1904-07-25

Mr. F. D. MONK.: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the government, I would like to move :
That the report of Judge McTavish on the tobacco industry, the evidence taken by him and all documents filed, be printed forthwith, and that rule 99 be suspended for that purpose.
We have before us a very important resolution presented by the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. L. P. Brodeur), the object of which is to remedy the grievances referred to in the commission with which Judge MacTavish was charged. Furthermore, the subject-matter is one which has attracted a great deal of attention, and I think it is highly desirable that the members of this House should be conversant with the results of this commission.


Rt.   H@: I do not want to object to the motion, but I will suggest that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) wait until the Minister of Justice is present in the House. We will see that my hon. friend will have an opportunity of moving this resolution.



CANADIAN PRIZE WINNERS.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister or Militia and Defence).: Before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I desire to refer to a matter which I think is of sufficient importance to be brought to the attention of the House ; that is, the fact that a Canadian, Private Perry, of Vancouver, B.C., has won the King's prize at Bisley camp. Private Perry, I believe, is the first Canadian-born soldier who has won this prize, although this prize was brought to Canada once before ; it was then brought by a citizen of Canada, but not by a man who had been born in this country. Private Perry also served with distinction in South Africa. I had the honour of sending a cablegram, as soon as the news reached Canada, to Private Perry through the commandant of the Bisley team, congratulating him upon his success. I am sure that this is a matter for congratulation upon the part of the militia of this country, on the part of this parliament and on the part of the people of Can ada generally.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: I can heartily endorse, on behalf of the opposition, the statements that have been made by the Minister of Militia, and I may say that I feel proud to know that the former winner of the King's prize was a Canadian citizen, even if he were not a Canadian born. I am not aware that it makes a difference whether a Canadian is born within the bounds of the Dominion or not, so long as he is a good Canadian citizen. We welcome all, they are

not strangers to this country, so long as they become good Canadian citizens. I was a little surprised to see the minister make that distinction.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, get out.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Perry is an old Toronto boy, and has reflected credit on the militia force, both as a member of the Royal Grenadiers of Toronto, of the South Africa corps and of our Bisley rifle team.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I wish to remind the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) that Canada has won even a larger share of honour, for a Canadian-born, although at present connected with the King's Colonials in London, Major Howard, the agent-general of the province of Nova Scotia, has won another of the great prizes at Bisley, the St. George's prize.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: And, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Lou Scholes, a distinguished Canadian of Toronto, has shown himself to be the first oarsman of the world. Although many of our friends opposite come from the sea, we who live inland, on the shores of the great lakes, are expert in the matter of the oar, and we also are proud that our fellow-townsman, Lou Scholes, of Toronto, is one of a trio of Canadians who have distinguished themselves before the whole empire.



TOBACCO COMMISSION.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I may perhaps renew the motion I made in the absence of the right hon. the Prime Minister, as to which the Minister of Finance asked me to wail until the Minister of Justice arrived. It is a motion for the immediate printing of the evidence, &c., taken before the Royal Tobacco Commission. This evidence is of so much importance that I believe it should be circulated, not only amongst the members of this House, but among the large number of people outside this House who take a lively interest in this question.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: For my part, I can see no objection to the motion, but I do not see the necessity for immediate haste. I shall communicate with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, and when motion is made to go into committee my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) will have an opportunity of renewing his motion.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	What was the Canadian rate of postage in 1868 on letters, papers and parcel post ?
2.	What was the rate of postage on letters, papers and parcel post to Great Britain in 1868 ?
3.	What changes in rate of postage on letters, papers and parcel post have been made since 1868 for Canada and Great Britain 7
And what are the dates of increase and decrease ?


Hon.  W. S.@: Mr. Speaker, I find that the answer to this question is altogether too voluminous for the matter to be dealt with in the manner suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) in the way of questions and answer.


