1904-07-04

Hon. CHARLES S. HYMAN moved :: That the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines have leave to sit during the time the House is in session.	v


Mr. DAVID HENDERSON.: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I entered my protest against this procedure. The First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agreed with me that I was right, because he asked the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Cowan) to withdraw the motion he had made. I think that the conclusion come to then was that it was quite time enough to ask that the committees should have leave to sit during the sessions of the House when the committees made representation that they required such permission. There has been no meeting of tbe Railway Committee since then, and consequently no resolution passed asking permission to sit during the sittings of the House. The hon. member for Victoria, Nova Scotia (Mr. Wm. Ross) made the suggestion that the committees meet at nine o'clock. I assented to that. I am quite willing that that suggestion should be acted upon. But I do protest against standing committees meeting while the business of the House 'is in progress. We want to be here while the House is conducting its business ; and, since the government has thought fit to commence the morning sittings-to-morrow morning they begin, I believe-some provision should be made by which members can attend to their duties. I, for one, do not propose to absent myself from tbe House in order to attend the meetings of the Railway Committee, nor shall I willingly absent myself from the work of the Railway Committee. There are other important committees besides tbe Railway Committee, and, if you insist on these committees meeting while the House is in session, no doubt the .government will expect to get their estimates through in our absence in a very short time. This motion is contrary to precedent-at any rate, it is contrary to common sense. The hon. minister (Mr. Hyman), I trust, will pardon me if I say that his motion is not in accordance with common sense. It is not reasonable to suppose that we can be in two places at tbe same time, or that we are to desert our duties here in order to attend to the duties of the Railway Committee, particularly when the difficulty may be overcome by having the committee meet at nine o'clock, and sit until eleven if necessary. I must again enter my solemn protest against this proceeding.


Charles Smith Hyman: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that the Railway Committee-as, I think, all will agree-have laboured very assiduously during the session, there still remain some important matters to be dealt witli by that committee. It is true that this motion is not recommended by tbe

committee, but, as the committee has been called to meet to-morrow at eleven o'clock, I took it upon myself to bring in this motion. To-morrow the committee could not meet at nine o'clock, the time having already been fixed and notices sent out. But I have no objection to changing the motion so as to confine it to the meeting of the committee to-morrow.


David Henderson: Why not have the committee meet at nine o'clock ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Unfortunately, the committee has already been called for eleven o'clock, and announcements to that effect have been made. Important matters are to come before the committee, and a number of people are coming from a distance expecting to attend the meeting at that time. This was done in accordance with the wishes of the committee. As I say, I have no objection to changing the motion so as to confine it to the meeting of the committee tomorrow.


David Henderson: Well, the whole difficulty can be got over in this way, Mr. Speaker-when the House meets to-morrow you can simply call it one o'clock, and leave the chair.


Charles Smith Hyman: 
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: There is a very serious objection, of course, to having important committees of the House proceeding with their business while the House is sitting. I understood, when this motion was first suggested that the important committees of the House had finished their business.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Mostly-not
quite.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it would be in order for us to be informed how much more business there is to bring before the Railway Committee. Will it all be cleared off to-morrow ? There are not too many members of the House in their places attending to business under the best conditions; and, if, in addition to other reasons which induce absence, ail important committee such as the Railway Committee, which com-386
prises, I think, about three-fifths of the membership of the House, is sitting, then, either there will be a very inadequate attendance at the Railway Committee, or there will be a very small attendance in this-. House.	.	;


Wilfrid Laurier: The matter came up the other day in the absence of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden). I am within the judgment of the House when I say that the consensus of opinion then was-that the morning sittings of thq JJons*^ should commence to-morrow7 and that the committees might be requested to sit from nine o'clock until eleven. I think it will be found that all committees are ready, with a view to accelerating the business, to sit at nine o'clock. But to-morrow, as suggested by the hon. member for London, the Railway Committee has been called for eleven o'clock, and the members have been notified and expect to be present at that hour. So that, I think, for to-morrow, the Railway Committee ought to be allowed to meet while the House is in session.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The motion is amended to read that the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines have leave to sit to-morrow during the time the House is in session. Shall the motion be agreed to ?


David Henderson: No.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Carried. On division ?


David Henderson: Yes.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT, 1900 AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLEiS FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 148) to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the Minister of Justice will explain the provisions of the Bill for the benefit of gentlemen oil this side.
< I I'l'Zl'ATRICK. The Representation Act of last year has made changes in the constitution of the electoral districts which necessitate the amendment of those sections op the Elections Act, 1900, in which special and exceptional provision is madS with respect lO the dates for the returning officer's proclamation and the nomination and polling, in certain extensive and sparsely inhabited districts. The sections in question are sections 24, 27 and 29 of the Act, and the districts to which they now apply are Algoma, in the province of Ontario, Gaspe, and Chicoutimi and Saguenay, in the province of Quebec, and Burrard, and Yale and Cariboo, in the province of British Columbia. The District of Algoma has been divided into two ridings, the east and the west riding, and it is thought that each of these requires exceptional treatment. In that province it is considered expedient also that Nipissing should be placed in this class, partly on



i
account of its great extent of territory and partly because it may be necessary, under section 9 of the Franchise Act, 1898, as amended, to prepare voters' lists for the purposes of ail election there. No change is proposed in the province of Quebec, the constituencies of Chicoutimi and Saguenay, and Gaspe being still the only electoral districts requiring to be thus provided for. In British Columbia the present electoral district of Burrard will be divided between the new districts of Comox-Atlin and Kootenay, and it is proposed that each of these districts, as well as Yale-Cariboo, shall be included in this special class. The Act, of course, like the Representation Act, will take effect only upon the dissolution of the present parliament.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 149) to amend the Representation Act, 1903. He said :	The object of this
Bill is to correct two or three errors which, through inadvertence or oversight, crept into the Representation Act of last session. Sections 7 and 8 of the Representation Act slipped into their present position in the body of the Act through error. They are taken from the Quebec Act, Revised Statutes of Quebec, chapter 2, sections 67 and 68, which defines the provincial electoral districts. The intention was to insert these particular sections 6 and 7 where they ought to be, in the Quebec schedule. They have been incorporated in the body of the Act, which would make them applicable to the whole Dominion. Of course this is absolutely impossible under the system of dividing constituencies, as they exist elsewhere.
There are other changes that refer to Ontario. When the Bill of last session was prepared, an Ontario Act of 1901 was overlooked. This is one of the Acts which are passed yearly by the legislature of that province, entitled ' Acts to amend the Statute Law. ' It contains amendments to a great variety 'of statutes, and amongst them one which amends the Ontario Territorial Divisions Act, chapter 3 of the Revised Statutes, by shifting the boundary between the provisional judicial districts of Algoma and Thunder Bay, twenty minutes westward from eighty-five degrees west longtitude to eighty-five degrees, twenty minutes. This necessitates a change in the description of the electoral districts of Thunder Bay and Rainy River, and the two ridings of Algoma. That amendment is of trifling importance, and is merely for the purpose of giving effect to a provincial Act which provides * for the description of the boundaries of the electoral district I have just mentioned.
Mr. FITZPATRICK.: A mistake was also made in the New Brunswick schedule, it having been overlooked that the old county of Victoria had been divided by a provincial Act into the two counties of Victoria and Madawaska, and that these two counties have since that date formed the electorial district of Victoria. At the time the schedule was prepared with respect to New Brunswick, this fact was overlooked. It will be seen that under the schedule as it now stands, there would, on account of this mistake, appear to be fourteen electoral districts in the province, each entitled to return one member, whereas the province is only entitled to thirteen members. Clause 4 of the Bill is intended to correct this mistake.
It is proposed to complete the schedule by adding to it the electoral district of Yukon.


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

Mr. JAS. CLANCY.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to inquire again concerning those papers relating to the seizures of binder twine. I need scarcely remind the government that in the present state of the business of the House, we require those papers to be brought down expeditiously if they are to be of any service to us this session, and unless they are so brought down, we shall have to renew the discussion that has taken place as to whether we should have morning sittings before the committees get through with their work. This is a purely departmental matter, as the right hon. gentleman must know, and one can scarcely account for the delay that has occurred, not long in itself, but long in view of the fact that we are now in the closing days of the session.


Right Hon Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: i Prime Minister). In the absence of my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), I communicated with his department and received the information that the papers were in course of preparation and would be ready at an early date. Since the return of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I have not communicated with him but will do so immediately, and give an answer to my hon. friend.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 80) respecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited-Mr. Oliver.
David Henderson: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me fihat this Bill was held over some time ago for some reason-I forget what it was. I think we ought to have some

explanation of this Bill from the promoter or, if the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) Is acquainted himself, with the nature of the Bill,, we should have some statement as to whether he considers it proper legislation, because, if I can judge at all of the character of the Bill from the title,
I would suppose that it has to do with collieries in our western country, and it is very important, surely, that the public interest in coal lands should be protected.
I would not like to see legislation passed through the House without any explanation or without some knowledge as to the character of the Bill, because otherwise we might be doing something that we would have occasion to regret hereafter.


Mr. SCOTT.: If there is any question raised, I would propose that the committee rise and report progress in the absence of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) in whose name the Bill stands. I therefore beg to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


David Henderson: Yes, that is better.
Progress reported.



BIO DE JANEIRO TRAMWAY, LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 112) respecting the Rio de Janeiro Light and Power Company, Limited, and to change its name to the Rio de Janeiro Tramway, Light and Power Company, Limited.-Mr. Calvert.
David Henderson: My recollection is that this Bill passed its second reading before it was printed, and as there is not a copy of it on my file I do not know if it has since been printed. I do not know anything about the Bill.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I have a printed copy of the Bill and the clerk informs me that it has been printed.


David Henderson: We had better have some pretty full explanation as to what this South American legislation consists of.


Mr. CALVERT.: 
David Henderson: I am obliged to say that the enterprise seems to be very commendable, and I think the explanation of the hon. gentleman quite satisfactory.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 137) respecting certain Patents of the Canadian Office and School Furniture Company, Limited.-Mr. Clare.
Bill (No. 138) for the relief of Andrew William Mann.-Mr. Macdonald-on division.
Bill (No. 139) for the relief of Jennie Davison Moore.-Mr. Macdonald-on division.
Bill (No. 141) for the relief of Eliza Robertson.-Mr. Holmes.
Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company. -Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 136) respecting the Siinilkameen and Keremeos Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Imperial Loan and Investment Company of Canada.-Mr. A. T. Thompson.
Bill (No. 140) respecting the Alliance Bank of Canada.-Mr. Russell.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WALTER SCOTT moved the second reading of Bill (No. 146) respecting the Northern Bank.
David Henderson: I would ask the promoter of this Bill to explain why this bank is asking for an extension of time to organize.


Thomas Walter Scott: This Bill has been passed by the Senate. I have no direct or definite information in regard to it, but I have no doubt the action of the promoters will be explained when it comes before the select standing committee to which it will be referred.


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

[Stage Direction]
the fair-wage resolution.
['1.\tThe district officer commanding recommended Lieutenant-Colonels McLean and Jones as brigade commanders.\n2.\tAs there was only one brigade, Lieutenant-Colonel McLean being the senior was appointed to the command of it.\n3.\t(a.) He was absent for three weeks prior to the 28th May last, (b.) It is not customary for officers on the reserve to apply for leave of absence.\n4.\tThe department is not aware.']
Hon.  W. S.@: The resolution applies to works under contract, but it does not apply
Li

to enterprises aided by bounty. The second part of the question is a question of law which my hon. friend is probably able to answer himself.



[Stage Direction]
-Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :
1.	Did the District Officer Commanding of No. 8 military district recommend Lieutenant-Colonel Jones, of St. John, for position- of brigadier at Camp Sussex ?
2.	If so, was his recommendation set aside, and Lieutenant-Colonel H. H. McLean appointed instead of Lieutenant-Colonel Jones ?
3.	Was Lieutenant-Colonel H. H. McLean absent from Canada lately, and did he procure leave of absence ?
4.	Was Lieutenant-Colonel McLean in Ottawa at the time he was in orders for Camp Sussex, viz., 11th June, ror when ?
It has been usual to make comparisons with the fiscal year preceding that under review and, indeed, with other years. I shall not take up the time of the House by making comparisons between the fiscal .vear 1903 and any previous years except the one just preceding, that is the year ending June 30, 1902.
A comparison wit'h 1902 gives the following results:

[Stage Direction]
I903	$6,324,323
1902	 5,671,385
Increase	$ 652,938

[Stage Direction]
1903 1902
.. $6,196,653 .. 5,574,563
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	The district officer commanding recommended Lieutenant-Colonels McLean and Jones as brigade commanders.
2.	As there was only one brigade, Lieutenant-Colonel McLean being the senior was appointed to the command of it.
3.	(a.) He was absent for three weeks prior to the 28th May last, (b.) It is not customary for officers on the reserve to apply for leave of absence.
4.	The department is not aware.



