, in May, 1902. Is that still the standing of this company or is the company sailing under false colours in making this publication to the people ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have already stated. The officials of the department state that the privilege was accorded to this company of making a trial at their own expense, but that they have not availed themselves of it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then this report is misleading ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not say anything about that. I do not form any opinion as to the report.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do I understand that the privilege is cancelled or is it still open on the terms of the report of Mr. Muhlfeld ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will have to be considered if they should make an application. It is intended that they should have the privilege of having a full test made of this apparatus, and if they make an application to us we will consider it.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the report correct in stating that the department were to pay as set forth in the report which I have read?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The understanding of the department was that the trial was to be made at the expense of the company.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then the report is misleading.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not say anything about the report.


Richard Blain: Is not the cost of putting on air-brakes cheaper now than it was a year or two ago Two years ago the minister said that these air-brakes cost $70 each and now we are told they only cost $50.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot explain that. Things have not become very much cheaper, the good times continue.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Is it the reduction of duty on the air ?
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: Labour is higher now than it was two years ago ; perhaps the reason is that yon are buying a larger quantity and are getting them cheaper.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The prices may vary a little, but I have no information that would enable me to explain the difference between $50 and $70.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Richard Blain: Which is correct, the $50 or the $70?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can only be responsible for the $50.


Andrew B. Ingram: When did you first commence buying air-brakes from the Westing-house Company at Hamilton ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Railway Department has had relations with the Westingliouse Company for a long time, and since they have established themselves at Hamilton we have been doing business with them. That may be two or three year ago or perhaps longer.


Andrew B. Ingram: I suppose it is another evidence that the protective tariff brings manufacturers to Canada.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no doubt that the manufacturing industries of Canada have prospered enormously under the administration of the present government. I cannot deny it.


Andrew B. Ingram: But that is due to the tariff of the old government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But lion, gentlemen opposite are complaining that this is a wretched tariff we have now ; I cannot understand them at all.


Richard Blain: Perhaps they are cheaper because they are manufactured in Canada.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say. It is since this government came into power that most of these things happen in that way.


Samuel Barker: Is not the explanation that that since the Westinghouse Company came into Canada they have entered into a new contract with the government at a reduced price ?	-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no information as to that.
To exchange draw-bars on freight cars, $46,-
000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The cost per car is $40. The total number of freight cars on June 30, 1902 was 9,689 ; the number equipped with master car builders couplers was 5,743 to June 30, 1902 : there remained to be changed 3,946 ; there were changed last year, 1,008 and there remained to be changed 2,938. This vote is supposed to deal with 1,150 cars.


Samuel Barker: As I have the report of the Railway Department here now, I find that the exact number of cars out of service to the end of June, 1902, is 571 ; I said 560 from memory. The minister thought they were improving, but the report shows that at the end of the previous year the number out of service was 361, so that lie has gone 210 to the bad during the year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am assured that in the report for the present year the situation will be improved.


Samuel Barker: Distance lends enchantment to the view.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you taking them off one class of cars and putting them on another ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We are exchanging the old fashioned coupler for the modern appliance.


Samuel Barker: Are you charging the whole cost to capital?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes ; the old ones are used in repairs to the old cars.


Samuel Barker: That will not do.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a fact.


Samuel Barker: That is too thin.


John Graham Haggart: On what principle do you charge changing draw-bars to capital ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a decided betterment.


John Graham Haggart: But a thing of that kind is never charged to capital.


Samuel Barker: Betterment is one thing and charging the whole cost is a very different thing.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do you manufacture them in the shops at Moncton ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some have been bought in Walkerville, some in Montreal, and some in the United States.


Andrew B. Ingram: What becomes of the old draw-bars ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They are used in repairing old cars.


Andrew B. Ingram: But if they are smashed they cannot be used.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then they go into the scrap heap.


Samuel Barker: And if they do go into the scrap heap does not the minister see that revenue is bound to replace them ? He has no right to charge their replacement to capital. He has 900 old draw-bars, he throws them into the scrap heap, and he has not charged anything to revenue. The revenue of the company has got to replace the old ones, and if they are not worth replacing you must charge the difference between what it would cost to replace the old ones, and the cost of the new ones to capital account. Your revenue has to bear the expense necessary to replace the old ones.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to know what railway system in Canada or the United States follows a system similar to that followed on the Intercolonial Railway?
Or is this system followed on the Intercolonial Railway because the management can get a vote of government money whenever they want it ? It is easier to buy new material than to replace the old, and charge it to capital account under these circumstances.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot answer that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, I think if a little common sense were applied that system would not be adopted merely because the money is voted so easily.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: [DOT] We do not find that the money is easily voted. We get it with great difficulty.


Andrew B. Ingram: The managers of other railways do not get their money so easily.


Samuel Barker: The hou. minister is not entitled to say that he cannot answer for that, because for two or three years past he has voted squarely in the House for the very things we are contending for, and he must take the responsibility for it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I take the responsibility of it ; but what I cannot answer is as to the affairs of other companies.


Andrew B. Ingram: Surely the superintendent can give the information. Where are all these Master Car Builders' Associations we have heard so much about? Surely the government railways are not run without the managers having an interchange of ideas with the managers of other companies. Surely they are not conducting this railway on their own ideas, and not inquiring how other railways are conducted. Will the hon. minister say that any officer of the Intercolonial Railway associates with the officers of other railways and attends the meetings which are held occasionally with a view to finding out the best way to conduct the railway? I am afraid there is something wrong about this whole business.
Intercolonial Railway-new machinery for locomotive and car shops, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The details of this are as follows : Ferguson flue welding furnace, operated by oil ns fuel, $200; 300 horse-power engine, $3,000 ; buzz planer, $120; 100 horse-power engine, $1,500; turning lathe to take 16 feet between centres, $1,600; little giant pneumatic drill, $40; combination cold saw cutting-off machine, $1,000; belting, &c., $540. The machinery asked for is of the latest and most improved design, and is to facilitate the repairs of locomotives and cars. The present engines are too small to furnish power required to run shops with the new machinery placed and enlargements made, and it is proposed to replace them witli engines asked above. The present engines will be used at other points on the line.


John Graham Haggart: Was the .$10,000 voted last year all expended for machinery?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: Yes.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. What is the total cost of the machinery in these shops now?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot give that to the hon. gentleman, but I will give it to him at a later stage.
Intercolonial Railway-to equip ten passenger cars with Pintsch gas apparatus, $8,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is found to be the latest and most satisfactory system. The cost is $800 per car, and we propose to equip 10 cars.


John Graham Haggart: How many remain to be equipped ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total number to be equipped to the end of the year will be 20. That will complete the work.


John Graham Haggart: When you discard one system of lighting on the Intercolonial Railway and introduce another, you charge the cost to capital account?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The apparatus for the Pintsch system is entirely new, and is charged to capital account. All the new cars are fitted with that apparatus; and when we take an old car which is only fitted with a gas lamp and put in the Pintsch system, that is charged to capital' account.


John Graham Haggart: Many of the cars were lighted with electric light.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There were a number of cars equipped with electric light on the storage battery system; but that was found to be inconvenient and not economical, and we are adopting the Pintsch system instead.


John Graham Haggart: You put out the electric light and put in this, and charge the whole to capital account?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Then, the principle on the Intercolonial Railway seems to be this, that if the management in one season fancy a particular lamp and buy it, and the next year think another kind is more suitable, they turn out the first and put in the new one, and charge both to capital account. Is that the principle? If it is, it is a most extraordinary one.