EXPERIMENTS WITH TOBACCO.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	Have any portions of the experimental farms been used during the past year for experimentation in tobacco-growing ? If so, what portions, and with what results ?
2.	Have any bulletins been issued from the Department of Agriculture concerning the cultivation, curing and packing of tobacco since 1896 ?
3.	Has the report made by Blaise Duguas on trade with Belgium been printed and circulated by the government ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: 1.	In 1903 about two-thirds of an acre at the Central Farm at Ottawa, was devoted to tobacco ; 51 varieties were tested in small plots, and three of the most popular sorts in larger plots. The very cool season of 1903 was not favourable for the tobacco and it did not fully mature. It was, however, cut and cured and has been used chiefly for spraying for the destruction of insect pests.
2.	A bulletin on tobacco culture, No. 30 of the Experimental Farm series, was prepared by Dr. Wm. Saunders, Director of the Experimental Farms, and published in April, 1898. In this bulletin the following subjects were discussed : The growth of tobacco in Canada. the preparation of the soil, sowing of the seed, planting, cultivation, suckering, saving of seed, insect enemies, harvesting, drying, bulking and earliest and best yielding varieties.
Much information regarding tobacco and its cultivation has been given in the Annual Reports of the Experimental Farms from time to time since 1893, as follows :
Page.
Report of Central Farm for 1893-
Experiments with tobacco	121
Hints on tobacco culture	124
Analysis of leaves and stems	 124
Harvesting and curing tobacco	125
Report of Central Farm for 1895-
Experiments with tobacco	130
Report of Central Farm for 1896-
Hints on culture of tobacco	179
When to cut tobacco	 [DOT] [DOT] 179
Growing tobacco for special purposes .. 180
Cigar wrappers and fillers	180
Report of Central Farm for 1897-
Experiments with tobacco	 [DOT][DOT] 131
Effects of fertilisers on tobacco	131
Transplanting experiments	131
Topping and pruning	132

Report of Central Farm for 1898-
Results of testing of 35 varieties of
tobacco	118
(With particulars as to cultivation, also dates of topping, total weight of first grade leaves, weight of second grade dried leaves, weight of third grade dried leaves and total weight per acre.) Report of Central Farm for 1899-
Results of testing 48 varieties of tobacco in small plots, 1J acres being devoted to three of the most promising varieties	115
Report of the Central Farm for 1900-
Results of the tests of 56 varieties of * tobacco, six of which were grown in field plots and dried and cured in the
tobacco house	137
Report of the Central Farm for 1901- Results of a trial of 46 varieties of tobacco, including particulars as to their growth and treatment, with the yield of the different varieties per acre for three years ; also a special report on the best six varieties under test .. .. 125
In all these experiments particular attention has been given to the relative earliness, yield and quality of the different sorts under test.
Similar experiments were conducted in 1902, and 1903, and are now in progress for 1904, and the results of these three years' trial will be given in the Report for 1904.
Experiments in the growing of tobacco have also been made at the branch experimental farms, one of which is located at each of the following points : Nappan, Nova Scotia ; Brandon, Manitoba ; Indian Head, Northwest Territories and Agassiz, British Columbia ; and the results have been given in the Annual Reports of the Experimental Farms. This information will be found in the Reports for 1896, 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1901.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-EMPLOYMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Sam. Hughes-asked :
1.	Did any of the members of the government receive a copy of a resolution passed by the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers at its annual meeting in Montreal on the 25th, 26th and 27th of January last, requesting that only Canadian engineers or British subjects be employed on the surveys and construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ?
2.	What members of the government received such copies, and oh what dates ?
Rt.   H@: No record can be found of the receipt of such resolution by any member of the government.



AYLMER, ONT., CUSTOMS OUT-PORT.

Mr. INGRAM asked :: In what year was the customs out-port established at Aylmer, Ontario ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: In the year 1892.



PORT BURWELL HARBOUR WORKS.

Mr INGRAM asked :: 1.	What was the total expenditure by the government on the harbour of Port Burwell from 30th June, 1891, to 30th June, 1896, including expenses in connection with engineering 7
2.	What is the amount expended yearly since 30th June, 1891, to 30th June, 1896 7


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	There was no expenditure.
2.	Same as number one.



PORT STANLEY HARBOUR WORKS.

Mr. INGRAM asked :: 1.	What was the total expenditure by the government on the harbour of Port Stanley since the 30th June, 1891, up to 30th June, 1896.
2.	What is the amount expended yearly since 30th June, 1891, to 30th June, 1896 7


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$9,593.42.
2.	In 1891-2, $4,999,96 ; 1892-3, $1,879.01 ; 1893-4, $1,784.74 ; 1894-5, $929.71 ; 1895-6, no expenditure.



MANITOBA VOTERS' LISTS.