SUPPLY - INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
-ANNUAL STATEMENT.
['We will take up the Railway Bill followed by the motion for supply and my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals will resume his estimates.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Hon. HENRY R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair it is my purpose, following the precedent of recent years, to make a statement with respect to* the financial affairs of the Intercolonial for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903. and at the same time to take into consideration the fiscal condition of the Intercolonial Railway during the year which has just closed. It will not be expected that I shall make more than a brief and concise statement of the financial affairs of the Intercolonial Railway, as I was not associated with the affairs of the Railway during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, and have been in office for only four months of the year just closed.
The gross earnings and the working expenses for the year ending June 30, 1903 compare as follows :
Gross earnings	$6,324,323 72
Working expenses	 6,196,653 19
Surplus	$ 127,670 53


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 

[Stage Direction]
-	1902.	1903.	Increase.Wages of engineers	s	$	$and firemen. .	480,026	513,160	26,184Fuel	1,044,047	1,111,725	67,678Oil, waste, callow. .	27,150	29,881	2,731R epai rs, locomoti ves	374,699	407,861	33,162Water	40,166	44,149	3,983Miscellaneous	35,743	82,320	16,577Superinte n d e n t ' s office.. 	22,144	17,061	Total	2,030,928	2,176,160	150,315
James Clancy: Was there about the same number of men employed as engineers and firemen in each of these years 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: About the same number. I am informed that there is practically no difference in the number employed. The increase in the item of wages of the engineers and firemen in 1903 was due to the increase in wages allowed to these men. There was a partial increase made before the year 1903 had expired. But, for practically the same number of men this amount is swollen by $26,184. The cost of fuel, as all hon. members from the maritime provinces will know, was somewhat increased in the winter of 1903, which readily explains the increase of $67,678 shown in the table. And as there were more locomotives in 1903, there was naturally more spent in small repairs and so on.


Mr. BELL.: Does that item include other rolling stock ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, simply the locomotives. The superintendent's office shows a decrease. This is explained by the fact that there was no superintendent of motive power during at least the greater part of 1903, so that the department was saved the salary of that officer. With regard to car expenses, the following are the figures :- Car Expenses.
-	1902.	1903.	Increase.Repairs to-	[DOT]I	*	$Passenger cars. Postal, express,	117,332	152,672	35,340baggage cars.	31,193	33,022	1,829Preight cars. . .	304,035	412,612	108,577Snow ploughs. Wages, conductors, baggagemen and	7,510	13,250	5,740brakemen	472,227	497,753	20,526Oil and waste	
Small stores and	6,992	9,211	2,219fuel.	125,851	151,411	25.560Miscellaneous	54,318	68,943	14,625


Total.   . ..@: 1,119,461	1,338,857	214,416
Explanatory of these items it may be said that, as the condition of the equipment of the Intercolonial has been kept up to the standard the increased expenditure meant a better condition of the railway. Money could have been saved in this department by allowing repairs to be kept down to the lowest point ; but instead of that, in all departments, attention has been given to the maintenance of the rolling stock at the high standard of efficiency to which it had. admitttedly, been brought. The wages paid to conductors, baggage men and brakemen had been considerably increased. They had been increased somewhat previous to June 30, 1903.


Mr. DANIEL.: The minister says that the rolling stock is being kept up in a very good condition. Will he say whether that is being provided for out of revenue alone, or out of revenue and capital ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: 5S73

the financial situation of the Intercolonial Railway during the fiscal year which ended on the 30th of June last. I have not a full statement of the expenditures up to the 30th of June. That would not be expected.
I have not a detailed statement as to these expenditures and receipts later than the 30th of April. I have a general statement in respect to the month of May, but as regards a detailed statement for the ten months ended on the 30th of April, I will be able to make a comparison with like expenditures during those ten months of the present fiscal year. I am bound to say that I cannot paint a very glowing picture as to the financial conditions during the past year.
The House will anticipate this, because the other day in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tope) it was my misfortune to have to admit that the expenditure was very largely in excess of the receipts. However, I think I will be able to explain, to the satisfaction of the House, wherein the discrepancy lies, and when the explanation is given bon. gentlemen can form their own judgment. The total receipts for the month of April, 1904, were $577,959.50 and the expenses for the month of April, 1904, were 8482,653.83, showing a profit of $95,305.67 for that one month. The expenses for the month of April, 1903, were $483,899.47. while the receipts were $547,845.44, showing a profit during the month of April, 1903, of 863.945.97, as against $95,305.67 for the corresponding month of 1904.
The receipts for the ten months of 1903, up to the 30th of April, were $5,288,763.56, and the receipts 'for the same ten months in 1904 had grown to $5,835,294.07, showing an increase in the expenses for the ten months of 1904 over the ten months of 1903 amounting to $546,530.51.
The receipts for the ten months of 1903, up to the 30th of April, were $5,292,639.69, and the receipts for the same ten months in 1904 were $5,287,521.14, showing a decrease for the ten months of 1904, as compared with the ten months of 1903, of $5,118.55.
Mr. BliAIN. Was there any change in the freight or passenger rates ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was no change in the freight or passenger rates. The receipts for the ten mouths ending April 30th. 1903, were $5,292,639.69, and the expenditure for the same ten months amounted to $5,288,763.56, showing a surplus of $3,876.13.
The receipts for the ten months ending 30th of April, 1904, were $5,287,521.14, and the expenses for the same ten months, $5.835,294.07, showing a deficit of $547,772.93. I shall place facts before the House which will, I think, show the reasons for this condition of things.


Mr. CLARKE.: The hon. gentleman has compared the receipts and expenditures in 1902-3-4 -with the receipts and expenditures for the same period in 1895-6 ; will the hon. gentleman compare the receipts and expenditures for the year ending 30th June, 1904, with the receipts and the expenditures for the year ending 30th of June, 1895-6 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will do that later.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman recollect what the deficit was in 1896 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was $55,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And what is it this year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have been trying to tell my hon. friend that up to the 30th of April it was over half a million dollars.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are doing very nicely.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a growing time, and there are very, good reasons for the increased expenditure. My hon. friend will not be able to derive very much comfort from it, because be assumes to be a friend of the labouring men, and the financial condition of the Intercolonial to-day is largely due to the increased wages which we have paid to the employees of the Intercolonial.
I am sure my hon. friend will not cry over that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I presume the hon. gentleman will give us the figures to carry on the comparison ? That is all we ask for. I am delighted to hear of the increased w age.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will give the figures.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. gentleman said the deficit was largely due to the increased wages paid on the Intercolonial Railway. Could the hon. gentleman give us the amount of the increase, so that we could see for ourselves how near it was to the deficit ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend seems to be impatient. I made the comparison between the years 1902 and 1903. I am now approaching the consideration of the financial condition of the Intercolonial Railway during the ten months ending April 30, 1904, as compared with the ten months ending April 30, 1903 ; and it will be my privilege to show wherein there has been an increase in the wages paid all over the line, in all branches and all departments of the Intercolonial-an increase which was justifiable in my judgment, by reason of the industrial activity and the requirements of the present time as compared with previous years. I will first give a comparative statement of the earnings and the working expenses for the month of April, 1904, as compared w'lth the month of April, 1903 :

	April, 1903.	April, 1904.
	$ 547,845.44 483,899.47	8 577,959.50 482.653.83
Working expenses....		
Profit		63,945.97	95,305.67
		
Showing that the	month of	April, 1904,.
so far as the earning power of the Intercolonial Railway is concerned, was a very much more favourable month than the month of April, 1903, and also that in April, 1904, we expended less, although we earned more, than we did in April, 1903. That is only a little bright spot indicating what I am hoping for during the remainder of this season.
I will now give a comparative statement for the ten months ending April 30, 1904, and the ten months ending April 30, 1903 :
	10 months to April 30, 1903.	10 months to April 30, 1904.
Earnings		$5,292,639.09 5,288,763.56	$5,287,521.14 ' 5,835,294.07
Working expenses		
Profit		3,876.13	Loss 547,772.93
One very material feature to be considered in connection with the financial condition of a road is the amount expended annually in betterments. We all recognize the fact that in addition to the ordinary expenses required to maintain a road, if the ordinary depreciation is to be arrested and the value of the property is to be in any way kept up, there must be in all departments- on the track, in connection with the cars, and on the equipment generally-an annual expenditure even more than sufficient to keep the road up to its normal condition.; Now, I would invite the attention of the House to a statement which I will read with respect to the betterments made during the ten months ending April 30, 1903, in comparison with the ten months ending April
Betterments.
Repairs to engines	
Water	
Repairs to passenger cars	
Repairs to postal express and baggage,
Repairs to freight cars and vans....
Repairs to snow ploughs	
Maintenance	
Increase in 1904.
<^T' BELL. That item of 'water' will not include rental for water or money paid for water ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


John William Bell: That is just for permanent structures, &c ? That is to say the total disbursement expenditure for betterments for the ten months ending April 30th 1903 amounted to 82,156,043.80. And for the like period of 1904 to $2,277,298.03. An increase for the first ten months of 1904 of $121.-
254.23.	That is the net increase in the expenditure for betterments.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would my hon friend state exactly what these batterments consist of.


Henry Robert Emmerson: For 10 months ending April, 1903.	For 10 months ending April, 1904.	Increase for period ending April 30, 1904.$ cts. 376,596 29 40,797 90 131,837 82 28,696 27 347,442 84 13,249 56 1,217,423 12	$ cts. 403,023 85 42,749 33 125,896 38 41,721 32 347,110 80 6,591 36 1,310,204 99	$ cts. 26,427 56 1,951 43 5,941 44 13,025 05 332 04 6,658 20 92,781 872,156,043 80	2,277,298 03	121,254 232,156,043 80	121,254 23


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that official still in the employ of the government?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We had no mechanical superintendent during the year, and it is only lately that we have secured the services of one. That explains why there was a less expenditure in connection with the mechanical superintendent's office in 1904 than there was in 1903. I may also mention that the increase in the item for advertising arises from the expenditure in connection -with the St. Louis Exhibition.
Now we must deduct car mileage from these items. For 1904. we must deduct $94,949.24, and for 1903 we must deduct $84,363.69, an increase in the latter year of $10,585.55. That is to say you deduct from this increased car mileage on the Intercolonial the sum of $10,585.55, leaving the total increase at $546,530.51. Then you add the rental of tfbe leased lines, if you will, during that period, amounting to $116,666.68 in each year. The total figures then stand as follows : For 1904, $5,835,294.07 ; for 1903, $5,288,763.56, showing a total increase of $546,530.51.	_
Now before leaving that branch of the subject, I have had a statement prepared summarizing the various increases, and giving the reason why the expenditure during ten months of the present fiscal year is so largely in excess of the expenditure of 1903, the excess amounting to no less than $546,631.51. Now how is that money expended ? Why was it that during the first ten months of the present financial year we were called upon to expend so large a sum in excess of the expenditure made during the same period of 1903 ?
Now, I am going to.show7 the House the gradual increase in wages from year to year and point out that there was a very large step forward in that direction during the year 1904. There w7as an increase, taking the same number of men, from 1896 to 1902, of $240,000 ; that is to say to the same number of employees in 1902 we were paying $240,000 more than we were paying to a like number of men in 1896. With the same number of employees we paid in the year 1903 $224,236 more than we paid in 1902.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many employees were there in each year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: ,


Henry Robert Emmerson: Practically the same number. I have not the figures as to the exact number but I can furnish them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: WTould it not be well to have the figures showing the number of employees in each year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will be very glad to furnish that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The number and the different classes of employees ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. For ten months of 1904


John William Bell: You are giving the statement for ten months all along are you not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the first two items I give a comparison of the full years 1896 with 1902 and also a comparison of 1902 with 1903. Now, I come to the ten months of 1904