Richard Blain: Is this a cheaper system of lighting than electricity?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the officials think it is decidedly cheaper than the system of a storage battery. Some railways are introducing dynamos, but they have not been introduced on the Intercolonial Railway.


William Stevens Fielding: 


Richard Blain: Does it cost less to fit up a car with the Pintsch system than with the electric light apparatus?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. that is the opinion of the officials.


George William Fowler: How many of these cars are fitted with electric light?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the number, but I will get that at a later stage.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the nature of this new system ? Does it generate gas ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a system of cylinders and piping-a storage system of gas. The gas is made at the shops in Moncton and stored in these cylinders and pipes. It is called the Pintsch gas system, which is used on most of the railways that do not use the electric lights. It is made from oil.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is very costly, $800 per car. Is it expensive to keep up afterwards ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The chief expense is in the fitting up.


Samuel Barker: I do not think there is much dispute about the Pinsch system being a good one. But I think the real question is this. If the officials of a railway, who may change from year to year their ideas with regard to the kinds of lamps to be used in the cars, are allowed to have their way, we will have all sorts of experiments tried, according to the fancies of the gentleman, who for the time being is the superintendent. If you adopt the ordinary principle that when officials want to try from one year to the other, which is the better system, they must do it at the expense of their current account, they will have some motive to be economical and careful, but it is almost historical that when you allow officials to expend anything they like and charge it to capital, they will say : Why should we not expend the money so long as parliament votes it. There is no check whatever and no inducement to officials to be economisal and careful so long as they can get whatever they please without adding one cent to their working expenses. The only safety in the operation of a road, whether run by a government or a company, is to have the officials who are responsible run up their working expenses by every purchase they make and not have these purchases treated as an additional mortgage on the property.
Rolling stock, $637,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I prop ise to reduce that to $327,000.


Samuel Barker: We should have an explanation why the amount was put in the first instance at $037,000 and why it was subsequently reduced ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If I give an explanation of the sum I ask the House



[Stage Direction]
to rote, tlie lion, gentleman should be content.
Samuel Barker: Certainly not.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We propose to furnish :
Six second-class sleepers at $10,000.. ..$ 60,000
Four parlour cars at $20,000	 80,000
Ten first-class cars at $16,000	 160,000
Six baggage cars at $4,500	 27^000
Total	$327,000


George William Fowler: We are entitled to know why the first amount was reduced. Before this amount of $037,000 was arrived at. the estimates must have been made up by the officials, passed upon by the minister, submitted by the minister to the council, and passed upon by the council.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend insists on giving me the whole amount of $037,000, I will have to take it.


Samuel Barker: We want to know why you have changed your mind.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is not an uncommon thing to reduce estimates. So long as we do not increase them, there is not cause to complain.


George William Fowler: I do not quite agree with-the hon. minister. This first amount of $037,000 was not put in the estimates without having been carefully considered, and we should know why this serious reduction is now being made in it. Is it because we do not require as much rolling stock as the government thought at first we did ? Does the hon. gentleman find that the trade on the Intercolonial Railway is not increasing but diminishing or is it not increasing at the rate expected ?


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the hon. minister is going to charge the rest to revenue instead of to capital. He has found he has made a mistake.
The MINISTER OB'1 FINANCE. That is a very charitable suggestion.


George William Fowler: I would like to have it confirmed by the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not want to contradict the hon. member for Lanark, who is an old and experienced railway man.


George William Fowler: If the minister accepts that explanation and says that what the hon. member for Lanark stated jocularly is really the case, we must accept his statement. but we should have some reason given us. Some one must have erred greatly in connection with the matter.


Samuel Barker: I think that possibly the explanation of the hon. member for Lanark may throw some light on the matter, but they would require a little more than this reduction to make up for the cars out of service and which ought to be charged to

revenue account. There Is another explanation to which I might probably draw atten-ti m. In the revenue account for the year ending 1902, I find that the government has received for mileage of its own cars on other lines in excess of what it has paid to companies for mileage of their cars on the Intercolonial Railway, $16,743. This indicates that instead of the government wanting freight cars, it has more than it needs, and probably after attention was called to this during this session, the government reconsidered the matter and deemed it expedient to take $300,000 or $400,000 off what a month or two ago it thought it should ask parliament for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the hon. minister is to be commended for striking off this sum. It is the first reduction we have seen for a long time.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I must thank my hon. friend for coming to my rescue for I felt I was being badly treated.


John Graham Haggart: Would the hon. minister give a statement of the total amount expended on capital account in the purchase of rolling stock from 1896 up to the present day, including this vote ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The expenditure from the 30th June, 1896, to the 30th June, 1902, which was the last official report, was $4,896,843.


John Graham Haggart: With this vote, the total is about $5,200,000. The government, through its Minister of Railways and Canals, congratulated the House upon having a surplus instead of a large deficit. But I find that for the year ending June 30th, 1902, the number of cars of the Intercolonial Railway that were on other roads was 1,012, with a day use of 13,100, and for last year there were 1,522, with the number of days nearly 15,000.


Samuel Barker: An increase of nearly fifty per cent in the number of cars.


George William Fowler: Would the minister give us an idea of the present value of the rolling stock ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I could not, off-hand, give that information.


George William Fowler: But, surely, with the general manager at his elbow, the hon. gentleman can get the facts.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The books are kept at Moncton and I presume they include that item. The valuation is not made every year, but only from time to time, I will get the latest valuation for the hon. gentleman:


George William Fowler: You do not take stock V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, but the cars stand at their cost.


Richard Blain: Is the rolling stock purchased in Canada, and is it purchased by tender, or how ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Cars are purchased In Canada whenever they can he obtained here, and always by tender.


George William Fowler: As to the system of stocktaking, if the replacement of cars were charged to maintenance, the system of taking the cars at cost would be fairly correct. But where the replacement is charged to capital, as on the Intercolonial, to take the cars at cost does not give a fair estimate of the present value of the rolling stock. An ordinary railway is supposed to keep its rolling 'stock up to the original valuation, and, in the case of such a road the valuation at cost would be fair. But that is not the system on the Intercolonial, and to take the cars at their original value would be to represent the rolling stock at a much higher value than it actually has.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken in his assumption that all these renewals and repairs are charged to capital. That is not so; on the contrary, once a car is bought on capital account it has to be maintained, and the maintenance is charged to current account. Only additional purchases or improvements are charged to capital.


George William Fowler: Where do you draw the line ? For instance, in the matter of lighting, you put in electric light and charge it to capital. Soon after that you throw out that system and put in the Pintscli system, and charge that to capital. If, next year, some better system is invented, you discard the Pintsch and put in the new one and charge that to capital. You will have all these changes, costing an average of say $800 or $2,400 per car, charged to capital. In view of the hon. minister's explanation of this subject, I think I was justified in the assumption I made.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There may be some room for the hon. gentleman's point as respects the lighting; that may be a matter of discussion. But as respects the general maintenance, I can assure him that it is not so charged.