Mr. BOYD asked :: Has the King's Printer of Manitoba been asked for a copy of the voters' lists recently revised in that province 7


Rt.   H@: An official comunication was sent to the Provincial Secretary for the province of Manitoba calling his attention to the provisions of section 10 of the Frnchise Act and requesting him to forward to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certified copy of the lists as finally revised and inquiring whether revised lists had been printed.
The following answer has been received by telegraph Saturday, July 23rd :-' Additions to voters' lists" will not be printed, but certified copies of additions, corrections and erasures are being made and will be mailed on Monday.' (Sd.) D. H. Mc-Fadden, Provincial Secretary.



PUBLIC WORKS AT GRAND BEND, ONT.

Mr. SHERRITT asked :: 1.	Were the plans for the public works at Grand Bend, Ontario, changed after the appropriation voted last year, or after tenders were asked for 7 If so, when and for what cause 7
2.	Is the contract let 7 If so, to whom, and for what sum 7
3.	What depth of -water will be secured when the work is completed 7
4.	If the plans were changed after tenders were received, were the several parties tender-

ing notified and afforded an opportunity of tendering again ?
5.	Was the above contract let by tender ? If not, why not ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No changes were made in the plans, but in March, 1004, in order to reduce the cost, it was decided not. to build cribs Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12.
2.	Yes; to Mr. John D. Warwick, for $21,388.
3.	Eleven feet at outer end of crib No. 8.
4.	See No. 1.
5.	Yes.



EMPLOYMENT OF E. P. EASTMAN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FOWLER-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
1.	Is it true, as rumoured, that one E. P. Eastman has been appointed as a commissioner, or in some other, and what capacity, to the World's Fair at St. Louis ?
2.	If so, is the government aware that the said E. P. Eastman is an American by citizenship, never having, though a resident of Canada for some years, become a British subject ?
3.	What salary and allowances does the said Eastman receive for his services, if so employed ?
William Stevens Fielding: Speaking for the Minister of Agriculture, I beg to say :
1.	E. P. Eastman has been engaged to render such service as may be required of him by the Canadian Exhibition Commissioner at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition at St. Louis. His principal duties so far have been to assist in the arrangement of exhibits, and to give information to the inquiring public concerning the resources of the Dominion in general and certain exhibits assigned to him in particular.
2.	No. The said Eastman is a British subject by naturalization.
3.	Seven dollars per day in all, including expenses.



SIR ELZEAR TASCHEREAU AND THE DISMISSAL OF LORD DUNDONALD.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Sam. Hughes-asked :
1.	Has the government taken any steps to ascertain whether Sir Eizear Taschereau, Chief Justice of Canada, was accurately reported in the following cable interview, which appeared in the Canadian newspapers on Wednesday last, July 20th :-
* London, July 19.-Sir Eizear Taschereau says he is indignant that political capital is being made out of the Dundonald affair. The * Times ' is loaded up by Ottawa Tory sources. A few Scotchmen are back of the whole agitation, and he cannot see how the British government, if alive to its own interests, can fail to recall Lord Dundonald before the end of the week ' ?
2.	If so, does the Chief Justice admit the accuracy of the interview in question ?
3.	If no action has yet been taken by the government to ascertain the accuracy of the above interview, is it the intention of the government to take action ?
Rt.   H@: The answer to this question is no.


Samuel Hughes: I am not aware that the right hon. gentleman has answered question 3. Is it the intention of the government to take any action ?
Sir 'WILFRID LAURIER. I answered no.


Samuel Hughes: No covered the whole question.
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Sam. Hughes-asked :
1.	Has the government taken any steps, and if so, of what nature, to ascertain whether His Lordship, Sir Eizear Taschereau, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, sailed from Liverpool on Thursday last on the steamship ' Ionian ' ? If so, what is his destination ?
2.	Has any communication been received by the government from Sir Eizear Taschereau, or from the Canadian High Commissioner in London, or from any other official or person, respecting the departure of Sir Eizear Taschereau from England ?
3.	Were all the Canadian cases pending for decision by the Judicial Committee of the King's Privy Council disposed of before the departure of Sir Ezear Taschereau from England ?
4.	Did the government give permission to Sir Ezear Taschereau to leave England before the disposal of the cases above mentioned by the Imperial Privy Council ?
5.	Has Sir Elzdar Taschereau tendered his resignation to the government as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada ?


Rt.   H@: Tbe same answer.