Mr. KAULBACH.: Why do you lop two months off ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because I cannot make comparison with the two last months of 1904 and I have to take the first ten months of the previous year, 1903, and compare them with ten months of 1904 for which we have detailed statements. ' For the ten months of 1904 we paid out $344,395 in wages more than we paid out in the like ten months of 1903. There was a total increase in wages to the same number of employees practically between 1896 and 1904, of $808,631. The division of increased wages since 1902 has been as follows :	Engineers
and firemen, $122,640 ; conductors and trainmen, $144,504 ; trackmen, $143,682 ; station agents and operators, $151,805 ; making a total increase of $568,631. That does not take into consideration any increase in wages between 1896 and 1902.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. gentleman how the engineers, firemen, brake-men and conductors are paid ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do you mean by the month ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Or by the day ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A certain run figures out so much. It may be a day, or a day and a half, or a day and a third. I think that is the practice.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these figures for exactly the same number of runs or are the increases accounted for because these men have had to do additional duty and make longer runs ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not at all. These figures arose by reason of the representations which were made to the department and to the minister then in charge that the enginemen, conductors and trainmen on other railways in Canada were receiving

larger compensation than the government railway was paying and the principle was recognized, measurably at least, if not to its full extent, that the government railway should pay as high a standard of wages as is paid by other corporations throughout Canada. Recently, when the Telegrahers Union were heard by myself, it was shown conclusively, especially in respect to the Canadian Pacific Railway on their eastern division, that they were paying a larger wage and larger salaries than were being paid by the Intercolonial Railway. I ventured to recognize the justice of the claim and there has been and will be found to be an increase in the expenditure of the department because of the action taken by myself at the time they were here. The same is true in respect to the section men, the conductors, the brakemen, the locomotive drivers and firemen, and in fact in all branches of the service. In the stores department, even, among the freight checkers, and the freight handlers at all points along the Intercolonial Railway there have been large increases. In some instances the increases have ranged from twenty to twenty-five, and even there have been increases within the last two or three years of fifty-per cent in the wages paid to the employees of the Intercolonial Railway for the purpose of recognizing the right of these men to be paid a wage equal to the amount paid for like services by other roads. In addition to that the industrial life of the country is such that men can receive from private corporations larger wages than have been paid by the Intercolonial Railway. Take it down in the maritime provinces, at Moncton, at Amherst, anywhere along the line .where there is great activity in the industrial life of the country, private corporations, foundries, machine shops, in fact in all branches of industrial life, they are paying a larger wage than that which was being paid to the men by the Intercolonial Railway. Therefore, it was found necessary, just and equitable, that there should be this increase. By reason of such an increase, by reason of the recognition of the claims of labour, I am forced to-day as representing the Railway Department to acknowledge before parliament and to present to the country a financial condition that is not as we would like it to be.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the wage bill in 1903 as compared with 1S96 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will give it to you in this way : In 1902 the increase over 1896 was $240,000. and in 1903 the increase over 1902 was $224,236.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many men were affected in each ease in that wage Circulation ? That is the entire staff of the Intercolonial Railway whose wages are being compared with the entire staff of the Intercolonial Railway in 1896 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is the point I want to make. It is utterly impossible to make any comparison unless we are furnished with the number of employees. This statement which we are listening to this afternoon is a statement for the ten months ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has it been the practice to bring down a statement for a period of ten months ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have found by reference to ' Hansard ' that the statement is usually made in May, and it commences with an analysis of the preceding year, and is followed by an analysis of accounts for the current year which usually can only be brought up to the 30th of April. I am following the usage. I feel it my duty to lay before parliament the details of the increased expenditure, so that it may be apparent how it was caused.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Could not the minister include the figures for the month of May, and give us the statement for eleven months?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I gave that statement the other day in answer to a question and it appears in ' Hansard.' I wish to place in concentrated form this increased expenditure, and the items which occasioned it, and so I have had prepared the following table :
Increased expenses for 10 months of 1904 :-
Wages	,.$344,394
Fuel.. ..			.. [DOT][DOT] 128,937
Repairs to engines	 26,427
Repairs to postal, express and
baggage ears	 13,025
Repairs to bridges	 22,000
Repairs to wharfs	 13,054
Head offices	 [DOT][DOT] 17,440
District agencies	 8,620
Snow clearing	 40,083


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the cause of the increased expenditure for fuel ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it is largely due to the fact that the price of coal has been increased.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the average price of the last ten months compared with the ten months of the previous year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have	larger locomotives, and we have been doing more business.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are there more men employed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are the men doing more work ?
t
5883	COMMONS	5584


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would suppose that the larger locomotives are using more coal. One of these large locomotives will do the work of two or three of the smaller locomotives while it only requires the same number of men to work It. It will be noticed that the cost of snow cleaning has been increased over the previous ten months by $40,083, and this was of course due to the extremely severe weather of last winter, and it is a condition which I think you will find prevails on other railways. Adding together the increased cost of wages and fuel since 1896, the result is as follows :
Wages	$1,047,259
Fuel	 831,701
Total	$1,878,960
We have thus paid for wages and fuel $1,878,960 more during the ten months than we paid in 1896, and that notwithstanding the fact that the railway has only increased fifteen per cent in mileage.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What has been the increase in traffic in that time ?
Mr. EMMERSON'. There has been a very large increase in traffic, but I have not the figures at hand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Surely these figures must be available ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are, and my hon. friend can turn them up very readily.' I did not think it was necessary, for the purpose of making my explanation, to have that information here ; but if my hon. friend wishes the information, and will turn to Hansard of May, 1903, it is there given very fully by the Minister of Railways of that day, Mr. Blair.
Mr- CLARKE. Is not the hon. gentleman making a comparison of ten months of 1904 with ten months of 1896 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; I have tolu my hon. friend that for the ten months of 1904 we have paid out in wages and fuel $1,878960 more than was paid in the whole year' loyb.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ? Having given us that statement, iterated and re iterated again and again, can he tell us what was the traffic for the ten months of 1904 and the corresponding ten months of 1896 t The hon. gentleman refers me to ' Hansard.' How could I obtain there the traffic returns up to May 1st ? Surely the hon. gentleman has those under his hand and could give them to us?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend asked tor the traffic returns of 1896. I have given the traffic returns for the ten months ending April 30, 1904, but I have not the figures with respect to 1896. and therefore I cannot make these comparisons. My hon. friend Mr. CLARKE.
can do that at his leisure, and will have the opportunity of presenting that feature of the case, if he wishes to do so, at a later stage.


David Henderson: Very kind.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, I would not be cutdone in kindness by my hon. friend. Now, I wish to give a statement of the items of capital expenditure for each of the following years :


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
Capital expenditure	for each of the following	
	years.	
For the year	ending	30th
June, 1896 .. .		
For the year	ending	30th
June, 1897.. ..		
For the year	ending	30th
June, 1898.. ..		.. .. 252,756 80
For the year	ending	30th-
June, 1899.. ..		
For the year	ending	30th
June, 1900 ....		
For the year	ending	30th
June, 1901.. ..		
For the year	ending	30th
June, 1902.. ..		
For the year	ending	30th
June. 1902.. ,.
John Waterhouse Daniel: What about 1904 ?
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the comparison which I made between the years 1896 and 1902 as regards the increase oi wages on the Intercolonial Railway. I would like it distinctly understood that the meaning which I wished to convey to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) was that in 1902 we paid $240,000 more to the same number and the same classes of employees. I would refer hon. members to a statement made by Hon. Mr. Blair, ox-Minlster of Railways and Canals in his presentation of railway conditions during the session of 1903. His remarks will be found at page 3643 of 1 Hansard.' He is there dealing with the increase of wages as between those two periods for an eqflal number of employees. Mr. Blair then said :
I show you a surplus for the year ending 1902 of about $96,000, and I am able to do this notwithstanding the fact that we paid in wages last year on the Intercolonial Railway $240,000 more money than was paid in 1896 in respeot of precisely the same number and class of employees. I am not seeking to make an unfair comparison, but am comparing the wages of exactly the same number and the same class of employees as the hon. gentleman had in 1896 ; and I tell this House that, in respect of that same number and that same


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not that. At six o'clock, House took recess.

class we took out of earnings in 1902, $240,000 more than he did in 1896 and distributed it among the employees. If we had not shown better results than my hon. friend was able to show-and this is the point I wish to make -we would have had a deficit of about $140,000 instead of any surplus whatever. The wages tve pay are not excessive ; no man will say that we pay more than we ought ito pay or more than other railways are paying. But, if we paid $240,000 more in- 1902 than the hon. gentleman paid for the same number and class of employees in 1896, I am entitled to claim that our showing for last year is $240,000 better than his would have been under the same conditions.
In the summary which I read to the House I showed how these increased wages and items had amounted to upwards of 8600,000. I also showed that the wages paid to the same classes of employees and to practically tlie same number of men in the ten months of 1903. I know that the number of men has not been increased 'in *1904, nor in 1903 ; there has been no increase in the number of employees all along the line. As vacancies occur we of course supply new men, but there has been no general increase in the number of employees. I want to emphasize this fact to tlie House as I think it Is a very material fact. I have already given to the House the apportionment of this total increase of wages of $568,031 since 1902, it was as follows :
Engineers and firemen	$122,640
Conductors and trainmen	 144,504
Trackmen	 143,682
Station agents and operators... 151,805
Total	$568,631
1 have not given there-nor have I sought tlie information-the increases to the machinists, the carpenters, and men of that class, the trackmen, the freight handlers, freight checkers, and the employees generally around the shops at Moncton, at Richmond, at St. John, at Riviere du Loup, at Levis, at Port Tupper. All of these increases might be given in addition to that item of $507,631. They come to a large amount, and although I have not the exact figures, I can say that they will largely increase this total, because on the 1st of January a general increase was given to every machinist and every skilled workman along the line of the Intereoiloniai Railway no matter what his employment. In the "fall of 1902 a schedule was established whereby the men received what was practically a statutory increase, winc'd was automatic in its character, so that length of each man's service, the hours that he had worked during the year and the attention lie had given to his work entitled him to ail increase. Thus in addition to this amount there is a large sum which might fairly be taken into consideration
! .
in judging as to the amount of wages paid in 1904, as compared with 1903, and also the amount paid in 1903, as compared with 1902.
Mr. Blair showed that $240,000 more wages were paid-in 1902 than in 1896. l have shown in my statement this afternoon an increase of $244,232 for wages in 1902, to the same class and number of employees and I have also shown an increase of $344,'395 in wages to the same classes of employees and to practically the same number for die ten months of the current fiscal year, 1904 over the ten months of the fiscal year 1903. I have shown the classes of employees who have received these increases and I promise my hon. friend from West Toronto an exact statement as to the number of employees at the commencement of 1902 and at the close of April last. X have not that information in detail but I will furnish it. As fine hon. gentleman desires a comparison of the scale of wages in 1896 and in 1904. I promise him ample details, hut I warn him what to expect. It is not so many years since the trackmen on the Intercolonial Railway were being paid $1.00 a day and this was increased in 1896 to $1.10 or $1.15; but in 1898 the rate was increased to $1.20 and within the current year, that is the year ending June 30th, 1904, this rate was increased to $1.40 and $1.50 per day and these same trackmen are to-day receiving tthat wage. Then also, in 1900 the labourers along the Intercolonial Railway were getting $1.10 to $1.15. I do not here refer to trackmen, because to some extent at least you would refer to them as skilled workmen ; I am now referring to labourers who would not be recognized in any way as requiring any skill in the performance of their work other than strength and health and physique. These men in the year 1900 received an increase from $1.10 to $1.20 and since that time, during the current year they received a further increase to $1.30 and in many instances to $1.40 a day. Sp that with such a large number of men distributed along the line of the Intercolonial from 'Sydney to Montreal and from Halifax to St. John, the ampunt has grown very considerably. I have not shown the exact details wit'ii respect to the men in the shops, but I have shown them with respect to the trainmen, the enginemen, the telegraphers, the station agents and the trackmen. And I have shown that the total increase of wages for 1904-and that only takes intp consideration the first ten mont'bs of the year-means an increase of upwards of $808,000 as compared with the amount paid in 1896.
I mentioned that I have not a detailed statement with respect to the month of May last. But we have a statement of the receipts and expenses for that month.

Statement of receipts and expenses, Intercolonial Railway for 11 months ending May 31, 1904, and same period, 1903 :-
Receipts,	Expenses.
1904	?5,796,494 09	$6,381,876 481903	
5,790,876 93	5,720,550 30
This shows a profit for the eleven months ending May 31, 1903 of $70,317.63, as against a loss during the eleven months of 1904, of $585,382.39. It shows also that the receipts for the eleven months ending May 31, 1904. were $5,621.16 in excess of the same period for the previous year, while the expenses for the eleven months ending May 31, 1904, were $61,326.18 in excess of the similar eleven months of the year preceding.


Mr. HAGGART.: Has the hon. minister the estimates for the month of June ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not made an estimate for June.