John Graham Haggart: Some time ago when the minister was making a statement as to the benefit accruing to the Intercolonial from the cars that were being procured, I said I thought most of the small railways in Nova Scotia had their rolling stock virtually supplied by the Intercolonial. I find full confirmation of that in the return. For instance, here is the railway of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, the number of cars of the Intercolonial they had was 59 for 297 days; and we had ten of their cars for fifteen days. The Sydney and Louisburgh load had eighty-four cars for 281 days; we do not appear to have had one of theirs at all. The Nova Scotia Steel Company had 135 car* for 1,073 days, but the Intercolonial does not seem to have had any other of theirs. The Inverness and Richmond Railway had Mr. BLAIN.
115 Intercolonial cars, and wc bad six of their cars for thirteen days. The Dominion Atlantic Railway had thirty-three of the Intercolonial cars, but we do not seem to have had any from their road. The Quebec Central Railway had 137 Intercolonial cars for 1,936 days; and we had seventeen of theirs. Under the system in use, it would appear that these concerns are supplied with Intercolonial cars to run their roads.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Carried.


John Graham Haggart: No, I want to know what is the reason for this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The traffic goes in that direction. Take Cape Breton for example, the cars go down loaded with the produce of the west, and then they are sent to these various coal mines where they are loaded with coal to come back. The traffic is chiefly going down, and when the cars are there they want to make some use of them.


George William Fowler: Do you charge anything for the use of these cars ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The usual charge is 20 cents per day.


Richard Blain: Is any portion of thise $637,000 for the purchase of freight cars ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose all this, the supply of cars, buildings, and everything else, is done in the usual way) by contract and tender ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, all are matters of public tender.


George William Fowler: Where will these cars be built for which you are asking this appropriation ?


The MINSTER OF FINANCE.: They -will be built either iu Ontario or Nova Scotia.
Increased aceommiodaition at Stellarton, ?32,-000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That item is made up as follows : New station, $16,000 ; machine shop, $4,500 ; car repair shop, $4,000 ; building to store wrecking train, $1,500 ; building for stores and oflices, $3,500 ; engineer inspection, $2,500 ; making a total of $32,000. Stellarton is an important junction and locomotive station, the centre of the Pictou coal fields. A large business is done in connection with the coal trade, and it is necessary to do considerable repairing of cars.


John Graham Haggart: There were $32,000 spent last year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The appropriation last year has been largely spent in providing yard room and an engine house. The present appropriation will finish all that is contemplated.


George William Fowler: When was the old station built ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At the time of the construction of the Pictou town branch, in 1889. The business has outgrown the station facilities, but the old building will still be used.


George William Fowler: As the general manager is present, I want to call attention to the lack of station accommodation at Sussex. That is one of the most important towns on the Intercolonial. A very large amount of business is done there, and it is the largest railway town between Moncton and St. John. There is a station there, built when tlie railway was first constructed, some forty odd years ago. It is an old wooden structure, and is a disgrace to the Intercolonial and to the town itself. I am afraid that if the people of the town were not so law-abiding, some one would apply a torch to it and get rid of it in that way. This is a matter that ought to be taken into consideration at once. Besides the lack or station accommodation, they have a disgraceful old shed for an engine house, entirely dilapidated ; indeed a man out in the new North-west would not use such a structure to keep hjs hogs in. There is a train made up at Sussex which runs only between Sussex and St. John, and the engine is kept there all night. There was an engine house, a brick building, but it burned down, and instead of erecting a new brick building the old bricks were actually carted away to some other point, and this old shed put up, out of old second-hand boards-I do not know where they obtained tliem-with a wooden smoke-stack sticking out. No one-horse railway through a back country district would have such a structure as this. I hope the acting minister will attend to this. I am sorry the hon. gentleman whom we expect to see occupying this important post in the near future, is not here, so that I might bring this matter to his attention, and that it might be one of the first acts of his administration to provide decent and reasonable railway facilities to the important town of Sussex.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Sussex case must stand upon its own merits. Of course, there is no comparison between the business of Sussex'and that of Stellar-ton. However, there is no reason why the case of Sussex should not be considered. In regard to the engine house, I may say that it is the intention of the department to rebuild the engine house, and I am sure my hon. friend would be pleased to learn that it is not going to be charged to capital account either. The old engine house was burned down, and recognizing the sound principle that only proper things should be charged to capital account, we shall charge this to income. As to further accommodation at Sussex, I will give the subject consideration, and our desire is that these stations shall be properly equipped all along the line. .


George William Fowler: I would say to my hon. friend that I might find it in my heart to forgive him if he gave us a really first-class building, even if he did charge the cost to capital account.


Mr. GOURLEY.: I regret very much to have to object to this expenditure at Stel-lartou, but I am instructed by the people of Truro to protest against this aggrandizement of Stellarton at the expense of Truro, because that is what it amounts to. All these votes which have been made during four or five years past have been made in furtherance of a departure in policy since the incoming of the present government. Under the old administration Truro was the central point for the management of the Cape Breton Railway. After the advent of this government, with the view, perhaps, of strengthening some political interests in the county of Pictou, and in the vain attempt, I presume, to defeat my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell), or perhaps in the attempt to aggrandize Stellarton, a policy was adopted, the result of which has been that Truro has been distinctly and permanently injured. Numbers of people who formerly lived at Truro have been obliged to remove from that place. That is the point at which trains were made up for the Cape Breton Railway, and at which trains coming from Cape Breton changed their conductors and their men. Consequently, Truro was the central point from which this railway was operated. Now, an attempt has been made, and successfully made, to take away a large number of railway men from Truro and locate them at Stellarton by making that the divisional centre, and the result has been a complete drain upon the population of Truro. The people of Truro have put up with this injustice without complaining publicly to the House, thinking that the government, and especially the members of 'the government representing the province of Nova Scotia, would no longer tolerate an injustice of that character. Truro has been one of the centres of education and one of the centres of general intelligence in the province of Nova Scotia for years. It has led in dominating the public sentiment of the province and counties like that represented by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance have derived whatever intelligence they possess in a large degree from the overflow of intelligence and education which exists and which is growing in the town of Truro.


John Graham Haggart: Did the hon. Minister of Finance emanate from there ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: No, but I say that the county he represents is indebted largely for whatever intelligence it possesses to the overflow of education and intelligence that has its home in Truro. Truro was the Athens of Nova Scotia, and when the hon. Minister of Finance wants a little inspiration, he stops off and rests in Truro.


John Graham Haggart: I thought it was a temperance town.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have wondered if that is not the attraction which causes members of the government to treat Truro with great deference in stopping there for a few hours. It has become a crying shame that every vote is given for Stellarton, and that that town is being built up at the expense of Truro. We have a miserable station at Truro. The government have a large railway property there and, while the rest of Truro is made beautiful these large railway grounds are permitted to have anything but an aspect of cleanliness or beauty, and the result is that the town is disfigured. We tried to improve these grounds a few years ago, but we were prevented, and the railway will not improve it. The station is a laughing-stock as far as railway accommodation is concerned, and as far as the requirements of travel from and to Truro are concerned. The point I am chiefly desiring to urge now is that the government should reconsider this whole question of Stellarton. It was done purely as a political move, and the result of it is that they have prevented the town of Truro from being the headquarters of the Cape Breton branch, from which it should be managed, and from which it had been managed very largely since the building of the Cape Breton branch. Then, the government decided upon a change, and during the last four or five yeaps Truro has been passed by and an abnormal terminal point has been established at Stellarton, from which the Cape Breton branch of the Intercolonial Railway has been managed, with the result that there has been a lessening of population, wealth and of business in the town of Truro. I ask the hon. Minister of Finance to look into this matter and attempt to cure this grievance. I have no doubt he will receive some assistance from his officials, because I have no doubt that his officials at Moncton, as well as the deputy minister, have received many petitions and communications with reference to this matter, because the people of Truro, a few years ago, endeavoured to impress the government with the iniquity of the whole proceeding and to have it corrected. I hope that will be accomplished. I could not allow this vote to pass without making these representations as strong as I could. I can assure the hon. gentleman that when a change of government comes, which would not, from the state of public opinion, I think, be considered very far away, we shall have to make a prompt and immediate change if it does not occur before that time.