PURCHASE OF TOW-BOAT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEONARD-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has the Department of Public Works, or any person for the government, purchased a tow-boat from Messrs. Laperriere & FrSres, or from any other person at Pierreville, in the county of Yamaska ?
2.	From whom was such tow-boat purchased ?
3.	What price was paid ?
4.	What value had been placed on it by the expert, or the experts, appointed for that purpose ?
5.	Upon what basis did the department fix the price so paid ?
Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: 1.	Yes.
2.	From Mr. Conrad Daneau.
3.	$13,000.
4.	$15,200.
5.	The price of $13,000 was asked by the owner, and upon the report of the expert, it was agreed to be fair and reasonable.



GRAND RIVER DREDGING.

Mr. LANCASTER asked :: 1. What is the appropriation for dredging the Grand river between Dunville and Port Maitland ?
' 2. How many hours did the dredge work at Such dredging during the years 1903 and 1904 ?
3.	What payments have been made for such work, and to whom were such payments made, and at what date ?
4.	Who is the time-keeper or inspector in charge of or superintending and checking the amount of work done ?
5.	Who is the person or firm doing the work, and when was the agreement or contract therefor made ?
6.	Was the work advertised or let by tender, and if so, when ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	There is no special appropriation.
2.	1,857 hours.
3.	Paid C. S. Boone, on January 14, 1904, $10,161.
4.	Mr. Hugh Boyle.
5.	Dredging done by Mr. C. S. Boone, under agreement of September 15, 1903.
6.	By agreement made September 15, 1903.



PURCHASE OF THE CANADA EASTERN RAILWAY.

Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House do to-morrow go into committee to consider the following proposed resolutions :
1. That it is expedient-
(a.) To authorize the Governor in Council to purchase from the Alexander Gibson Railway and Manufacturing Company, and to authorize the said company to sell and convey to His Majesty, the whole of the railway and undertaking formerly belonging to the Canada Eastern Railway Company, but now vested in the Alexander Gibson Railway and Manufacturing Company, the same having been sold, transferred and assigned to that company, pursuant to and by virtue of chapter 59 of the statutes of 1898, including the main and branch lines of the said railways and all buildings, fixtures and appurtenances appertaining thereto, together with all the rights, franchises, powers, privileges and property held or exercisable in respect thereof or in connection therewith ; and that upon such purchase being effected the said railways and its branch lines shall become and form part of the government railway system and be operated as such.
(b.) That it be made a condition of such purchase that the said railway and undertaking shall be conveyed to His Majesty free and clear from all charges, liens and encumbrances affecting the same under or by virtue or in respect of any mortgages, bonds, debentures, preference stocks, or other securities or otherwise howsoever.
(c.) That authority be given for the payment for the, said railway and undertaking and other property as aforesaid, out of any unappropriated moneys forming part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of $800,000.


Mr. HYMAN.: 2. That whereas the Fredericton and Saint Mary's Railway Bridge Company has made default in payment of the advances of money paid to it by the Governor in Council under the statutes of 1887, chapter 26, and of interest thereon, which said advances and interest were made a first charge and lien and were duly secured by a mortgage on all the property, real and personal, of the Bridge Company, and by reason of such default all the property, real and personal, and all the rights, franchises, easements and privileges of the said Bridge Company became by virtue of the said last-mentioned Act and mortgage forfeited to the Crown, it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council, by his officers or agents, to enter and take possession of the said property, rights, franchises, easements and privileges on behalf of His Majesty, and operate the same or any portions thereof as part of the government railway system.
Motion agreed to.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Commitee of Supply.
Steam service between Victoria and San Francisco, $5,000.
['FIELDING (Minister of Finance) presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General.', u"Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER read the message as follows :\nMinto.\nThe Governor General transmits to the House o\xa3 Commons, further supplementary estimates of sums required for the services of the Dominion for the year ending 30th June, 1905, and in accordance with the provisions of ' The British North America Act, 1867 ' the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.\nGovernment House,\nOttawa, July 25, 1904.\nThe MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the.message of Has Excellency toge-theBjrwiti the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply."]
Mr. BENNETT.: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman a question relative to another department. Is Mr. J. J. Jackson, formerly of Woodstock, now in the employ of the government, and where ?


Rt.   H@: He is, but I would suggest to my hon. friend to bring that up under the heading of commercial agencies.


William Humphrey Bennett: When will that be reached ?
Sir RICHARD) CARTWRIGHT. I hope very shortly.	[DOT]
Steam communication between Halifax and Newfoundland via Cape Breton ports, $2,000.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: This steamer calls at a number of ports. It makes fourteen trips in the year.
Steam communication during the seasou c-f 1904, i.e., from the opening to the closing of navigation, between the Mainland and the Magdalen Islands, $15,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This
service was formerly weekly and is now semi-weekly.
Steam communication during the season of 1904, i.e., from the opening to the closing of navigation, beween Prince Edward Island and the Mainland, $12,500.