John Graham Haggart: I meaii the ordinary estimate furnished the minister at the beginning of every month as to the probable receipts and expenditures ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not that with me. Now, the figures which I have presented to-day, particularly as respects the current year ending 30th of June last, rather cause one to reflect as to the conditions surrounding the Intercolonial Railway. In presenting the figures, I have no apology to make. I bear in mind this fact- that the Intercolonial was built, not as a commercial railroad, but as a railroad necessary in the interest of the Dominion with a view to cementing the separated provinces. I recognize the fact that the business element did not enter very largely into consideration in the choice of routes. I recognize, more than that, that there was, at the inception of this Dominion, a condition of things that led the framers of confederation to take all these elements into consideration. And, finally I recognize that these conditions have not very materially changed. The long route was chosen. That portion of the Intercolonial which, speaking generally, may be described as the line to connect the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is to-day a paving portion of the line. The portion which has not paid is that long route around the northern section of New Brunswick to the St. Lawrence river, and so along its [shore. Now, what were the conditions which prevailed at that time ? The people of the maritime provinces had free use of a very cheap means of transportation from the markets of the world to practically every community throughout those provinces-they had the Atlantic sea-board. Their importations were very largely by water. The whole southern coast of Nova Scotia was within a stone's throw of Boston. The Chignecto bay and Minas basin sections of the Bay of Fundy were in close touch with the American sea-board and carried on


Henry Robert Emmerson: their commerce of export and import day by day throughout the whole season-not merely during the time of summer navigation but throughout the winter months as well. That was not, it will be acknowledged, in the interest of the Dominion, it was not in harmony with the idea of a confederation of the provinces. It was necessary that some attempt should be made to bring" about an interchange of products between the people of Quebec and Ontario and the people of the maritime provinces. A great many people say that the route was chosen and the road was built for the benefit of the people of the maritime provinces. I take issue at once upon any such statement. It was specially in the interest of Ontario, of the wheat-growing sections, the flour producing sections of our Dominion that there should be rail transportation between those sections and the maritime provinces. And, in order that that rail transportation might be practically effective, it was necessary to establish rates which would enable interchange to take place.
The Intercolonial must be recognized as bound on two sides by great waterways. During the summer months it must compete w'it'h the navigation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in addition in the Straits of Northumberland, where sea-going vessels can reach every section of the north shores of New Brunswick, every section of Prince Edward Island and: of Cape Breton, and many sections of Nova Scotia; while on the other hand the Intercolonial must compete with the water-ways of the Atlantic sea-board, it must compete with the Portland traffic from Ontario by rail, if necessary. or with the traffic to Boston, and thence by water to different sections of the maritime provinces. Necessarily the rates had to be low, they had to be trimmed with a view to meeting this very serious competition. We are told to-day that the lakes are competing with railway transportation. If there is any force in that argument with respect to inland trade, there is ten-fold force in it with respect to the competition with which the Intercolonial is met by the Atlantic sea-going vessels during all seasons of the year, and during the summer months by navigation on the St. Lawrence. Now those conditions prevailed, and it was necessary to establish freight rates which. I grant you, might from one standpoint be considered as conventional, but which are a necessity if you are to cement these provinces together and bring about the interchange of trade which is so necessary for the well-being of the Dominion. To-day we are suffering in a measure because of that. While it is true that the traffic on the Intercolonial has grown, while it is true that trade has grown, there has not been one per cent of an increase in the rates during all that period; and the people of the east parti-

eularly, and the people of the west as well, the merchants of Montreal, of Toronto, of Hamilton, of Guelph, of all the manufacturing centres of Ontario and Quebec, t'he very moment there was the slightest intimation of an increase in the freight rates along the line of the Intercolonial, would enter a protest, and the government, I care not what government might be In power and administering the affairs of the Intercolonial, would be powerless to make such increases along the line of the Intercolonial. I do not believe it would' be 'in the interest of tike trade of the Dominion to do so. 1 believe that the Intercolonial is destined i be one of the greatest and most valuable assets of the Dominion. Although you cannot measure its benefits by dollars and cents, I believe that in the past it has been one of the best assets of the Dominion of Canada in cementing the provinces together, in making t'he people of the various provinces acquainted with each other ; and in that way it has been rendering a service to the Dominion which no other agency could perform.
Now, Sir, the problem which confronts the Department of Railways at this moment, and which confronts me as responsible for t'he administration of the government system of railways, is this : We have recognized the requirements of labour, we have recognized that because of the conditions which prevail in all sections covered by the Intercolonial, it is necessary to pay the employees of that road a better wage than has hitherto been paid. We have recognized that in all departments. W e shall be obliged further to recognize that because of the industrial growth of the country, because of the conditions which prevail to-day. Everywhere there is activity. The employees in the industrial establishments along the line of the Intercolonial are receiving a much higher rate of wage than they were receiving a few years ago. Today the Canadian Pacific Railway is paying a higher rate of wage to its employees, and I am sure I am wit'hin the judgment of this House when I say that the government of Canada cannot afford to pay a less rate of wage to its employees than does the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. True, you may say that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a dividend paying corporation, that large sums are being distributed year by year among its shareholders. Still I say that although the Intercolonial cannot show as favourable a balance sheet, although it cannot make the same distribution of its earnings, yet in many other ways it is making a return to tne people of the Dominion, not merely to the people of Quebec and the maritime provinces, but to those of Ontario and the west, which cannot be measured in dollars and cents but which has a value above all pecuniary considerations. Therefore we must recognize that we cannot enjoy tthis advantage without paying a fair and just equivalent to the men who are engaged in the management and operation of that railway. This will be admitted, I am sure. Moreover, we must recognize that these wages are a fixed charge upon the Intercolonial. You caunot reduce them. Nor are you in the same position as a private corporation, who, when they increase the wages, can at the same time increase the rates. Not many weeks ago we saw in the newspapers a statement to t'he effect that some railway corporations that were obliged to pay higher wages to their employees were at the same time turning the screws upon their patrons and charging them a higher freight rate. The ,Intercolonial cannot do that. If it 'is not found in written words in the compact of confederation, there is a conventional understanding recognized by all, t'hat the rates on the Intercolonial shall not be increased, and that the people shall enjoy the benefits of that road at the lowest rates compatible with its maintenance. These benefits me equally accessible to the manufacturing industries of western Canada and to the merchants and distributors. The good resulting is not confined to any one section of Canada. Therefore it is a problem to which, while I have the honour to hold the position I now occupy, I must address my every energy, I shall act with zeal and activity to see if something cannot be done whereby the financial conditions of the Intercolonial can be improved. I believe that can be done in a measurable degree by the modernization of the road. It is true, we have started out to remedy many defects with respect to curves and gradients. I believe that work should continue. We are endeavouring to secure the very best and most modern equipment, improvements in the class of locomotives, in the class of cars, making stronger bridges, and other betterments to harmonize therewith. You cannot have heavy engines without having heavier bridges, you cannot have large trains passing over the road without removing the defects in its curves and In its gradients. Modernize the road and I feel assured that you can minimize the expense in carrying the traffic over it. The question of passenger traffic, as far as it relates to the whole line, must be recognized in this light, that we carry passengers from Montreal to St. John for the same rate as is paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and yet there is a very great discrimination against us in the matter of distance. The same is true in respect to the carrying of our freight. We can only charge the same rates as are charged by the Canadian Pacific Railway and yet we have the longer haul. We have additional employees to be paid. We cannot certainly do it at the same rate. Our expenses upon the whole
v
5S01

must be necessarily larger. We have a longer mileage and yet we are paid according to the minimum mileage. Under these circumstances I am sure this House and the country must recognize the difficulties in the way of making the Intercolonial Railway the success that we all hope and desire it may be. I shall have to address myself to the solution of these problems. I do not know how successful I may be, but in so far as the modernizing of the road is concerned, if that can be accomplished and if parliament will aid in the accomplishment of that by generous and substantial votes, we will have accomplished some good in that direction and in the maintenance of the road. I do not pledge myself that we shall skimp the employees, that we shall starve them or that the pay that is given to them shall in any way show a shrinkage because of the conditions with which we have to deal. The men of the Intercolonial Railway must be paid equal to met anywhere in Canada. That is their due, it is their right, and I do not think that there is any spirit in this parliament or out of it anywhere in Canada which would favour a proposal that these men shall be underpaid or paid less than is paid by private corporations in employment of a like character. There is, I think, reason for very great hope in the matter of the traffic in the eastern section of our Dominion and along the line of the Intercolonial Railway. It is true that in respect to the Sydney trade we are obliged to give very reasonable rates in competition with the water rates. It is true that in bringing our coal from the Nova Scotia collieries to Montreal-and we can get very little above that city-we ai'e obliged to give the very lowest possible rates in competition with the water rates. It is true we cannot load these coal cars oil their return with the ordinary merchandise that goes from the western section of the country to the eastern districts. It is true that all these are disadvantages under which we labour . but there is growing up along the line of the Intercolonial Railway in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia industries which will contribute year after year, which are contributing to-day, which have contributed the last year very materially to the freight traffic of the Intercolonial Railway. I have endeavoured to deal with the financial conditions in a frank and candid manner. I do not wish to withhold one single feature from this House or from the country in respect to the management of the road. I believe that the road, although it shows a deficit, more than makes up its equivalent in another way, and I believe that the Intercolonial Railway should be and will be sustained and maintained by the people of Canada.


John Graham Haggart: Before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) sits down I would be obliged to him if he would be kind Mr. EMMERSON.
enough to answer a question or two which I now desire to ask him. He gave the receipts and expenditure of the Intercolonial Railway up to the 31st May last. Did he give the same in reference to the Prince Edward Island Railway and would he be kind enough to give the capital expenditure on both of them up to the 31st May last ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not dealt with the affairs of the Prince Edward Island Railway at all. I have simply followed the practice in this House of dealing with the Intercolonial Railway proper. My attention had not been directed particularly to the Prince Edward Island Railway. I have given the capital expenditure down to the 30th June, 1903. I have not presented the figures for the ten months to the 30th April, 1904. They are not wholly made up. None of the details are given me in respect to even the current revenue and expenditure down to the 31st May. I have given the totals in respefet to that month, but I will be very happy to furnish the capital expenditure. giving the details down t0 the 30th April, and if we have the information here down to the 31st May.


John Graham Haggart: On capital account ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On capital account-


John Graham Haggart: Would you just please state the amount ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I say I will give it later on. I have not the information now.


John Graham Haggart: As I had not the pleasure of hearing the hon. gentleman before six o'clock and only a small portion of his speech since eight o'clock I will take an opportunity at a later time of replying to the hon. gentleman's remarks when I read them.
Motion agreed, to and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department, of Railways and Canals-salar-rns, including C. W. Ross at $1,700, notwith-
Lo	anythinS in the Civil Service Act,
$48,975.	'


John Graham Haggart: Why is this increase given to Mr. Ross ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He did not receive the increase in previous years. It seemed to be just that he should receive it.


John Graham Haggart: Your statement is that lie has not been getting his annual increases for three years, and you are making it up to him ?	i


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: 
Mr. LENNOX.: This granting of increases in this form looks very suspicious. If the department is in default it should be admitted.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think any annual increases were given for a certain time. It was brought to my notice that Mr. Boss was a very efficient officer and had been for a great many years in the service. The deputy minister recommended this and I recognized the justice of his' claim and concurred in the recommendation.


Haughton Lennox: Was an application previously made and refused ; if it was refused on what ground ? If it was refused, why is it allowed now ? Are there others in the department in the same position, and if so why have they not been recommended for this payment of arrears ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not aware that any application had been previously made. This was recommended to me by the deputy minister and I concurred.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think any of us believe that if an official knows1 that he is entitled to an annual increase he would allow the matter to go by without mentioning it. Are we to understand from the minister this official did not ask for his increase from year to year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I never heard that there was any application or refusal.


Haughton Lennox: Before we consent to evade the Civil Service Act in this way we should have a complete explanation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would appear that for two years he did not get his statutory increase, and he is getting it now.


John Graham Haggart: I presume that all these other gentlemen in the department were recommended for statutory increases for two years past, and they did not get the increase ? Why is the exception made in the case of Mr. Ross ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No other applications came before me ; there are some others in the supplementaries.


John Graham Haggart: I have not the slightest doubt, but that the deputy minister recommended the annual increase but his recommendation has not been acted upon except in this case. Why is an exception made in Mr. Ross's favour ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can only repeat that there have been other recommendations, and no other applications brought to my notice.


John Graham Haggart: I think the deputy minister will tell the hon. gentleman that last year and the year before he recommended statutory increases, and if he did they were not given to those entitled to them. The statutory increases are given to the others 187
for this year only, and why is it that Mr. Ross is made an exception and gets an increase for three years ?	[DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have no doubt my hon. friend would concur with me as to the efficiency of Mr. Ross. I think he was an appointee of my hon. friend. [DOT]


John Graham Haggart: I am not at all doubting his efficiency.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite expect to have my hon. friend's concurrence in the proposition. At the time this matter came under my notice, when these estimates were being prepared, there were no other applications. I understand that no action had been taken for two years.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, yes, there was. There -were increases last year and the year before.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My attention was called to this particular officer, and I concurred in the recommendation. My attention had not then been called to any of the others.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. Who drew the hon. minister's attention to this particular man ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The deputy minister.


Mr. J. D. REID.: And he was the only one in the whole department to whom the hon. minister's attention was drawn ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The only one.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister say that his deputy did not last year draw attention to the fact that this official was entitled to a statutory increase last year and the year before ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He got it last year.


Haughton Lennox: Did he get it the year before ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Haughton Lennox: How many arrears are there V
Mi-. EMMERSON. There are two years of arrears.


Haughton Lennox: What years do they refer to ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The deputy minister cannot tell me what years they refer to.


Haughton Lennox: This is surely a most absurd condition of things. Last year we paid what was asked of us. For some years long gone by, for some reason known only to the minister, we are asked to go back on a record and hunt up some imaginary case like Mark Twain's great American beef contract, I suppose, and pass this item. I think the minister will have to let the item -stand until he can give us some information about it.


Mr. BARKER.: What class was Mr. Ross in last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The first class, so I am informed by the deputy. X am not familiar with the classification of the men in the office.


Samuel Barker: There were four increases last year of men in the first class. Mr. Ross was in the first class last year and was passed over, there must have been some reason for it. What has happened since ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He received an increase last year, I am informed.


Samuel Barker: For the preceding two years there.must have been an opinion that he was not entitled to it. Why are you coming this year and going back on two year's ago ? I think we ought to have definite and clear information on this point before we pass the item.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 1 would like very much to give the information, but I am no* familiar with the years myself, the deputy cannot tell me the exact years, and I do not see the materiality of the exact years. This is after all simply a question as to whether justice should be done to Mr. Ross. He has been a long time in the department, he is an efficient officer, and I am acting on the deputy's recommendation.