Mr. BELL.: I feel sure that my hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) has not considered this matter as fully as he should have or he would not attack this particular vote. It is quite possible that Mr. GOURLEY.	'
to a certain extent the gain of Stellarton has been at the cost of Truro. That is probably a result of the change of management upon the road, but I do not see any reason why the people of Truro should have any ill-feeling against the people of Stellarton on that account.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: We have not.


John William Bell: Or against the railway management for making a change in the method of conducting the business of the road. It is quite clear that at the time of the adoption of Truro as the terminal, Truro was the chief headquarters, but as soon as the Eastern Extension Railway was built the business of the Eastern Extension leading from New Glasgow to Cape Breton was made independent and separate, and now in reality the business of the Oxford to Sydney line is managed from New Glasgow, which is two or three miles from Stellarton, and that has been done because that is the junction of the Sydney and Oxford road with the old Pictou extension, running from Truro to Pictou. I would remind my hon. friend from Colchester that an enormous part of the business which is done on the road between Truro and Sydney and between Oxford and Stellarton originates either in New Glasgow or in the immediate vicinity of Stellarton. There is an immense traffic in coals, all of which originates at Stellarton or Westville, two or three miles distant. The large works of the Nova Scotia Steel Company at New Glasgow' have given an immense proportion of the business which has been done over the Intercolonial Railway for a very long term of years. It seems to me that that point at which the business of the road to a very large extent originates is entitled to derive a greater part of the benefit from the working of the road, if there should be any discrimination at all betw'een the different points. I have no doubt that the road can be managed there efficiently under the system that has been adopted. Practically Stellarton and New Glasgow' are almost one point; there is only two and a half miles between the stations, the despatcher's office is in New Glasgow and the engine house and round house are at Stellarton. In reference to this particular vote, I feel that there is every justification for giving the people of Stellarton, or the people of the county of Pictou who have to use that junction constantly, a much better station than the one that is there now. The present station is an old building entirely inadequate to the business of the day. I am inclined to think that it never wTas large enough to afford convenience for the immense passenger traffic at that point. At no station in Nova Scotia, except possibly Truro, are so many people brought together by the passenger traffic of the county as at Stellarton. The passengers for Prince Edward Island leave the main line there ; it is a very important point and certainly it

deserves a better passenger station than it has. I am glad to see that the government is recognizing the requirements ot' the road, and I trust they will give Stellarton a building that will be suited to the large passenger traffic* that passes that point. The fact of a certain change in the management of the road may have diverted some business from the town of Truro, and that we have to regret, although, I suppose, it is of benefit to the county which I have the honour to represent. But, that is not a reason at all why Stellarton should be denied what are its rights. I travel around. Canada a good deal, and I really do not know of any place, considering its size, where you see such a thronging passenger traffic. There are a great many trains in the course of a day between Stellarton and New Glasgow and they are all tilled and very often crowded. I have no doubt there is no part of the Intercolonial Railway that pays as well as the small section in the vicinity of New Glasgow and Stellarton. I presume that it is the intention of the government, judging by this vote, to put up a decent station building at Stellarton. I am very glad that they are making this provision.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: I can hear testimony to what the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) has said. Last January and the January previously, I passed some hours at Stellarton station, and it is as shabby a railway station as a person could see. There is no comfort for the passengers in it, and.it badly requires to be put on a modern footing, I was pleased at the remarks made by the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) about that higher education which permeates the whole province of Nova Scotia, and that of course explains the large number of Liberal members that are returned from Nova Scotia to support the present government.


George William Fowler: I call the attention of the minister, and of the general manager of the Intercolonial Railway who is on the floor of the House to the barn-like structures that are being put up as stations along the Intercolonial Railway. They might have been well enough forty years ago, but they are out of date to-day. They are a disgrace. On other lines of railways you see artistic stations, pleasing to the eye, but when you approach some of those new Intercolonial Railway stations you do not know whether they are farm barns or what. At a very slight additional cost, and perhaps at no additional cost, artistic buildings could be erected which would be a credit to the road. This is a thing the management should attend to. Of course this criticism does not apply to expensive structures ; the station at Moncton for example, is a very handsome building and so is the station at Amherst, but I refer to the smaller stations, and there is no excuse whatever for building them in their present style. In my county there
have been several new stations erected in the last few years, and there seems to be an entire lack of taste in the architect who designed them. If a nice artistic building is put up the person in charge would take a pride in it and in the grounds around it. Any one who has travelled on railways in western Canada or in the United States must be charmed with the ornate appearance of the small stations and their surroundings. It adds much to the appearance of the country and strangers are much impressed, just as they are disenchanted when they see these hideous barn-like structures which characterize the line of the Intercolonial Railway.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman has appealed to my artistic taste, but, I am told that some of these stations are copied from models on the lines of railway which he commends so highly. However, if the great railways of the United States are deficient in taste, that is no reason why we should be. It is possible to put up a small building of artistic design, and I should be glad to have the attention of the engineers and architects drawn to it, so that we may do better.


George William Fowler: If they copied from models in the United States they have selected the wrong railways to imitate. The stations on lines running out of Boston are in marked contrast to the stations on the Intercolonial Railway, in the vicinity of St. John, for instance.


Richard Blain: Could the Minister give us a statement of the details of the $32,000 expended at Stellarton last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The accounts for the year are not closed, but the manager tells me the money was chiefly expended for yard room, and some of it for finishing an engine-house previously commenced.


George William Fowler: Was it for the purchase of land ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some portion of it was for land. I have not the figures of the quantity, but it was not a large sum.


Richard Blain: Was a new building put up last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: A building which had been begun before was finished.


George William Fowler: How was the land purchased ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Valuators were appointed, and it was purchased at the price they put upon it.


George William Fowler: Have you an official valuator ?


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: In this case the engineers of the department made the valuation. In special cases valuators are appointed from time to time. There is no one person whose special duty it is to value.


George William Fowler: Judging from the number of officials appointed lately on the Intercolonial Railway, I cannot understand why valuators have not been appointed.


Richard Blain: Last session when this item was going through, the minister made a statement which I will read. He said :
We intend to put up a two-story building for the accommodation of the engine men, register rooms anid foremen's office, master mechanics office, train engineer's lunch room and oil room, which will cost $6,500; heating offices and building, $1,000 ; new electric lighting .plant, $2,000 ; office furniture, $1,000 ; building for storing wrecking car, $1,500 ; tracks and laying tracks, $5,000, which makes a total -of $17,000.
The minister now states that most of the money was expended for yard room. Will the hon. Minister of Finance say whether this money was applied in the way the minister said it was intended to apply it last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly, the items which the hon. member has read do not correspond with the information which I have given. I will look into the matter and see what the explanation is, and bring it down at a later stage.


Richard Blain: Is the estimate of $16,000 to complete the station ?


The MJNISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: Does that include heating and lil ting ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no special item for heating, and therefore this covers everything.


Richard Blain: Is the work done by contract.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: This must be an important point, because I believe there has been more than $150,000 expended there. Last session the hon. member for South Lanark (Hou. Mr. I-Iaggart) asked :	' What is the total
amount expended at Stellarton ? ' The answer was $116,000, then $17,000 was voted last year and now the committee is asked for $32,000 more. When is this to stop ?