Richard John Cartwright: This
service is conducted by the Charlottetown Steam Navigation Company via Northumberland. It is the same vote as last year.
Steam communication from July 1, 1904, to June 30, 1905, between Grand Manan and the Mainland, $5,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This boat calls at a number of points. It is the same contract as heretofore and expires 1906.
Steam communication for not less than 52 full round weekly trips between St. John and Halifax via Yarmouth and other way ports from July 1st, 1904, to June 30th, 1905, $10,000.


Richard John Cartwright: The contractor is Messrs. Thompson & Co., of St. John.
Steam communication during the season of 1904, i.e., from the opening to the closing of navigation, between St. John and Minas Basin ports, $3,000.


Richard John Cartwright: Fifty-two full round trips must be made every year. It is a weekly service.
Steam communication from July 1, 1904, to June 30, 1905, between Pictou, Murray Harbour, Georgetown and Montague Bridge, $1,200.


Richard John Cartwright: This is with the Three Rivers Steamship Company. They call at each point in Murray Harbour.
Steam communication from July 1, 1904, to June 30, 1905, between Quebec and GaspS Basin, touching at intermediate ports, $7,500.


Richard John Cartwright: This is with Bouchard Brothers. The steamship is the ' Gaspesia.' It touches at a great many ports of call, nearly thirty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have heard that this steamer is not a particularly good boat. Does the right lion, gentleman consider her tit for the service ? I would like to know also if there is anything in the contract to oblige the contractor to bring a steamer to Montreal. The steamers going from Montreal to the lower province ports, in the direction of Gaspe, which have good passenger accommodation, are at present overcrowded. There would be room for four or five more suitable steamers on that route, and it would, be important that the ' Gaspesia.' if suitable, should come to Montreal for passengers and freight.


Richard John Cartwright: This is a trip from Quebec round to Gaspg Basin, calling at a very large number of very small places, and steamers of the class my hon. friend describes would object exceedingly unless very heavily subsidized, to calling at all these small places. The hon. gentleman will note that-to call at all these places would be almost an impossibility for a steamer going to the lower provinces.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: A steamer from Gaspe coming as far as Montreal would command a very large quantity of freight, for with these ports that my right hon. friend (Sir Richard Cartwright) has mentioned Montreal does a very large business. In the next place, for tourist or summer travel, I think
the only suitable steamer we have from Montreal to the Gulf is the ' Campana,' and to go in this steamer you have to secure accommodation a long time in advance. That is why it seemed to me that without an additional subsidy it would be possible to have a good steamer go between Gaspe and Montreal.


Richard John Cartwright: I have taken a note of my hon. friend's (Mr. Monk's) suggestion, and I shall be very glad to give these people better accommodation if possible. Of course it is under contract for this year. But next year we shall see if we can get a better steamer for the service.
Steam communication between a port or ports in Prince Edward Island and a port or ports in Great Britain, $5,000.


Richard John Cartwright: That service was performed by the * Manchester Trader ' last year. I am afraid I shall have to ask the House for a small additional vote later on in order to secure this service.
Direct fortnightly steam service between Montreal, Quebec, and) Manchester, England, during the summer season, and between St. John, Halifax, and Manchester during the winter season, $35,000.


Richard John Cartwright: 
Richard John Cartwright: As my hon. friends are aware, this has been a tentative service with a view to developing our trade with South Africa. Apparently a reasonable amount of trade has been developed and I think it will ultimately become a very useful adjunct to our commerce. At first this contract was with three different companies, each doing a portion of the service, Messrs. Allan, Messrs. Furness-Withy and Messrs. Elder-Dempster. The Allans have retired in favour of the Fur-ness-Witliy, the latter now doing two-thirds of the service. Our agents in South Africa report that there is a strong disposition to trade with Canada on the part of our brother colonists in Cape Colony and Natal. For a time, trade was very much hampered by the fact that at the close of the war a huge quantity of articles, many of which had been supplied from Canada, were dumped by the British authorities on the

market, and so our exportations to South Africa were considerably interfered with. They are beginning to get better now. The manifests sent to us show a very fair cargo going out. The trouble is we have very little return cargo.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: How often is the service ?