John Graham Haggart: Here is a clerk in the department singled out from the whole department and given two years' increases of $50 easli, while no other clerk gets any. Nothing demoralizes the service more than the selection of one particular man for an increase unless he has some peculiar qualifications. If lie has, let us know it, and the House will grant with pleasure whatever is right to a deserving officer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not been long enough in the department to have a personal knowledge as to the relative merits of the different officials, but I was informed by the deputy minister that Mr. Ross was a very efficient officer and was entitled to this increase.


Haughton Lennox: I do not see the relevancy of the minister's remarks that he has been such a short time in the department that he does not know. We have no means of knowing anything about it except through the minister. Perhaps two or three minutes or half an hour would acquaint us with all the details we require We do not want to vote this money in the dark, and if the minister lias not had time up to the present to ascertain the facts, he should let the item stand until he can ascertain them and communicate them to the committee.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated that there were two years. The deputy informs me that he does not remember the exact years, but he thinks they were 1897 and 1898. I *Mr. LENNOX.
do not think it is material what the particular years were. It did not seem to me to be material, and I have not searched the records of the department in order to secure the information. I would be prepared to bring the information later on, but I think my hon. friend would not wish the matter to stand until then.


Samuel Barker: I would like to call the attention of the minister to another feature of this item. Last year there were four first-class clerks at $1,800 each. This year there are three first-class clerks at $1,000 each, so that each of them has apparently got an increase of $100, one at $1,850 and one at $1,700. If I understand the minister the statutory increase is $50.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are three of $50, statutory increases.


Samuel Barker: How can that be when three of these four last year received $1,800 each and this year received $1,900.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Last year they were getting $1,850.
Mr. BARKER, I have the estimates here as they were introduced last year and there were four first-class clerks at $1,800. You have now three at $1,900 and one at $1,850. That one seems to have got the regular increase but three of them seem to have got $100 each. While the minister is looking into the other questions he might also look into this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The three first-class clerks referred to received $1,850. Some provision must have been made in the supplementary estimates, and they ai'e now increased to $1,900. I can give the names if they are desired.


Samuel Barker: I do not expect the minister to reply now but I would like to know the explanation of this matter. Last year there was one first-class clerk at $1,400, but that gentleman seems to get $1,550 this year.	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was a first-class clerk who was getting $1,450.


Samuel Barker: He is down in the printed estimates submitted to the House as a first-class clerk at $1,400.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that was changed in the supplementary estimates. The records of the department show $1,450, and he gets the statutory increase now to $1,500.


Mr.  J. D.@: REIt). The minister pleads ignorance of his department so far as this is concerned. During the whole Grand Trunk Pacific debate the Prime Minister stated that the Minister of Railways was absent from the House because he was getting up the work of his department, and

studying the manner of running it. After haying two or three months of good hard work learning his department it is rather an awkward position for him to come before the House to-night and say that he does not; understand anything about the department. He states that this increase to a civil servant was recommended by the deputy minister. I believe, and I think it is the opinion of every member in this House, that the deputy minister is first instructed to make any recommendations that are made and that this is done so that the minister 'can fall back on the deputy if necessary. We have here one gentleman getting an !n-crease and the minister has not shown to my satisfaction why the increase is given to him. There fire a good many other civil servants in that department who 1 believe are entitled to increases. I am not objecting to Mr. Ross getting an increase if he is entitled to it, but I want to know why [DOT]others are not getting increases who are as, well entitled to them as he is. If we cannot get an explanation of this I am prepared to stay here until the minister can go to his department and get the information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would gladly give all the information required with respect to the matter, but I think that my hon. friend is .perhaps going a little far when he says, because I say I do not know in which of two years an increase was granted, that therefore I make the admission that I know nothing whatever about the department. I do not expect to grasp the whole details of the department at once, but I think the information which I have afforded the committee at this stage is ample to satisfy any reasonable expectation as to why it was proposed to give this increase. As I have stated, he is an old official. At the time the recommendation was made I did not know anything about him. My information came direct from the deputy minister and I would have expected my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) to have supported me In reference to this official as he appointed him.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Do not get off on some highfallutin' talk like that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend will surely permit me to express an expectation.


Edward Cochrane: You have expressed that so many times that it has got old and stale. Is it a usual course to withhold the increases for two or three years and then give them in a lump sum ? The minister thinks that wre are a little harsh in wanting to get the information and says that he cannot be expected to have it all in his bead. Well. I do not know why he should not ; there is plenty of room for some in-1871
formation. This is an unusual course and I think it is the minister's duty to have the information. While the minister may smile it is not a joke with me at all, because it is the money of the people we are asked to vote here, the people who are working hard to earn the money that the minister is expending. This is an injustice to the other first-class clerks. I have not as much sympathy for these gentlemen as some people have. I think they are paid as well as most people in this country, but I say it is a cruel thing to all first-class clerks in that department who are perhaps working as well as this gentleman, hut who do not get increases, that we should vote an increase to this one man. It does not matter whether this gentleman was appointed by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) or not, the fact remains, that he did not get his increase when lie should have got it, and the question is why he should get his increases now. when other officials in the same department are not getting them.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand this gentleman got $1,500 this year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


John Dowsley Reid: And now he is increased to $1,700. It is an increase of $150 practically from his previous salary.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With the statutory increase he would have got $1,000 any way. In addition it was proposed that he should get two years upon which action had not been taken. I should be very sorry to hurt the feelings of my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) in voting the people's money. But it struck me that the item was fair and just as represented by the deputy minister.


John Graham Haggart: The minister will notice that the secretary of the department is increased only $50 and the same with the accountant, the chief clerk and the correspondence clerk, while the law clerk is decreased $125. There is another anomaly. I see it stated here ' salaries, including c". W. Ross, $1,700, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' The minister intends that to apply only to Mr. Ross ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Then, how can he pay the salaries to the first-class clerk, three at $1,900, one at $1,750, and one at $1,700, when each of these is increased $100 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; we have given them only the statutory increase ; they were getting $1,850 last year.


Samuel Barker: I cannot find that increase in the supplementary estimates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can giye the names of the three. The record I have here, shows' Mr. Stewart, Mr. Fllteau, and Mr. Currier.

They were getting during 1903-4, $1,850, and this vote proposes to give them the statutory increase. With respect to the law clerk, Mr. Ruel, he had been law clerk, and his salary had reached $2,100. In the change, and promoting a new man to that position, it was deemed wise that the new law* clerk should not get the same salary, as he had not had equal experience.


John Graham Haggart: What was his predecessor appointed at as law clerk ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that Mr. Ruel began at $1,400.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you give this man $1,925 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was recognized that the salary at which Mr. Ruel began was out of proportion to the amount of work required, and to the professional skill required for the duties.


Haughton Lennox: As we are beginning the estimates of the Minister of Railways, and as he himself is beginning those estimates, it is important that we should begin on a right basis. The minister says he has given us all the information he has. I admit it. But that is not the issue. We may have all the information that the minister has. and yet not have all that the committee and the country should be put in possession of. All we know is that last year this official got an increase of $50, and the deputy minister recommends the minister to give him, in addition to the statutory increase for the present year, certain arrears amounting to $100. But the minister does not know' in respect of w'hat years this $100 is to be allowed. It seems extraordinary to me that the minister should be in that position, unless, like some other people, he wishes to close his eyes to certain things, because, I should think that a minister so alert as the hon. gentleman, when a proposal of this kind was brought before him, would at once ask how it could be justified, and a few questions asked at the proper time would give him all the necessary information. And I think we should commence properly and insist that the minister should give us not only such information as he has but such information as the people ought to have. And I think I am saying only what will be accepted by hon. gentlemen on both sides that we have not the information to judge of this matter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I appreciate the desire of my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) to start me right. But, it seems to me that the question as to the particular years is not very material. The points that suggested themselves to my mind were that Mr. Ross is in charge of a branch in the department, and in view of the important w'ork he has to do and the efficiency with which he does it, he should have a salary of at least $1,700. I cannot be expected to have personal knowledge of these matters. I must depend upon Mr. EMMERSON.
the deputy for that information ; and the deputy has made the recommendation and in that recommendation I concur. I do not think there is any information withheld or that I am exhibiting any very great ignorance-


John Graham Haggart: What is Mr. Ross doing?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He has charge of the correspondence in connection w'ith the engineer's office.	,


Haughton Lennox: It is not material, .as the hon. minister says, whether it was for one year or for another that these arrears occurred, if we have such information as will enable us to judge of the justice of the claim itself. But when W'e know nothing about even the years in w'hieli these arrears are said to have occurred, we have nothing to enable us to form an opinion as to whether the item is reasonable or not. I do not care particularly with respect to what year, but I do want such information as will enable us to form an opinion. But we have simply the statement of the minister that he does not know anything whatever about the matter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You are making a very comprehensive statement.


Haughton Lennox: I think I am making a correct summary of what the hon. gentleman has said, and if I am not, he can set me right. I understand him to say in effect (that he knows ndtliing whatever about this matter beyond^ the fact that there were arrears occurring iu some years, whether recently or remotely he does not know ; that he knows nothing personally erf the merits of Mr. Ross; all he does know is that the deputy minister says it is a case deserving of recognition. Now, I repeat, it is most material to us to know when these arrears occurred, We know that last year we gave the statutory allowance without allowing any arrears. That is significant in itself. But if, for a number of years, we have been granting a regular statutory increase, and now this item is brought up at the present time-it is a most suspicious and peculiar circumstance in itself, and the full facts should be disclosed before we deal with the matter. I do not understand why the minister should object to letting the matter stand until this reasonable information is furnished to the House, or why we should substitute the statement of the deputy minister, much as I respect him, for the judgment of this committee.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sorry there should seem to be any suspicious circumstance connected with this proposed vote of $100 additional to this man's salary. I would not like to have it put on a par with the celebrated ejaculation of Sergeant Buzfuz with respect to chops and tomato sauce. The statement of the hon. gentleman who

lias just taken his seat (Mr. Lennox) is a very comprehensive one. He says I know nothing about the hon. gentleman. I stated, and it must be borne in mind, that these estimates were prepared in February, when I first entered the department, and that before that time I had not a personal knowledge either of Mr. Ross or of any other official in the department. But since then I have met that gentleman in the department, and I know something of the working of the department, of the work that he does and the place he fills in the department, and I think he is fairly entitled to $1,700 a year. I cannot, for the life of me, see why there should be any serious objection. I have stated that the information giveu me by the deputy minister leads me to conclude that it was in the years 1897 and 1898 that the lapse occurred in the payment of the statutory increase to this gentleman. But apart from that, whether the lapse occurred or not, it seemed to me, from the statement of the deputy minister and from the knowledge I now possess, that Mr. Ross is fairly entitled to $1,700 a year, as salaries go in these departments, and having regard to the work he does and the efficiency with which he performs it.


John Graham Haggart: The minister evidently does not understand what the prerequisite is for granting a salary. First of all you form the skeleton of the sum that is required for the purpose of administering the department. You pay every man in it according to his supposed departmental value. Then you apply to Council and you state the number of clerks you require for the purpose of carrying on your business. You state the value of the particular service that each man is expected to perform, not the value of the man, but the value of the service jthat he performs. You fix the salary of each official. Then the law provides that when the deputy minister, with the concurrence of the minister, recommends the statutory increase, it has to be approved by Council, and after that you I>ut the amount in the estimates. But it is not the value of the man you consider, it is the value of the service he renders to the country. You make an estimate of so many clerks at $1,500, so many at $1,200, so many at $1,000, add so on. It is a curious anomaly to say :	We have so many deserving
clerks. Here is a man who fills a particular office. Suppose you want a superior officer, the service he performs to the country is only worth $1,500 a year, though the man may be worth $10,000. Then according to the value of the man you increase his salary. The salaries are fixed for your departmental staff, and then the Civil Service law gives them an increase per annum. When vacancies occur by death, or absence, or superannuation, you fill them up ; but the amount that is paid ought to be always the same unless the duties of the office are increased, or unless you require a larger staff to carry on the business. In that case the additions have to be approved by Council and reasons assigned before the vote is put in the estimates. In this case the minister must remember that it is not simply a question of paying a man $100 a year additional, what we are discussing is the principle. If the minister had been in the House as long as I have been, and a member of a government as well as a member of the opposition, he would have heard the tirades that used to be made week after week and year after year on a single item occurring in the estimates asking for a grant to an officer notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. Mr. McMullen, formerly a member of this House and now a distinguished senator, used to enlarge for hours upon the enormity of paying sums notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. What is the use of having such an Act, he used to say, what is the use of having a law on the statute-book if it is being constantly evaded ? That is the reason we are questioning this vote. I would not have any objection to it in itself. This man may be an appointment of mine, he may be a deserving officer, a man too big for the position at $1,400 a year. It may be a shame to employ a man of his ability to perform work that is only worth to the country $1,400 a year. But that is no reason why he should get anything iu excess of what he is entitled to under the law. It is the principle that we object to, we object to this constant enlargement of the expenditure in the various departments. You form a department here, for instance, the Department of Trade and Commerce, which is only to cost a few thousand a year, and then to give importance to the minister, the staff increases from year to year until each minister is jealous of the other if there is a larger expenditure in one department than the other. What is the effect ? The country is burdened with a lot of officials who are not perhaps required for the proper discharge of their duties and to which enormous salaries are being paid.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If this gentleman continued in the same office and gave the same return to the country for two years longer he would be entitled under the 'law to $1,700. I recognize the value of the work he is doing. I recognize the recommendation made by the deputy in that regard and I say that justice should be done now to this gentleman and not wait for two years. That is the whole story iu a nutshell without regard to 1S97. 1898, or 1S99. It seems to me that my hon. friend would not wish to deny justice to a very deserving official by with- . holding from him the proper return for the work which he is performing in the department for the benefit of the country.