John Graham Haggart: When the hon. member is asking for a sum of money to be voted, he should be able to state the total amount expended at the place in question.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will promise when later estimates come on to have the information.
Intercolonial Railway-new superstructure for Restigouche bridge, $123,000.


George William Fowler: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: $42,000 of this is a revote. The estimated cost of the steel superstructure is $163,000; for flooring, $6,000; for handling and storing, $5,000; for painting, $2,500; for inspection, $500; for engineering and other expenses, $6,000; in all, making the total cost of this work $183,000.


John Graham Haggart: Do you charge the taking down of the old bridge and the putting up of the new one to capital account ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: How long had the old bridge been in use ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Since 1870.
air. BARKER. That is twenty-seven years, and there has been nothing charged to maintenance for that worn-out bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The question of what credit, if any, is to be given on account of tbe old bridge has yet to be considered. Because no determination lias yet been reached as to wbat is to be done with it.


Charles Marcil: In the closing days of last session I had the opportunity of calling the attention of the members of the government to certain petitions which had been sent here from Restigouche county and Bonaventure county. Yrou are aware that the Restigouche river forms the boundary between the province of Quebec and the province of New Brunswick, and when it became known that the government were going to put up a new superstructure, inquiries were made by the hon. member for Restigouche and myslf as to what was to be done with the old superstructure. We have since ascertained that it cannot be put to any use on either tbe Intercolonial or tbe Prince Edward Island Railway, and if this superstructure is removed, probably the only opportunity which that district will have of having an interprovincial bridge will be gone.
Restigouche river is very shallow in the summer, but in the spring it carries large quantities of ice, and up to the present the district has not been able to put a bridge across that river. Farmers coming down the Matapedia valley have to go to Cross Point, a distance of twenty miles in order to cross the river to Campbellton,; or to Dee Side, eight miles above the bridge, to wade across the river. Petitions have been presented to the government asking tbe government to allow us to use the old iron structure as a highway bridge. The piers are wide enough for two bridges. The hon. gentleman for Restigouche (Mr. Reid) and myself expect, if the Dominion will allow us to use the old bridge, to get sufficient assistance from the provinces of New Bruns-

wick and Quebec and tlie municipalities immediately interested, to meet the requirements regarding the approaches and the enlargements of the abutments. X hope that the government will give this matter full consideration. It is one of great importance to the district. When the Intercolonial Railway was first built the Matapedia valley was a wilderness, but during the past fifteen years settlements have sprung up all along the line. The parish of St. Alexis, situated near the bridge, has a population of nearly 2,000. The market town for all this Matapedia valley-the lower portion of it-is the town of Campbellton, and this river has to be crossed in order to reach it. As this superstructure is not being used anywhere else on the Intercolonial Railway, it seems almost a pity to demolish the bridge and carry the iron elsewhere, when it could be of such service to the people of that district and a connecting link . between Quebec and New Brunswick. The district is not very rich. It is settled largely by pioneer settlers, farmers who have gone in there during the last few years, and who consequently have not the means to erect an interprovincial bridge of their own. If this opportunity be not taken advantage of, we shall probably not see an interprovincial bridge there in our own lifetime. Besides there are precedents for the government coming to our relief in this matter. The Dominion government has already paid money for an interprovincial bridge over the Ottawa river. We are not asking the government to spend anything, but to allow us to use the superstructure on condition that the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec and the municipalities interested will meet any additional cost required for making this bridge serviceable as a highway.	-


Samuel Barker: On the statement of the hon. gentleman, it seems to me that if this bridge cannot be used for railway purposes elsewhere, this might be a fair opportunity to utilize it for the purpose he mentions. I presume that the two provinces and the municipalities would be willing to allow the government the fair value of the superstructure for the purpose for which they need it. Assuming that it cannot be used for any railway purposes, it would possibly have to be converted into scrap or used for the purpose mentioned by the hon. gentleman. and in such case the parties interested -would no doubt pay a reasonable price for it.


Mr.   MARGIE@Bonaventure: The hon. member for Hamilton has not caught what I intended to convey. If this bridge is demolished and taken away, it will lose all its value. It is twenty-seven years old. If we had to purchase the bridge outright, it would be a very good transaction on the part of the administration of the Intercolonial Railway to sell the bridge, but the district is newly settled and I do not believe that I could induce any of the municipalities to pay the amount that would be required to meet the value of this bridge, which, I think, is estimated at some $40,000. All we ask is to be allowed to use the bridge as a highway and let that be the contribution of the Dominion to the interprovincial bridge, the province of New Brunswick paying the additional cost on the New Brunswick side, and the province of Quebec the additional cost on the Quebec side. The Restigouche is a very difficult river to cross, especially in the spring, when the ice is sometimes twenty feet high at that point. Any bridge with wooden pillars which the municipalities might put up would be swept away. We want to use the large piers, which are sufficiently wide, and ask the Dominion government to allow the old bridge which cannot be used anywhere else, to be used by us. It would be a pity to remove it when, by keeping it in position, it -would be of such good service to the district.


John Graham Haggart: Could they erect a new railway bridge on the same piers and let the old bridge remain as it is ?


Mr.   MARCIE@Bonaventure: Yes, by enlarging the abutments, I understand there would be room for both bridges.


John Graham Haggart: Is it in a good position for crossing ?


Mr.   MARGIE@Bonaventure: The province of Quebec side is all that could be desired, but there would be some difficulty on the New Brunswick side because it is right at the base of a mountain. That difficulty, however, is not insurmountable. For all these reasons I hope that the government will consider our request favourably. The population of Bonaventure has increased
5,000	in the last ten years, which increase is largely due to the opening up of the Matapedia valley. The Dominion government has a direct interest in developing that region. We voted last year and this year certain sums for the purpose of enabling a Montreal colonization society to send settlers into this Matapedia valley. From Matapedia to Ste. Flavie, you have a distance of seventy-five miles, partly not settled at all, and you have a railway running through that district. By encouraging the development of that district, you will furnish the Intercolonial Railway with the means of meeting the expenses incurred in running through this Matapedia valley. All through the valley new settlements are springing up, but these people, if they are going to live along the government line and give it business, must have some encouragement. I would refer the government to what the Canadian Pacific Railway hiajs done in Algoma and Nipis-sing during the last few years as an example which should be followed. All we ask of the government is to not demolish

the old bridge, but allow it to remain so that our people can reach the market town of Campbellton over it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from Bona venture (Mr. Marcil) has made out a very strong case. We do in some cases grant aid to interprovincial bridges. If that precedent were to be followed, I suppose that something could be said in favour of the policy suggested. If we were willing to do that, we could put some value on the bridge and make it a gift to the place and credit it to the Intercolonial as the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker)' suggests. These are matters of detail. I will bring the subject before my colleagues, and, perhaps, later on, we can give the committee some further information. There is some force in the suggestion that, if this bridge is not useful to us and we should only have to take it down, the least we can do is to make it of some use to the people of the locality. If the province of New Brunswick and the province of Quebec and the municipalities interested were prepared to contribute a fair share, I think that would be a reasonable and fair arrangement.