Richard John Cartwright: The trips are monthly and there is a special clause in the contract by which Canadians have preference 1


Samuel Hughes: In freight or in room ?


Richard John Cartwright: In freight and in room if they give reasonable notice.


Robert Laird Borden: What class of boats are used ?


Richard John Cartwright: Boats of 5,000 tons with a speed of not less than 10 knots. I have here a return which I promised to prepare for the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke), and I shall send to the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) only asking that he send it to the hon. member for West Toronto.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. minister carried out the promise he made some time ago to look into the matter of the freight rates from New York ?


Richard John Cartwright: There is some information on that subject in the return which I have just handed in.


Frederick William Borden: Who are the government agents in South Africa ?


Richard John Cartwright: Mr. Jardine is our commercial agent. He has a kind of a roving commission over the whole of South Africa from Cape Town northward.
Steam communication during the season of 1904, i.e., from the opening to the closing of navigation, between Gasp6 Basin and Dalhousie or Campbellton, $12,500.


Richard John Cartwright: That service was performed by the steamer ' Re-stigouche.' But she did not give satisfaction to the parties, and I have endeavoured to secure a new steamer. But it has not yet made its appearance. In the meantime the service is performed by the steamer;
' Admiral,' the one that used to perform the service formerly. I trust to have a steamship specially constructed for the route put upon it next year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The ' Admiral ' was last year on the line between Murray Bay and River Ouelle. Does the present arrangement mean that there will be a new steamer on that line this year ?


Richard John Cartwright: That service at Murray Bay is being performed by a steamer in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. I believe that the Min-


Richard John Cartwright: ister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefon-taine) proposes to have a new steamer built especially adapted to that service both summer and winter. That matter will be discussed when the estimates of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are before the committee.
Steam communication from April 1, 1904, to March 31, 1905, between Port Mulgrave and Can-so, and Between Port Mulgrave and Guys-borough, and from the opening to the closing of navigation in 1904, between Port Mulgrave, Mar-garee and Cheticamp, $8,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This is the service we had last year the contractors being Messrs. Hugh Cann & Son. The vessels are the ' Malcolm Cann ' and the ' John L. Cann.'


Robert Laird Borden: How frequent is the service ?
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT, There are three routes : Route A, from Mulgrave to Canso ; route B, from Mulgrave to Guys-borough ; route C, from Port Mulgrave to Chgticamp, calling at Port Hastings, Mar-garee and Cheticamp Harbour. On the first, it is a daily service ; on the second, from Mulgrave to Guysborough there are four trips made weekly ; on the last, one trip weekly.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a service of great importance to those who are engaged in the fishing industry in Canso, and I have had a communication on the subject from persons who have undertaken the business of forwarding fresh fish to Ontario via the Intercolonial, and who complain to me that in the case, I think, of at least fifty per cent of the shipments during one season, the boat failed to make connection with the train at Mulgrave ; I am not absolutely sure of the percentage, but to the best of my recollection it amounted to that. The result was that the fish were detained for twenty-four hours, persons who were to be supplied in Montreal and Ontario were disappointed, and of course there was a deterioration of the goods to be forwarded. I think some effort should be made to have that service improved in that regard. I understand thoroughly that there are perils of the sea and difficulties of navigation which have to be taken into consideration, but it would be better to have an improved class of boats and give them more subsidy rather than to have so important a business as that to which I have referred, injured and possibly destroyed altogether. The hon. gentleman is of course aware, as is every one in the business, that in order to carry on the business of supplying fresh fish they must be enabled to guarantee a certain supply daily to Montreal or to any other place to which fish are to be forwarded. If you cannot guarantee that, through lack of good communication or by

reason of an insufficient supply of fish being brought in by the fishermen, the result will be that the trade will go somewhere else. For example, the gentleman to whom I refer, who is largely engaged in this business at Canso, said that a certain fish dealer in Toronto told him that he would give him an order for only one-third of what he required daily, but he added, I would be willing to give you an order one-half or two-thirds if I were sure the supply of fish would be adequate, and if your means of communication were absolutely certain. I believe the supply of fish is getting better and better. Those who are engaged in the business are sending out more fishermen, some of them to one part of the coast, others to other parts of the coast, so that from one source or another the proper supply of fish will be brought in, and that part of the business seems to be put upon a fairly good basis. The other part, adequate communication, seems to be still lacking. Of course that may be supplied if certain railway lines now projected in the province of Nova Scotia are constructed at an early date. However, in the meantime we have to depend on a service of this kind, and it is of exceeding importance that that service should be made reliable, otherwise this business cannot be carried on.