Samuel Barker: We have made a perfectly reasonable request. We have asked the

bon. minister to let this matter stand until be can give us a reasonable explanation of what be is asking for. He has had pointed out to him that several items in the estimates now before us are increases beyond what appear in the regular yearly increases. His answer is that there were supplementary estimates last year. If the hon. gentleman will now show us the supplementary estimates covering these it will perhaps remove our difficulty, but it is not sufficient for the hon. gentleman simply to say that they were supplementary estimates last year. I have taken the statute of last year and they are open to the hon. gentleman. I would like him to point out in the Act passed last year granting money to the government to provide for these expenditures where these items can be found. If he points that out perhaps we will see our way to getting over some of the difficulties that we are now in.


Henry Robert Emmerson: At page 19 of the estimates of 1903-4 you will see the sum of $16,700 for first-class clerks.


Samuel Barker: For railways and canals ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Railways, civil government, page 19. These are the estimates we have now under consideration.


Samuel Barker: I asked where these details in the estimates of last year were ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $10,700 for 1903-4.


Samuel Barker: That is not in the estimates of last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend will have a little patience I will explain. In 1904-5 the vote under the same head is $17,300, which is an increase of $300. Provision is made for three first-class clerks at $1,900 each. They were getting last year $1,850 each. They are now increased to $1,900 each. That makes $150 of that $600. Then, another one was getting $1,S00 and he is increased to $1,850.


Samuel Barker: What is the hon. gentleman reading from ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am reading from the estimates of this year.


Samuel Barker: Wlmt I am asking the hon. gentleman is where his authority is for the increases that were given last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend would turn to the estimates of last year he would find an item under the head of civil government of $16,700 for first-class clerks.


Samuel Barker: At what page ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the page.


Haughton Lennox: At page 20 of last year's estimates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If you will refer to the estimates of last year you will see an item of $16,700 for first-class clerks.


Samuel Barker: 


Samuel Barker: I do not see anything of the kind.


Henry Robert Emmerson: At page 20 of last year's estimates.


Samuel Barker: At page 20 of last year's estimates the amount is given as $16,450.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Has my hon. friend looked at the supplementary estimates ?


Samuel Barker: I am asking the hon. gentleman to tell us where these supplementa-ries are. I cannot find them in the statutes. If he will point them out I can look them up and the whole matter will be settled in a moment.


Mr. FIELDING.: Mr. Ross's salary is set forth in the civil service list of a year ago at $1,550. Now, he would have $50 more by the ordinary process of the statutory increase which would make his salary $1,600 and my hon. friend is asking for an addition of $100 so as to make it $1,700. These figures seem to compare.


Haughton Lennox: That is not the point.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are three first-class clerks who were getting $1,850 under the estimates of last year. That appropriation was voted, these salaries have been paid to them, the record shows it and I can give the names of the three clerks. We propose in this vote to give them their statutory increases of $50, making their salaries $1,900. That does not violate the Civil Service Act in any way.


John Graham Haggart: Not at all. but you mistake the meaning of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). He says that in the main estimates instead of their salaries being given as $1,850 they are $1,800. He says the amount of the vote last year was $16.450 and you say it was $16,700. Where does the $250 difference come in ? You say it is in the supplementary estimates. My hon. friend says he cannot find any Act of parliament or supplementary estimates authorizing those salaries.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I say that the appropriation last year was to pay each of these first-class clerks $1,850.


John Graham Haggart: That is quite clear but where is the hon. gentleman's authority for the statement ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have sent for it, but I can assure my hon. friend that it is correct and according to the record.


John Graham Haggart: It is very likely correct because these estimates show $16,700. But,, my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) cannot find it in" the statutes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
John Graham Haggart: He dare not do that. It is extraordinary if the deputy and the 'Auditor General are both wrong, but it is just possible.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman tells us now that he will have supplementary estimates for these salaries.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said there might be.


Samuel Barker: Then we should consider all these matters together ; that would be the businesslike way.


John Dowsley Reid: Why not let this item :S!tand over and consider it with the other increases ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am always anxious to be reasonable but that does not seem a fair proposition. What I said was that possibly there might be others in the supplementary estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: You have a pretty shrewd idea.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have an idea that quite a number have applied and are under consideration.
Mr.	J.	D.	REID.	Which proves that
there are others entitled to Increases


Henry Robert Emmerson: That does not .follow.
Mr.	J.	D.	REID.	When the minister
grants this increase he is reflecting on his predecessors who refused them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Don't feel hurt about that; I know they won't.
Mr.	J.	D.	REID.	Personally I would
jlike to see all the clerks who are entitled to increases getting increases. I do not object to this increase for Mr. Ross, but I object to the manner in which it is presented to the House. It seems to me there must be some underlying influence to cause this special case to be dealt with. The item should stand until we get information.


William Stevens Fielding: There is really no other information the minister can give. The ordinary statutory Increase is $50, but occasionally the minister believes that there is an officer who for special reasons is entitled to more and he submits that vote to parliament.


Haughton Lennox: There was no special reason given in th's case.


William Stevens Fielding: The special reason is that in the judgment of the minister, based on the report of his deputy, this officer is entitled on account of special merit to this increase.


Haughton Lennox: He said he had no report.


William Stevens Fielding: Thr minister said that the recommendation was made by his deputy. Are we to understand that no increase is to be given to any official unless the minister is perfectly familiar with that official ? The principal officers are brought in touch with the minister, but the minister cannot know all the others, and he has to rely on the report of his deputy. What more information can we have than that this officer is recommended by the deputy and that the minister concurred ?


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Finance-is very fond of answering arguments that were not presented. We believe 'it is quite proper to have the recommendation of the deputy, hut we also believe that we should have the information which enables the deputy, or even the minister to come to that conclusion. The minister of railways did' not say that Mr. Ross was entitled to this increase because of sp.cial m -rit; his'ar-gument was that he did not get his statutory 'increase for two years, and that by this vote he is paying up for the arrears. We are perfectly prepared in any case to vote $100 for special service, or for special fitness, if the facts are p aced before us ; but the Minister of Finance need not think for one moment that be is going to crowd it down our throats by trying to make out that we used an argument we never used. We make a perfectly reasonable proposition that this vote shouid stand over until we get an explanation. If we get a reasonable explanation, when the House again meets, we will pass this vote without further delay.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated very fairly that I acted upon the recommendation of the deputy minister in this case as to the efficiency of Mr. Ross and the responsibility of bis work. When this recommendation was made, I concurred in it. It was done at a time when I did not know the official and had not seen him. But the facts were given to me by the deputy.
Hon. WILLIAM ROSiS. There is not a minister, however brilliant, who has not to rely upon his deputy for information of this kind Here is a deputy who has grown gray I was almost going to say grown bald, in the service of this country, and who! states that this man is entitled to receive this increase, and the minister relies on that information. That is all that any minister can do, because it is impossible for ministers to have information as to the merits or demerits of all the clerks under them.


Mr. BIRKETT.: Has Mr. Ross any greater responsibility now than he had a year
ago ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot say that he has, and I add that two years hence he will

not probably have any greater responsibility but will be entitled to the $1,700.


Thomas Birkett: I have no objection to Mr. Ross getting the $1,700, I am satisfied that if he were not worth it, the deputy would net recommend it. But I will remind the minister that last year, when the government were amending the Civil Service Act, if they had accepted the proposition I made that all first-class clf/'ks should be given a yearly increase of $100, Mr. Ross would have had the $1,700 this year without any trouble, and without being under any compliment. Is it the intention of the minister, in the case of officials who have not received their statutory increases, to make them up to them ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know whether there are any who have not had their statutory increases. If there are any they have not been brought to my notice.


Thomas Birkett: But if there are any 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will certainly give them the same consideration that I am giving to Mr. Ross.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister also state where he got the authority to give the Statutory increase of last year ? I cannot find it in his estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: I think perhaps I can explain that. Last year, it will be remembered, after the estimates were dealt with, the Civil Service Act was amended, and provision was made by a general vote that increases might be paid to any clerks entitled to receive them. I think it is likely that this gentleman came under the terms of that general clause, which would explain why the item did not appear in the estimates.;


Samuel Barker: I think we are entitled to have that explanation clearly from the minister in charge of the department. The Minister of Finance does not tell us as a fact that this is so ; he says he supposes that it is so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My deputy informs me that these three first-class clerks for whom it was proposed to have an appropriation of $1,900 each this year, received $1,850 during the fiscal year 1903-4. That was paid, and it was paid necessarily with the concurrence of the Auditor General. It is proposed in the item under discussion to give the statutory increases to all these different clerks, with the exception of Mr. Ross, and his case I think I have very fuliy explained to the committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand that several organizations of workingmen in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway have made application to the minister for further increases in the wages paid to them. Might Mr. EMMERSON.
I ask whether the hon. gentleman has reached any conclusion ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have stated in my general statement that other increases would be necessary in connection with the emJ ployees of the Intercolonial.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is the hon. gentleman going to consider favourably the application made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am under arrangements to meet the men at Moncton immediately at the close of the session, and go over the whole schedule.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will provision be made in the supplementary estimates for increased remuneration ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is contained in the general vote for the Intercolonial.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And that is being taken ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is being provided for.


John Graham Haggart: I see that the Minister of Finance is right and the Minister of Railways wrong, in stating that there was a supplementary vote. It says at the end of the Civil Service Act:
And during the financial year ending on the 30th day of June, 1904, there may be paid from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada such sums of money as may not have been voted by parliament but are required for payment of such salaries and increases of salaries as are authorized by this Act.
If we had obtained that information some time ago we would have made better progress.


Haughton Lennox: In reference to the item for a law clerk, the minister has explained that the reason for the reduction of the salary from $2,100 to $1,925 is that the gentleman who formerly occupied this position has left the service and a. new man has come in. Is he an entirely new man ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was promoted. He had been the assistant law clerk and was promoted to the position of law clerk.


John Graham Haggart: Is he a barrister ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, he is a barrister.


Haughton Lennox: How long had he been in the service and what salary had he received previously ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He has been in the service about three years. He began as assistant law clerk with a salary of $1,200, but this was subsequently increased to $1,400.


Haughton Lennox: Then we are to understand that a clerk who has been in the service for three years arrived at a salary of $1,200 and was subsequently increased to

$1,400. What is the initial salary in this office ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that $1,900 was the original salary for the position of law clerk. The last occupant of the position was getting $2,100 or $2,200. Mr. Hansard's salary was increased while he was assistant law clerk and when his superior officer retired he was promoted to the position of law clerk at a salary, I think, of $1,900.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Hansard last year received $1,500.


Haughton Lennox: I am not in favour of 'cutting salaries too low, particularly, as some one suggests, in the case of a lawyer, but what I point out is that I understood the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) to so say some little time ago that $1,400 was the initial salary for this service. In that case I think it is unreasonable to start this gentleman at $1,925 ; if his predecessor was receiving $2,100, the difference of $175 seems to be very slight. I am not in a position to say it is wrong, but I call the attention of the minister to it.


Mr. BOYD.: I want to know if the minister has received any communications from the maintenance of -way employees on other roads, that is the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Men, in regard to the rates paid to that class of men on the Intercolonial Railway. I understand that the rate paid on the Intercolonial Railway is less than that paid oh the other roads. I want to know if the minister has received any resolutions or applications for an increase so as to bring the rate of wages up to that paid to the same class of employees on other roads. This is a very important class of work and I think these men are possibly *quite as much entitled to an increase as some of those whom the hon. minister is looking after at the present time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The information received by my hon. friend is certainly very inaccurate. The facts are exactly the reverse. The Intercolonial Railway is paying more to trackmen 'than any other road in eastern Canada-I do not speak of the west, because there is a higher standard there ; a dollar means more in the east than in the west. I have received no communications from any organization but if I did receive any they could only represent what is the fact ; that the petitioners were not receiving as much pay as those on the Intercolonial Railway doing similar service.


Nathaniel Boyd: I wish to read some resolutions that have been sent to me in regard to the matter, so that the minister will be able to see the reason I have in bringing the matter to his attention :
To the government of the Dominion of Canada.
The following resolution was put and carried unanimously :-
That we, the members of subordinate Lodge No. 145 of the International Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way employees (employees on the central division of the Canadian Pacific Railway), do heartily favour an increase of wages to all the maintenance of way employees on our government railways so that the purchasing power of their wages will be equal to what it was a few years ago.
And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to our Dominion government through our representative, Mr. N. Bbyd, M.P.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When is that dated.