John Graham Haggart: I do not say anything in opposition to the request of the hon. member for Bouaventure (Mr. Marcil). But I think that the widening of the piers and erecting of a new bridge would greatly exceed the cost of providing for a carriage way on either side of the new bridge that is to be constructed. If this is regarded as a necessity in that section, I would advise my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) to use his influence with the government-and I think the influence of an important supporter like the hon. gentleman would have great weight -to get a carriage way put on either side of the new structure.
New superstructure for South-west Mira-mi'chi bridge, $90,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The whole cost of the steel superstructure will be $170,000, of which there was to have been paid during the past year according to the estimates, and, I suppose, has been paid, as the year is closed, $75,000. So, we need $95,000 more to pay for the steel structure. Then we have to provide for labour, false work, painting new spans, flooring, engineering and other expenses, and other items which will bring this $95,000 up to $122,000. Against that we have the value of the old span which is estimated at $32,000, leaving $90,000 to be provided. These are the sjians which it is proposed to transfer to Prince Edward Island.
Hon. air. IIAGGART. I suppose this amount will lie taken out of the vote for Prince Edward Island, and the cash made available for the Intercolonial ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, It will be charged to one and credited to the other.


Charles Marcil: 


Hon Mr IIAGGART.: This is the lirst time we have had a clear statement of a proper credit. Does this finish the bridge ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Richard Blain: Last year, the minister stated that $(>0,000 was to be received for this old bridge. How does it come that the value has shrunk $30,000 since last year ? Then, we were told that the superstructure would cost $132,000. It seeems to have crept up about $40,000 above that amount.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Is my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) sure it is the same bridge ?


Richard Blain: The item of last year is to provide a new superstructure, six spans, for tlie Miramichi bridge, $72,000, which sum the committee was asked to vote.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are two Miramichi bridges. The appropriation for this one last year was $123,000.


Richard Blain: Yes, this is the one.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot explain the difference.


Richard Blain: How much is the total cost of this to be ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 


Richard Blain: For the superstructure alone?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, for everything.


Richard Blain: How much for the superstructure V


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 


Richard Blain: That is $40,000 more than the minister said it would cost. And we were (o get credit for the old bridge which was to be sent to the province of Prince Edward Island, this is the same bridge, I take it of $60,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps the contract was not let at that time. Which may explain the difference.


John Graham Haggart: I think the hon. gentleman will find that a statement was made by the minister last year as to the purchase of the bridge to be made from the Hamilton Bridge Company or the company in Toronto. Evidently, he had an understanding and a price fixed before he asked for a vote ?


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister bring down a fuller explanation ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 1 will bring down the exact contract price and all the other information possible.


Richard Blain: And perhaps he will give a reason why he is charging the old bridge at $30,000 less than last year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will get that information if I can.


Samuel Barker: No doubt tbe minister Inst year bad details before him as the bon. minister lias now. Perhaps they can be produced, they would give the explanation.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will look into it.
Improvements at Point Tupper, $25,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have spent more of the vote of last year than we had supposed, when these estimates were prepared, would be spent. Therefore, I propose to reduce this item to $6,000, all of which is a revote. I move that the item be reduced to $6,000.
Item, as amended, voted.
Yard for freight business at Riviere du Loop, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to continue the work started in 1902-3. It was estimated that the $25,000 would be expended, and, as the year has since closed, I suppose it has been expended. The work consists in filling, grading, renewing of sidings and so on. And this $10,000 is for the building of sidings and to provide additional yard accommodation, including the removal of buildings.


John Graham Haggart: This is a total of $35,000, which seems an enormous sum for a freight yard at Riviere du Loup.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Riviere du Loup is an important station.


John Graham Haggart: But there is another very important vote besides, for Rivi&re du Loup, of $50,000, for engine house, machine shops and cars. This is only the expenditure for the yard.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to finish the yard improvements, irrespective of the vote for buildings.


John Graham Haggart: Out of this $35,000,' what is the amount for building? $35,000 would buy the whole place.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total expenditure on this particular time to the end of 1903 will be about $26,000 for the yard only. My papers do not contain the information as to the total expenditure, but I will get that. To what particular date does the hon. gentleman want it ?


John Graham Haggart: What has been done at the yard there?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Grading and laying the sidings. This is asked now to complete the sidings and other necessary work, and provide the necessary accommodation, including the moving of the building.


John Graham Haggart: Do you charge rails and ties in that also?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, these will be additional sidings, which will be a proper charge to capital.


John Graham Haggart: Are rails and ties charged in these improvements?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Then there is a double payment for ties and rails. All the ties purchased for the Intercolonial are charged to capital account. You take them out of store and charge them to it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When they are purchased they are charged to stores account, when they go out on the road they are charged against it.


Samuel Barker: What additions to the lengths of the siding have been made in this yard for this $35,000?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a considerable increase in the length of the sidings. I will get the figures later. _


Richard Blain: How much was spent last year?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: $25,000, and $10,000 more is wanted.


Richard Blain: Last year, under the item ' To provide yard for freight business, Riviere du Loup, $25,000,' the Minister of Railways and Canals made this statement :
This is for yard room and track. The yards are altogether too restricted. A portion of this is for land. We have not got the land yet, but. it. is estimated that $15,000 will be sufficient to buy the land and grade it and out it in shape, and $10,000 will put down the tracks.	.
There is a straight statement from the ex-Minlster of Railways and Canals when he took his $25,000 vote last year. Now the acting minister comes forward and says that he wants $10,000 more.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The manager informs me that he is not aware at this moment of anything having been spent for land. But the location was changed from the point where it was first contemplated, and yard improvements were made upon our own land, and we did not buy land.


Richard Blain: That makes the position worse. They asked for $15,000 last year for land, and now the minister says they did not: require to purchase the land because they had land of their own. Notwithstanding that, he comes forward and says he has expended $15,000 in improvements that were voted to purchase the land, and $10,000 in addition ; and now $10,000 more are wanted. Is this the old policy, or is it a new one under the new minister?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will have to investigate before answering that question.


Hon.   S@: This is extraordinary. You get a vote of $15,000 for the purpose of purchasing land, but instead of purchasing land you use it to build a yard.


Richard Blain: Will the minister bring down an explanation about this?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Certainly. But the explanation why the land was not required is because there was a change in the location.
To change air-brakes of passenger cars to quick action brakes and apply air signals, $2,000.


John Graham Haggart: If you want to change your air-brakes and apply your signals, you charge the amount to capital account?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is an improvement.


John Graham Haggart: Certainly it is, but why charge these things to capital account ? Last year you took $20,000 for this purpose, and now you want $2,000 more. Will this new vote complete the work?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. Up to the end of 1904 there will remain 55 cars still requiring this change.


John Graham Haggart: I would ask' the minister to take measures that whoever has charge of that department shall see that none of these items after this are charged to capital account. In fact, the whole capital account should be closed on the Intercolonial.


Samuel Barker: On how many cars were brakes changed for the $20,000 authorized last year ? I ask this because, from the quotation made from the ' Hansard ' last year, it is clear we must have these details, or the money will be applied as the department pleases. Money is asked for a particular purpose, and there is no security whatever that the money will be expended in the way it is voted. The only security we have is to get the minister in charge of the estimates to commit himself on 'Hansard ' to precisely what he is going to do with the money.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Up to June 30, 1902, the number of cars equipped was 55; to be equipped in 1902-3, estimated, 100; to be equipped for the current year, 1903-4, 40; making the number to be equipped at the end of 1904, 195. The average cost per car is $50.


John Graham Haggart: $50 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: How could you expend $20,000 last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not a statement of the actual expenditure for the year just closed.


John Graham Haggart: It was $20,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That was the appropriation.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, and it is marked as the expenditure.


John Graham Haggart: 


Samuel Barker: That would be $400 a car. The money must have been used for some other purpose.