Richard John Cartwright: I quite agree with my hon. friend that it is not merely a desirable thing in itself, but it is of great importance as a feeder to the Intercolonial. My hon. friend is perhaps aware, as I am, of the difficulty we have had in getting decent fish supplied in Ottawa, and I should be glad to contribute as far as possible towards improving the service so that we may get fresh fish daily supplied to our breakfast tables in the west. I may say that we have altered the route with the purpose of helping this, Arichat is now dropped, and another service was authorized last session from Petit de Grat to Mulg;rave that enables us to effect a great improvement. I understand from my deputy we had a good many complaints last year, but this present year the service has been better, and the complaints have ceased. However, I entirely agree, for every reason, both for the encouragement of the fishermen, for the benefit of the Intercolonial and for the supply of the western provinces, that it is highly desirable that all reasonable assistance should be given.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the minister will go a step further and urge upon his colleagues the support of the proposal I have made to put the express companies under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission so that their express charges may be regulated. In that way good will be accomplished, both in promoting interprovincial *trade and the fresh fish of the maritime provinces and in the fruit of the west. Nothing will prevent an interchange of that
trade so much as jurisdiction vested in the Railway Commission to control the rates of the express companies.


Richard John Cartwright: I am of the opinion that any improvement in that direction, on a large scale at least, would have to come from the railway companies themselves, through arrangements with the express agencies. My hon. friend is probably aware that the two great express agencies, the Canadian Company and the Dominion Company, are both parts and parcels of their respective railroads ; the Grand Trunk completely controls the one, and the Canadian Pacific Railway controls the other. as to the vexed question of meddling with the express rates, I would rather not enter on that controversy just now.


William Findlay Maclean: But it is an essential part of the issue.


Richard John Cartwright: It must be done by the action of the Intercolonial, and the Grand Trunk Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I should hope they might be able to see their way to run a fish train daily, as is done in some portions of the United States, through and through. I see no reason at all why a fish train should not be run from Nova Scotia or from the lower St. Lawrence, at any rate, as far as Toronto. I have more than once spoken of it and recommended it, and I will do so again.


Robert Laird Borden: In this connection I may say that I brought to the attention of the House the other day the fact that upon the Intercolonial Railway only one express company is permitted to carry on business. I think my hon. friend from Toronto suggested that another company applying was to be regarded as guilty of impertinence because it insisted upon having absolute control of the business upon the line of the railway company with which it is associated. Still I do not know that this conduct should be regarded as more impertinent than that the company, retaining control of the railway which it happens to be associated, should also desire to have complete control of the Intercolonial. However, that may be, the object of my suggestion would be amply met if we could have applied to the Intercolonial a provision which I find in the Railway Act with regard to express companies, and it is found in section 278.
Every company which grants any facilities for the carriage of goods by express to any incorporated express company or persons, shall grant equal facilities, on equal terms and conditions, to any other incorporated express company which demands the same.
The difficulty about the Intercolonial Railway is that that provision does not at the present time apply to it. It may be that section 278 is not very fully carried out by the great lines of this country which

have express companies connected with them. But nevertheless there is a law which apparently is capable of being carried out and if it were done under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission it night possibly- though there may be unexpected difficulties-afford. some of the relief by way of competition which has been advocated very forcibly by several hon. gentlemen in the House.


William Findlay Maclean: This clause has been appealed to on former occasions and it has not proved efficacious. As a matter of fact what I said before is true that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, notwithstanding this clause, have resisted any attempt on the part of express companies other than their own favourite companies which they own themselves to get upon their systems.