Nathaniel Boyd: One of these resolutions is dated September 21, 1903.


William Stevens Fielding: This subject has been dealt with, I think, about that time.


Nathaniel Boyd: I have another one here which I shall also read, so that it may be on record for the minister to see.
Moved by Brother Woolsey, seconded by Brother J. Wilson, that we, the members of Minnedosa Division No. 163 of Maintenance of Way Employees of America, assembled, do by unanimous vote desire to place on record that we strongly disapprove of the low scale of wages paid hy the government roads of Canada to the maintenance of way employees, such wages being below the wages paid hy other Canadian roads for same class of labour, and we wish as voters to enlist your aid both in the House and out of it towards rectifying this injustice.
I have a letter very strongly urging me to bring this matter to the attention of the government, and, if necessary to urge it in the House. If the matter has been attended to, it will remove the necessity for my doing so. But I would ask the minister to tell me what the wages are, so that I may make a comparison.


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Railways has stated that he did not receive these communications. But I may explain that while I- was acting minister of that department, I received probably these very communications, certainly some communication of the same tenor. This was some months ago. The matter was then under consideration. In fact, it had been referred to in the discussions of last session and intimation had been given that it would be inquired into at the close of the session. It was inquired into and the wages of the maintenance of way employees, trackmen as they are usually called, were increased.


Nathaniel Boyd: What was the increase ?


William Stevens Fielding: The ordinary trackmen were receiving $1.30, and this was increased to $1.40. and the section foremen received a corresponding increase. I think this is above the wages paid by any of the great railways of Canada. In case of other branches of the railway service I was willing to take the expenditure of other railways where the men were getting paid at a more advanced * figure than those on the government road.

But, I thought that in the ease of the trackmen who were lowest in the scale of pay in the service, we need not take the scale of the other railways, but that $1.30, the amount we were then giving, was rather low, and, irrespective of what other railways paid we should advance it to $1.40. That was done some months ago. And, as I am reminded by an hon. friend, in some sections, I believe the amount was made $1.50, a distinction being made with regard to the various grades of stations, so that, .under certain conditions, there was an increase to $1.50.
Civil Government-Department of Railways and Canals-contingencies :-
Printing and stationery	$5,000
Contingencies	 3,000


Haughton Lennox: We should have some explanation of this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the same vote as last year-the usual vote.


Haughton Lennox: That is not sufficient. Is all last year's vote expended ? In these cases. I think we had better go back to the practice of some years ago and get an explanation from the minister of what the money is for. It can hardly be taken for granted that because $S,000 was required last year therefore $8,000 will be required this year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the usual vote. For the year ending 30th June 1903, the amount spent on printing and stationery was $0,061.98 and on contingencies $2,439.37. So, the amount of the vote was exceeded and I think that a supplementary vote has been asked for to meet the expenditure.


Haughton Lennox: This shows the utility of asking for information. It is very clear and very satisfactory. We have, had $6,000 odd spent on printing and stationery-no separation made between the items of printing and stationery-and $2,000 odd for something else making a total of $8,000. Now, what could be more satisfactory 7 And, if we had not asked we would not have received this information.


Mr. MONK.: What proportion of this printing is done outside of the Printing Bureau ? . I see that last year a considerable amount was done for the department by newspaper offices in different parts of the country.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is all done in the Printing Bureau.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was the report of the department this year done in the Printing Bureau ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, so I am informed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This vote, I take it, applies to the office here. But the printing on the Mr. FIELDING. '
Intercolonial such as folders and all the other printing


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not in this vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But is the minister able to say what proportion of the general printing required for the Intercolonial is done outside the Printing Bureau ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The folders, &c\, have to be done in offices that are in touch with the central offices at Moncton.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would it not be possible for the printing, of which, as I see by the Auditor General's Report, there is a large amount, to be done in the Printing Bureau ? Why is not the printing done here ? I see that it is spread over most of the newspaper organs of the hon. gentlemen opposite in the maritime provinces, sometimes under contract and sometimes without any contract. In consequence of this, a difficulty arose last year between the Auditor General and the employees of my hon. friend's (Mr. Emmer-son's) department.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think it would be possible to have this printing done here. But I shall be prepared to discuss that question under the proper item. I do not think the subject properly arises under this item.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that discussion might properly arise under this item as this relates to printing for the department. However, my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) may desire to get information on the subject.. I will raise the question again on another item. There is another point I wish to speak about, though it does not exactly concern printing. The minister will remember that we had some correspondence in regard to the abandonment to the town of Lachine of the use of the old canal bank there. The bank is not now used by the government. As I explained in the correspondence that I had with the minister on behalf of the municipality, this canal bank has become an eyesore, and. now that the summer holidays are beginning, the authorities of Lachine are extremely anxious to obtain the use-during pleasure, of course -of that canal bank, in order to give it a more creditable appearance. I made a similar application a few years, ago, but, at that time there was an obstacle in the way in the shape of a projected railway to pass through. That obstacle has been removed, and, as the minister knows, there is no reason at all why the authorities of Lachine should not have a favourable answer to their repeated representations. I merely wish to inquire, as we are now getting into July, whether it would not be possible to grant their request.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That lease could only be entered into by an Order in Council ap-

proved by His Excellency. The matter is now under consideration, and I hope it will be concluded before long. Besides, that matter does not come under the present vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I know that. But in a matter of this kind I do not think we are obliged, in discussing the estimates, to confine ourselves absolutely to the item under discussion. I think we have a right to urge any grievance we have, or any complaint, before we vote the amount. I have not bothered my hon. friend unduly with regard to that question. It seems to me such a simple question that there must be some extraordinary reason for not concluding it when the town at present is so urgent. When the matter was taken up three or four years ago there was some objection, I think" there was a line of railway projected through there, but that objection has been removed. From the correspondence I had with my hon. friend I understood that it was merely a matter of routine, of getting the Order in Council through, and giving the town of Lachine the intimation and passing that lease, as my hon. friend stated a moment ago. I would like to know if there is any cause for this delay, beyond the ush'al icause that a certain time is required to pass it through Council, because the town of Lachine desires to improve, embellish and arrange that whole canal bank before tbe summer is finished.


Peter Macdonald: I think we had better not pursue this discussion further, as it is outside the item before the committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to have your ruling on that point.


Peter Macdonald: My ruling is this, that when a resolution is before the committee, the committee can, if they choose, discuss the whole resolution in a general way, but when they have taken up a particular item, relevancy is one of the rules that govern the discussion, and when the item is passed it cannot be referred to any more. We cannot discuss any question outside the proposition, before the committee unless the committee is willing to allow an irrelevant discussion to go on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If you rule that, upon an item in the minister's department, I am not entitled to ascertain the cause of the delay in this instance, I shall have to bow to your ruling.


Peter Macdonald: There will probably be some other item under which the hon. gentleman can bring this subject up.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I merely wanted to know on behalf of my constituency if this matter will he concluded before it is too late.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have had some correspondence ou the matter, it is now
being considered in the department, and I. think we will reach finality with respect to.
It within a very short time. I am endeavouring to dispose of it as speedily as possible. There has been a great deal of work in the department in its relation to the-executive council, but as soon as this matter can be disposed of, I "will answer my hon.. friend, and I hope it will be very soon.


Thomas Birkett: I see there is an item here for contingencies, although the amount is very small, and I would like to take oc-cassion to call the attention of the minister to the condition of the bridges across the Rideau icanal between upper and lower town. The Sappers' bridge particularly is in a deplorable condition.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are in the Public Works Department.


Thomas Birkett: But these bridges cross tlie Rideau canal, and the hon. gentleman's department lias charge of canals. It is possible that the Improvement Commissioners have them In charge. But they are government property, and I thought well to bring tbe matter before the attention of the government. The bridges are certainly in a deplorable condition, they are not safe so far as the- sidewalks are concerned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed that these bridges are under the charge of the Public Works Department.


John Graham Haggart: The Sappers' bridge used to be under tbe control of tlie Rideau canal, it was built by the Rideau canal authorities, and was under their control. It may have passed over to the Public Works Department-, but I do not know how.
Intercolonial Railway-to increase accommodation at Sydney, $86,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a revote of $72,000. There was an appropriation for 1903-4 of $97,000. The estimated expenditure out of that sum up to the 30th June is $25,000 requiring therefore, a revote of $72,000. Then there is an extra amount which will be required for moving certain buildings. grading the station grounds, rearranging the tracks and for certain land and legal expenses in connection therewith totalling $14,000. This makes $86,000 which we will require for the purpose of increasing the accommodation at Sydney.


Haughton Lennox: What is the total estimated expenditure necessary to complete the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total expenditure for improved and increased accommodation at Sydney beginning with 1896 down to June 30. 1903, is $387,771.73. Then the ex-nenditure from June 30, 1903, to May 1, 1904, was $11,107.37, making a total of $398,879.10, so that the total estimated cost of improved

and increased accommodation at Sydney Will be $498,771.73.


Haughton Lennox: That will leave $100,000 yet to be expended ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: What is the reason that so very little of the money appropriated last year was spent ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was so late in the season it was found inexpedient to have the work carried on. The work involves the construction of a new station and general improvements around and about it and the work could not be carried on at that time of the year.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the bon. minister will be able to give the expenditure on capital account for last year. In this whole item of the Intercolonial Railway there is a revote of $036,485, appropriations not required for 1894-5 amounting to $2,034,084.84 and a total appropriation of $3,717,284.84. Deducting $2,034,084.84 the total amount chargeable to capital account with Intercolonial Railway alone was over a million dollars. Is that not so ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to ask what the total expenditure on the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway was up to the end of last year ?


John Graham Haggart: Up to the end of 1903-4. You say that you only- have the returns up to the 31st May.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the total expenditure but I have promised to furnish it. I could not very well get it this evening as the clerks were not in the office but I will give the hon. gentleman the total expenditure up to June 30, 1903, chargeable to oapital account.


John Graham Haggart: We have that but we want the expenditure for 1903-4, the amount voted last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is for the current year ending the 30th June, 1904 ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will furnish that information to-morrow.


John Graham Haggart: But the hon. gentleman has given us one item of expenditure up to the 31st May, the expenditure at Sydney. The( total amount of the revote is $636,485 and the appropriations not required for 1904-5, $2,034,084.84. Deduct this amount from the appropriations for 1903-4 and it leaves over $1,000,000 chargeable to capital account alone, that the Intercolonial Railway have expended up to 31st May or up to the 1st July. That is correct, is it not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: If I follow the hon. gentleman I think that would be it. I can give him the total up to the end of April of the actual expenditure on capital account. It it $1,362,070.38.


John Graham Haggart: On capital account for ten months ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On capital account for ten months.


John Graham Haggart: On the Intercolonial
Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: Well, then you have nothing to expend for May and June. You see that there is an amount at your disposal of about a million dollars.


Samuel Barker: 


John Graham Haggart: This $1,046,000 you have expended in ten months and you must have something to expend in the next two months.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total amount appropriated on capital account to the Intercolonial Railway for 1903-4 was $3,717,284.84.


John Graham Haggart: That is right.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have expended up to the end of April of that sum $1,362,070.38.


John Graham Haggart: But does not the hon. minister see this ? You ask for a revote of $663,4S5. You say that you do not require of last year's appropriations, $2,034,084.84.


William Stevens Fielding: That does not apply to the past year. That does not mean that that amount is not required for the year for which it is voted. It means that similar works are not required for the coming year. The amount is not required for 1904-5.


John Graham Haggart: It is not required for 1904-5 but it is not expended under the vote of 1903-4.


Samuel Barker: This is the part of the vote that is not required.


William Stevens Fielding: These words do not put any limitation on the expenditures of the past year. They only make a comparison between the two years. There are various sums which were not required to be repeated and which total up to the amount stated, but these words do not put any limitation on the minister's expenditure for the past year.


John Graham Haggart: You took a vote for 1903-4 on capital account of $3,717,284.84 for railways and canals. You state that of that $3,717,284.84 you do not require $2,034,-084.S4.


William Stevens Fielding: No, we do not say anything of the kind.

591&


John Graham Haggart: It says :	' appropriations not required for 1904-5.'


William Stevens Fielding: Exactly ; similar votes are not required for the coming year.


John Graham Haggart: Any way the minister will give me at the next meeting of the committee the expenditure to the 31st of May, and the estimated expenditure on capital account for the next month hoth on the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island railways and all the other works that will be under discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister had his attention directed to a resolution passed by the Sydney Board of Trade and endorsed by the Halifax Board of Trade, with respect to a night train between Halifax, Sydney and North Sydney ? The resolution cl' the" Halifax Board of Trade passed last March, is as follows
That the Halifax Board of Trade approves the resolution of the Sydney Board of Trade regarding the immediate need of a night train between Halifax, Sydney and North Sydney, and that it urges the Intercolonial Railway authorities to grant the demand for the same as soon as they are able to do so.
Has this matter been under consideration and if so with what result?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I received a copy of this resolution from the Halifax and Sydney Board of Trade. The question has been very carefully considered both by the Intercolonial Railway management and myself. There are now two daily trains from Sydney ; one in the early morning and the other at mid-day, and these trains are found very convenient for the people on the intermediate stations all along the line. There are many good reasons why we should have a night train ; it would convenience a limited few so far as I could judge from the facts, but the present traffic would not justify three trains daily, and taking into consideration the convenience to the greatest number it was thought that 'it would not he advisable to substitute a night train for one of the day trains.