John Graham Haggart: It may have been used in the yard at Riviere du Loup.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will have to give the hon. gentleman a statement of the actual expenditure for the year.


Samuel Barker: I think the hon. minister ought to look into this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will allow the item to stand if the hon. gentleman wishes it.
Item allowed to stand.
To extend freight car shop at Moncton, $27,500.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The amount of this appropriation last year was $25,000, and the expenditure estimated to the end of June, $12,500, showing the revote necessary to be $12,500, and an additional amount of $15,000 is asked for the work. The total estimated cost of the extension is $40,000.


John Graham Haggart: Will that complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, it is intended to complete it.


Richard Blain: Is it a new building that is being put up there ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is au extension of an existing building.


Samuel Barker: Can the hon. minister tell us the area of the extension ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The extension is to be 345 feet x 78 feet.


Samuel Barker: In wood ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, a wooden building.


Samuel Barker: And it costs how much ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: $40,000 is the total expenditure estimated.


Samuel Barker: For the extension of a wooden shop ? It is a pretty good price.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) did not get it for an extension at all last yeai-.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The item read :	' To extend freight car repair
shop at Moncton.'
Hon. Mi-. HAGGART. The ex-minister said last year :
We propose to put up an entirely new building, 150 feet x 50 feet and about 50 feat high.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman is referring to another 1 item ?


John Graham Haggart: No, the hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals said that this was to provide an addition to the workshop at Moncton. Here are his words :
We propose to put up an entirely new building 150 feet x 50 feet and about 50 feet high.
It may refer to another item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The item was 825,000 in last year's estimates and it read :
To extend freight car repair shop at Moncton.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was the same last year.
To extend freight car repair shop at Moncton.
This is an extension of the car shops at Moncton ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this a one storey building ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is practically a one storey building ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And a wooden building 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And it is to cost how much ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind of a finish will there be ? Will it be dressed lumber and finished with California siding ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is a plain wooden building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There would be a material difference in the price if it were a plain wooden building in the rough as compared with a building constructed of dressed lumber which would make it more suitable for cold weather.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This includes the heating, I am told. It is under contract so that it is fair to assume that the estimate is reasonable.


Richard Blain: How much was expended on the building last year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is estimated that for the year just closed there was spent 812,500. This is not the actual sum but it is the estimate made some little time ago.


Richard Blain: That was the expenditure last year and the hon. minister is asking for
815,000	this year to expend upon this building.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 825,000 was voted last year.


Richard Blain: What is the hon. minister asking for now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: $27,500- $12,500 of a revote and $15,000 additional.


Richard Blain: To further extend the building ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: To cover the cost of the same building that the hon. ex-Minister of Railways and Canals referred to last year.


Richard Blain: How are these estimates made up ? Is there any plan prepared in the department upon which the minister asks for an appropriation 1 I suppose that before he asks for an appropriation an officer from the department goes to the place, looks over the ground and estimates as to how much the work will cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the engineer makes a plan and estimate.


Richard Blain: How is it possible that the oflicers of the department are so wide of the mark in their estimates as they appear to have been in this case ? I am quite sure the hon. minister does not endorse that sort of thing.	*


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I would certainly like to see estimates made more closely.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. minister not think that it is misleading ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it needs an explanation.
Engine house, machine shop, car shop, stores, office at Riviere du Loop, $50,000.


Samuel Barker: This is a revote '!


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is entirely a revote.


Samuel Barker: Perhaps this may be considered unnecessary after a little inquiry. Do you really want such an expenditure at Rivifere du Loup ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This money was not expended because the work was not needed but there was some difficulty in getting a site and therefore the work has not gone forward. There is no question that the work is needed.


John Graham Haggart: What will be tbe total cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not find the engineer's estimate for this work, but tenders are being invited now.


John Graham Haggart: After the experience we have bad in the past I am afraid we must insist upon the details of the expenditure.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Very good; let the item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Engine house, &c., at Chaudiere Junction, $50,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the explanation of that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to provide for a stationary boiler plant,
80,000	gallon tank, water service and heating, siding's in new yard, grading, ballasting, &c., for same, engineering, inspection, &c. The stationary boiler plant tank and water service and heating are required in connection with the round house at this point. The yard room at Cbaudi&re Junction is not sufficient for the business and it is proposed to provide additional siding accommodation. The estimated cost of the work was $113,000. We took an appropriation last year of $03,000 and we now add $50,000 to it, making $113,000.


John Graham Haggart: That covers the whole ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Samuel Barker: How many stalls will there be ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not that information.. I think the questions are very fair and reasonable, and I do not want to press the item if lion, gentlemen wish it to stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Increased accommodation at St. John, $106,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The
estimated cost of the new round house is $38,000 ; the balance on the machine shop, $25,000 ; coal shed, $10,000 ; engineers and so forth, $3,000 ; making $76,000, in addition to $30,500 which is revoted from last year.


John Graham Haggart: You spent $60,000 last year and you are asking for $106,000 this year. What is the total amount required ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The
total expenditure on work under this head up to the end of 1902, is $2,366,536, and since then we have expended last year $60,000.


John Graham Haggart: One would think you would have accommodation enough at St. John for over $2,000,000. Is there any portion of this expended outside of St. John where you intend to build these shunting yards ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What was paid for the land ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not think the expenditure of last year included any land. Of course land was purchased before and I will get the information later.


Samuel Barker: Has the new engine house been completed ?	<


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is contracted for and some work done.


Samuel Barker: How many stalls are there ?


John Graham Haggart: 


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot say.


Samuel Barker: How much has been expended on the new yard at St. John, and how much on bridging the creek and laying the tracks on the new sidings ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not got these figures but we will get them.


John Graham Haggart: We must get that information.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Let it stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Increased accommodation at Halifax, $104,500.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is a revote for a round-house, re-arrangement of yard, and additional sidings. It has been delayed owing to the difficulty of getting a suitable location. The memo, here says that the railway is much cramped for room and although the matter has been given a great deal of attention, it is impossible to come to a decision as to what shall be done. The available land is very limited and some land may have to be acquired and a considerable amount of rock has to be blasted. There lias been difficulty in obtaining the land and we do not wish to indicate the precise place because that would probably not lead to a decrease in the price.


John Graham Haggart: It would be an interesting comparison to know what has been spent for terminal facilities at Halifax and St. John.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The total cost to January, 1903, which is the latest date I have, for improvements under this head at Halifax was $2,521,193.


John Graham Haggart: You are running St. John pretty close.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These comparisons between St. John and Halifax are very invidious, and I hope my hon. friend will not press them. I do not see any one here representing Halifax to-night.
Mr. SPROULiE. Better hold the vote until the member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) comes in.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: You had better pass it or he will want more when he is here.


John Graham Haggart: How much do you intend to spend on the round-house and how much on the laud ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will get the information later.


John Graham Haggart: Let it stand.
Item allowed to stand.

Increased accommodation at Pictou, $36,500.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a revote of $10,500. There is a dispute here about the value of land.


John Graham Haggart: How did you expend $50,000 last year if you did not buy the land ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When these estimates were made up it was explained that this expenditure would be made, but the land has not been bought and the expenditure did not amount to that.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps we had better adjourn. The minister has not the information regarding these items. It is now twelve o'clock.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have the information, but some of the questions asked are a little unusual. However, I am not complaining ; they are perfectly fair.