Mr. KENDALL.: I entirely endorse the decision of the department in this matter. It would be very inconvenient for tlie travelling public generally if one of these day trains was taken off and run at night. I would remind the minister that there is1 a fast freight running between Halifax and Sydney, and probably wifhout any great additional expense, a sleeping car could be attached to that train. This, for some time at least would meet the requirements of night travel.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does the freight train leave at night ?


Arthur Samuel Kendall: No; the hour would have to be changed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One difficulty in running a night train is the additional expense of crossing the Straits. We hope the traffic will grow sa that it will justify the putting on of a night train, but at present that is not the case.
Intercoolnial Railway-to strengthen bridges, $385,000.
Mr. BARKER, We should have some explanation of this. Will this vote close the whole item for strengthening bridges, or is this to be continued from year to year?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This vote does not complete the transformation.


Samuel Barker: How much is there to come ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total expenditure under this head from the commencement of the work in June. 1899. down to the 30th of June, 1903, was $867,101.04. and the expenditure from the 30th of June to the 1st |of May was $1G1.683.93. In addition to that, there is a superstructure for the southwest portion of the Miramichi bridge, $55,303.20; and a new- superstructure across the Restigouche river, $93,965.08. making a total to the 1st of May of $310,932.81, and a total expenditure of $1,178,084.45.


Samuel Barker: I asked how much the hon. minister would require to complete the strengthening of all these bridges ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost of strengthening the bridges, exclusive of the Oxford and New Glasgow and Cape Breton Railway is $1,759,000. The larger class of engines are not in use on these railways at present, and it will not be immediately necessary to make the change in the bridges. '


Samuel Barker: Will the bon. gentleman now tell us how much of this appropriation of $385,000 there will be yet required to complete this expenditure of $1,759,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is estimated that the amount required for 1904-5 will be $280,000.


Samuel Barker: There was an attempt made last year to find out where we were going to wind up with this expenditure for the strengthening of bridges. This is what was said :


John Graham Haggart: 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 that this appropriation for the year will probably finish the work, but the general manager says it will take another year. There will he 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 hand.


Mr. INGRAM.: For the total repairs of bridges ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For strength-[DOT]ening the bridges.
I think the committee last year understood that they were getting some idea from the Minister of Finance of where we were going to wind up in this expenditure on [DOT]capital account for strengthening bridges ; but I find that although that $165,000 has been spent, the hon. gentleman now asks us for $385,000 for this year and tells us that we shall have $280,000 afterwards. The Finance Minister may have had something lit his mind different from what we had, but certainly I think the House was led to believe that we were approaching the end of this expenditure. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways if he will state the names of the particular bridges that are yet to be strengthened and the amount that will be required for each bridge. It is necessary to get that, I think, otherwise there will never apparently be an end to this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: To save time I will furnish my hon. friend with a statement of that.


Samuel Barker: My object is to get it on ' Hansard, ' if it is not too long, because that is the only way we can keep trace of it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will give a list of forty bridges for which the Dominion Bridge Company has a contract. I can give the names of the bridges, but not the exact amount required for each bridge. I could probably furnish that later.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister will not expect us to pass the item until we get the fullest information.


Samuel Barker: The Finance Minister will see how necessary it is that we should have the figares.


William Stevens Fielding: That is fair ; I do not object to that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not give the cost with respect to each particular bridge *at this time, and it may be necessary to allow the item to stand, or, if my hon. friends will pass the item, I will furnish the particular information and place it on ' Hansard. '


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister is a little innocent. We have had promises of that kind before. I have no doubt he intends to fulfil his 'promise, and give a new example, but I do not think we can trust him.


Samuel Barker: We have discussed fhe strengthening of these bridges for two or -three years. Last year a certain bridge was said not to be worn out, but was transferred to the Prince Edward Island Railway. We were not able to ascertain last Mr. BARKER.
year what credit was given to the Intercolonial Railway for that bridge taken to the Prince Edward Island Railway or to get any information as to what wTas done when an old bridge was taken into stores and afterwards sold. The Finance Minister was quite certain that when it was taken into stores and sold that amount was credited to capital account, but lie was unable then (o give us his assurance that that had been done in any previous case although he was quite sure that it was going to be done in the particular case he was speaking of. But the time had net yet come for him to do it and he could not show the credit. Perhaps some of th se bridges were dealt with last year and the present minister will be able to tell the committee when it is up again exactly what was done with any bridges that were taken into stores last year or sent over to the Prince Edward Island Railway and placed there. Was the value of those bridges credited to capital account ? Although the Minister of Finance said that was the practice, to charge the new bridge to capital and to credit capital with the value of the old bridge, I do not wish to be understood as conceding for a moment that that is the proper way to deal with it. I think it is just as objectionable to deal with the bridges in that way as to deal with rails in the way this government 'has been dealing with them since 1896. It is cheating capital account for the benefit of revenue. What the Finance Minister thought was going to be done last year in some instances would have had the effect of increasing the revenue and adding to the capital debt of the road. Supposing an old bridge cost originally $100,000 and that the hon. gentleman, when renewing it, had to put up a better bridge in order to carry the heavier locomotives, erected a bridge costing $120,000 and sold the cld bridge for $50,000. Now as I understand, the hon. gentleman charges the $120,000 to capital and credits capital with $50,000 blit the hon. gentleman must see that if he were not 'increasing the weight of the bridge but simply substituting another $100,000 bridge he would have to charge the whole $100,000 to revenue and credit revenue with the $5,000 and. therefore, his revenue account would have lost $50,000 by the renewal of that bridge. By liis method he escapes such a charge altogether and this practice makes a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. In fact, he has kept his account with reference to steel rails and old bridges in such a way that it is absolutely impossible to find out the amount of the deficit of each year which should take the place of the small profits he has been claiming. There is no doubt that in the case I am speaking of. a betterment of $20,000, that amount should be dealt with as a betterment. the $20,000 being charged to capital account, and the remainder, or $100,000 dealt

With as a renewal of the old bridge, chargeable against revenue account, less the value of the old material or bridge taken out. The hon. gentleman did not seem last year to consider this worthy of his consideration.
To increase accommodation at Levis, $17,000.
. Mr. BMMEBSON. The amount asked -this year is $17,000 of which $12,000 is a revote. It is for completing i'he concrete platforms and1 curves and tank and some [DOT]electric wiring which with the engineering will bring the whole amount to $17,000.


Haughton Lennox: Will that complete it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total expenditure on the station at Point Lfivis.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total expenditure Tor increased accommodation for the commencement of the work June 30th, 1897, [DOT]down to the 1st of May, 1904, is $360,380.44, and Phe total estimated cost in connection with the increased accommodation at Levis was $393,000.


John Graham Haggart: What was the total expenditure in that statement?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given the total, $360,380.44.


John Graham Haggart: That is for increased accommodation ; I wanted to know the total expenditure at Point Levis.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is impossible to give that because it was all voted in the sum for the purchase of the St. Charles brai cii and dees not appear in the accounts as the Levis terminals. [DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: It seems a very large sum. How much does the station, for example, cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot give the exact cost of the station ; it is not so much the expenditure on the station as in connection with the restricted area at Lfivis. As we all know the space between the bluff and the water's edge is very narrow and the arrangement of the tracks and t*he making :of the changes has been very expensive. The expenditure in connection with the station lias not been so very large although it is a very efficient and convenient station.


John Graham Haggart: ' Enormous ' is the proper word.


Robert Laird Borden: The area may be restricted but the expenditure certainly is not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The more restricted the area, the more difficult it is to restrict the expenditure.


Robert Laird Borden: Coujd the minister not give us some idea as to the expenditure upon the building itself?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not give it tonight, but I will to-morrow.
Air-brakes to freight cars, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: How many freight cars will that furnish ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 500 cars at an average cost of $50 a car.


Robert Laird Borden: How many are equipped with air-brakes now?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Box cars, 5,279 ; all classes of cars, 9,782. Equipped with air brakes to 30th June, 1903, 0,030 ; total then to be equipped, 3,752. We estimate to be equipped during the year 1903-4, 500.


Robert Laird Borden: When new ears are bought are they equipped with the sijr brakes, or does the railway equip them afterwards ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are all equipped with air brakes.


Robert Laird Borden: How many more are there to be equipped ? (


Henry Robert Emmerson: As estimated, 3,752. We take about 500 each year.


Samuel Barker: How many were equipped last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Five hundred.


Samuel Barker: According to ' Hansard ' of last year, at June 30th, 1903, you had 3,672 to be equipped. If you equipped 500 last year that would leave 3,172.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was 3,752 at the 30th June, 1903.


Samuel Barker: According to ' Hansard ' it was 3.672.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Never mind.


Samuel Barker: This was the Finance Minister's statement, and surely we should take that. Did the minister buy any cars during 1904 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: How many freight cars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed that there were 207 box cars, but I have not the figures as to the others, but I can get the information for the hon. gentleman.


Samuel Barker: I should be glad if the minister would furnish a statement showing how many new freight cars have been purchased with the brake equipment, and also how many cars out of service have been rebuilt and equipped. I want to see, in fact, how he used this $25,000 voted last year for this purpose. The same question would apply to the next item, that of draw-bars on freight cars ; and, perhaps, these two items had better stand until we get that information.


COMMQNS
[Stage Direction]
To exchange draw-bars of freight cars, $45,000.
Henry Robert Emmerson: The cost per car for the draw-bars is about $40. We are asking this year for $45,000 to provide draw-bars for 1,125 cars. The total expenditure for exchanging draw-bars from the commencement of the work to 30th June. 1903, is $105,000, and for the eleven months ending 31st May, 1904, $32,643.31.


Mr. E. L. BOIIDEN.: What is a draw-bar?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is the arrangement by which the cars are attached together- the coupler. There is a standard draw-bar used all over the continent. It is necessary to have your cars equipped with that standard draw-bar, in order that the cars may be transferred to other roads.


Robert Laird Borden: How many cars are furnished with the standard draw-bar, and how many are still to be equipped ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The work has been going on for some time, and each year there is a vote to equip cars with the standard draw-bar.


Robert Laird Borden: It is important to know the number, in view of future expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Up to the 30th of June we have changed 6.876, we have a balance to change after June, 1903, of 2,906.< It was estimated that up to the 30th of June last there were to be changed 1,150. That work will probably have been completed. The estimate to be charged to June 30 this year, is 1,756, and we provide by this vote to change 1,125.


John Graham Haggart: Who has the contract for these draw-bars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The draw-bars are furnished by tender and competition, and the work of changing is done in the shops at Moncton. We purchase the draw-bars and do the rest of the work in the shops.


John Graham Haggart: Who is the successful tenderer ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not tell that. Perhaps Mr. Pottinger would know.


John Graham Haggart: Is the hon. gentleman quite sure they were purchased by tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My deputy says so, and that has been the usual course since I came into the department.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the hon. gentleman add this to the list of items on which he is to furnish information, and ask the proper officer ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In connection with this item, could the hon. gentleman inform us as to the amount we have paid for increased ter-Mr. BARKER.
minal facilities to the Grand Trunk Railway at Montreal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is an annual sum, paid yearly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It increases when the facilities are increased ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think any increased sum has been paid this year. No claims of that character have come under my observation yet. Replying to the leader of the opposition, I will give the name of the successful tenderer to-morrow.


Arthur Samuel Kendall: I would also like the minister to be able to tell us to-morrow to what extent side ladders instead of end ladders have been put upon his freight cars; also, if it is to his knowledge that other railway companies in Canada are making a similar provision.


John Graham Haggart: We want the item respecting draw-bars to stand, that we may ascertain who got the contract and when.
New machinery for locomotive and car shops, $31,000.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the total contemplated expenditure ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost for new machinery for the locomotives in the car shops, to the 30th of June, 1905, is $181,247.33. The amount required to keep the shops up to date is estimated to be about $25,000 a year.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total expenditure on toojs and machinery used in these shops ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About $132,000. Since 1888 the total cost of machinery and tools, up to the 1st of May, 1904, has been $131,845.40. Machinery is being placed in ail the shops. In regard to new shops, we have to modernize the machinery and make the tools up to date. It is supposed that the expenditure will average about $25,000 each year for that purpose.


John Graham Haggart: I think the minister must be mistaken. From 1888 to 1904 is sixteen years, and he said the total expenditure for machinery in the shops and the extension of the shops was only $131,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That does not include the shops themselves, only the tools and machinery.


John Graham Haggart: I thought the expenditure was largely in excess of that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It appears not.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will we take up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take up the Railway Bill followed by the motion for supply and my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals will resume his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.	[DOT]
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 5th, 1904.