John Graham Haggart: Nonsense ! It is stated in the estimates that $56,000 was expended last year and now we find out there was no money expended at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The only difference is that at the time that estimate was prepared it was expected that that expenditure would be made. The actual expenditure last year was not so large as that, and we will have to ask for a supplementary vote. There has been some expenditure besides the purchase of land, and when the further estimates come down we will bring the information with regard to that.


Mr. SHERRITT.: I would like to draw the attention of the acting Minister of Railways to a state of affairs that exists in Toronto and west of Toronto, in connection with the shipping of stock over the Grand Trunk Railway. There seems to be some difficulty between the Union stock-yards at Toronto Junction and the old stock-yards, and I have been credibly informed that the Grand Trunk Company are discriminating against the new stock-yards to the amount of $7 or $8 a car. Not only that, but at Stratford they selected the cars with stock for the West Toronto yards and left them standing on a switch at Stratford for about eight hours. The minister will pardon me bringing the matter up at this time, but I thought the attention of the government should be drawn to it, so that if anything can be done by the acting minister to remedy this state of affairs, the sooner it is done the better. It is a matter of great importance to the stock shippers that they should be able to send their cattle to these new stock-yards, and it is a very serious matter to have the stock left eight hours in the cars on a siding.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I might say that this matter was brought to my attention, and the shippers consider it extremely urgent.
It seems that the Grand Trunk Company sent out one circular to their agents instructing them not to receive cattle shipped to these yards. That was brought to the attention of the Minister of Railways, who, I believe, from what I have seen in the papers, obliged the company to countermand that order. The company have since issued another circular. The stock-yards at Toronto and those at Toronto Junction are about five miles apart, and the Grand Trunk Company charges from $8 to $10 a car more for shipping the cattle from the west to the Union stock yard at Toronto Junction though it is the shorter distance, and these are left to stand on the track, not eight hours, but twenty-eight or thirty hours, before they are unloaded. Now, the law provides that cattle must not be left in a car more than twenty-eight hours, but that they must be unloaded and fed, and the company have been openly violating the law in this respect. Then they instructed their agents mot to allow stock to be shipped to those yards at all. They have made no provision for unloading the stock, and have no sidings at the yards although the owners offered to put "them in at their own expense. It seems to me that the company are in every way violating the law. The stock-men feel so keenly about this matter that they have entered an action for $20,000 damages against the company ; but it would take a long time to fight that out in the courts, and in the meantime they are suffering in their trade from not being allowed to use the stockyards which are most convenient and suitable for them, owing to the action of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I think the acting Minister of Railways has it in his power, if he chooses to put his foot down firmly, to bring the railway company to time. If he does, I am sure the stockmen will be very grateful to him, as every moment's delay is a serious matter to them.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am informed that some representations were made to the department some time ago on this subject, that communication was had with the management of the Grand Trunk, and that there is a letter of explanation in the department from the manager. I have not personally seen it, but I will look into it, and if there is anything that can properly be dealt with by the department, I shail be glad to give it consideration. Of course, it may be necessary that formal application for a bearing may have to be made to the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, before which these grievances properly come and which has the power to deal with them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that the Minister of Railways compelled the company to withdraw their first circular, and then they devised some other means of trying to hold up the stock-men. While they have obeyed the command of the Minister of Railways,

they have endeavoured to accomplish the object they have in view in a different way.
Some resolutions reported.


THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-SERVICE MEDALS.
[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir F. W. Borden).: Before the motion is carried, I would ask the privilege of saying a few words in reference to a question which was brought up this evening in my absence. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) notified me the other day that he would ask some questions with reference to the granting of the King's medal to certain Canadians who served in South Africa, and I had prepared myself on the subject; but, unfortunately, I was absent this evening when the mattter was .brought up. I am sure that the hon. member who brought it up would prefer that the answer should appear in the same number of ' Hansard ' as the statement he made. I am at the disadvantage of not having heard the hon. gentleman's statement; but I think I know what the purport of it was. I may premise by saying that the matter is purely an imperial one, and is governed entirely by the regulations of the War Office. These regulations were promulgated by an order of the War Office, dated 1st October, 1902, called Army Order No. 232, which was republished in Canada in Militia Orders on the 28th October, 1902, as No. 246. Without going fully into the details of this order, I may say that the same regulations apply to colonial troops as to the troops of the imperial army ; there is no distinction whatever. One of the conditions with reference to the grant of the King's medal is that no one who has not earned or is not entitled to the Queen's medal can receive the King's medal. A further provision is that they shall have seen war service in South Africa, covering 18 months prior to the 1st of June, 1902, and the wording is this : ' Eighteen months war service in South Africa. ' Upon this point the whole difficulty has arisen. Certain Canadians have contended that the time of the voyage from Canada, after enlistment and prior to landing in South Africa, ought to be counted. As I have said, the same rule obtains with reference to Canadians as to imperial troops, and the authorities of the War Office have construed the order to mean that the service must be eighteen months war service in South Africa. That is sufficient answer of itself, but I have a memo, prepared by my officers, which I would like to place on ' Hansard ':
Memorandum respecting the conditions governing the issue of the King's South African medal.


Mr. SPROULE.: 1.	It is an error to suppose that individuals who bad not served under Her late Majesty can receive both the Queen's and the King's medals.
It requires eighteen months service to qualify for the King's medal, and as only sixteen and a-half months elapsed between the death of the Queen (14-th January, 1901) and the termination of the war (31st May, 1902), it is manifestly impossible for any individual to qualify for the medial if he did not put in part of his service under the Queen.
2.	The King's medial was bestowned for two objects, viz.:-'In recognition of the services rendered by the troops in the later phases of the campaign in South Africa, and to reward those soldiers who, by their long service in the field have brought the war to a successful termination.'
To qualify for the medal the following service is necessary, viz.:-
fa.) To have been actually serving in South Africa on or after the 1st January, 1902, and (b.) thait on that date to have completed eighteen months war service, or subsequently completed such service before the 1st June, 1902.
No individual can receive the King's medal without being also entitled to the Queen's. If the whole of his service was under the King, he would be entitled to the Queen's medal not the King's.
Now, I come to the important point. Tlie contention of certain officers and soldiers of the Canadian contingent that they should receive the medal, was sent to tlie War Office by the government, and an adverse opinion was given. Not being content with that, certain officers petitioned to have the matter referred directly to the Commander in Chief himself. This was done by tlie government, but, still the same adverse opinion was given. It has been contended that the time occupied going to and returning from South Africa should lie reckoned to qualify for tlie King's medal. Tlie question was submitted to the War Office by tlie Militia Department and the reply was unfavourable to this contention. An appeal to the Commander in Chief, asking for special consideration, was made. The Commander in Chief's reply, received on the 20tli of May last, was that, ' the order should not be relaxed in favour of the above mentioned corps,' i. e. the Canadian corps.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The contention of tlie hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) was that, owing to the increased distance which the colonial troops from Canada had to travel in order to reach South Africa, as compared with the other troops, it was impossible for them to put in the time in South Africa that was required, and that if the attention of the Imperial War Office had been drawn to this fact, the regulations might have been amended.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I do not think it would be correct to say that all the troops from Canada were excluded on account of the distance to South Africa. The first, and I think, the second contingents were there in

time-certainly tlie first.-But in any case, tlie same rule applies to imperial troops.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They could get there quicker.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Very little. I may add that all the conditions in relation to this matter and all the arguments placed in my hands by the officers, notably, Colonel Evans, were made known to the Commander in Chief and the war office, and I have given their decision. .


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As Monday will be Private Bills day, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Bill will take up a good deal of the time, and we shall then probably go into the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, August 10, 1903.