Robert Laird Borden: Can they successfully do that ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, one of the greatest lawsuits that has been tried and one in which the greatest amount of money has been spent was undertaken in an effort to force the Grand Trunk Railway Company to allow a rival express company, organized in the city of Toronto, to share the business of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. The express company employed the late Mr. Dalton McCarthy, an immense amount of money was expended, but finally the rival company was beaten out. In connection with the Intercolonial Railway my idea is that this government should have a first-class express system upon its own road and that it should undertake to provide for express business in fish and other trade as between the maritime provinces and the west. I take the 'ground that the Intercolonial Railway should not be given over to two rival express companies unless the railway companies owning the express companies are prepared to grant the same pri-villege which they enjoy on their respective lines and unless in some way provision is made for the loss of revenue that would be entailed upon the Intercolonial Railway according to the statement of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals who does not happen to be in the House at the present time. My contention is that in the first place there should be a thoroughly equipped express system between the diifernt provinces and I want to see everything done to facilitate that, but I also want the express companies who have franchises to live up to the conditions that they ask the government to live up to. They ask the government to allow them on the line of the Intercolonial Railway but they will not allow us on their lines. What I would prefer to see if the government is in the railway business is that it should be in the express Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
business as well. Let it own a first-class express system. If it pays a private company to give $100,000 a year for the privilege of operating on the Intercolonial Railway it will pay the government to carry that business on its own account.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, since any litigation has been undertaken under the provisions of this section we have had established a Railway Commission with a supposedly simple method of procedure. The object of this section is very plain. It is undoubtedly to prevent discrimination upon any railway line. I would think that the Railway Commission would be capable of enforcing that section and I do not see any reason why it should not. If the objects of the section are plain and if there is any omission in it which enables that plain object to be defeated, it will be desirable to have such amendment made in the section as to carry out what obviously was the object in the first instance. As far as the Intercolonial Railway is concerned there is a good deal in what my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) suggests:	All that
I brought to the attention of the House the other day was that in the meantime it would be a desirable thing and I should imagine in the interest of the people of the maritime provinces that more than one company should have power to carry on express business on the Intercolonial Railwav. Of course, that power could be given subject to the provision that it should cease at once, should the government decide to establish an express company of its own.


Richard John Cartwright: This is a matter that will appertain more particularly to the Department of Railways and Canals but I may say to my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) that I think he will find that there are practical and physical difficulties in the way of operating two or three express companies on the same train. My idea about the fish matter would be that there should be special fish trains. I think that the trade is likely to grow to such proportions as to warrant that and I think, as regards the trade in the United States, that I am correct in saying that special fish trains are run without any reference to the express companies.
Steam service during the season of 1904, between Sydney and Whycocomagh, $1,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This is given t* the Bras d'Or Steamship Company, Limited. There has been no alteration in the terminal point. They make two round trips each week.
Steam service during the year 1904, between St. Stephen, N.B., and St. Croix river points, Deer Island, Campobello, and the Inner Islands, Passamaquoddy Bay and L'Etete or Back Bay, $3,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This is as usual. The Deer Island and Campobello Steamship Company have the contract and the service is performed by the steamer ' Viking.' They make two round trips each week and they call at a great number of small points.
Steam service during the year 1904, between Quebec and Blanc Sablon, calling at ports and places along the northern shore of the River St. Lawrence between such terminals, $8,0*0.


Richard John Cartwright: The contract is with Holliday Brothers and the steamer is the ' King Edward.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At what ports does this steamer call ? Was this service performed last year ?


Richard John Cartwright: Yes, the same service was performed last year. The vessel leaves Quebec and it usually makes no calls till it passes Esquimaux point. Natashquan is the terminal point to be extended as occasion requires to Blanc Sablon. The vessel makes very few calls in the interval.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there just one steamer ?


Richard John Cartwright: The ' King Edward ' is the only steamer employed. She makes semi-monthly trips.
l^lr. MONK. How many trips were made last year ?


Richard John Cartwright: I believe all the trips they were bound to make ; that is to say, semi-monthly trips during the season of navigation were made. There was no interruption, I believe, of the re-' gular trips. What they may have done in the interval I am not aware, but the trips that were called for in the contract were completed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not suppose they made more than eight trips at the most.


Richard John Cartwright: My deputy tells me that all the trips from the end of April were made semi-monthly. That would cover about six months, or five and a half months. They stopped only when the buoys were taken up somewhere about the 20th November.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the steamer passenger accommodation ?


Richard John Cartwright: The ' King Edward ' has. It is a superior steamer and was built expressly for the route.
Steam service during the season of 1904, between Sydney, O.B., and Bay St. Lawrence, calling at way ports, $1,500.


Richard John Cartwright: The contract is with the Bras d'Or Steamship Company and the steamer is the ' Weymouth.'
Weekly steamship service between Halifax and Canso, $4,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This is done by the steamship ' Strathcona,' owned by the Halifax and Canso Steamship Company.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is that'the same 'Strathcona ' that is used in the wrecking.


Richard John Cartwright: The other I am told is the ' Lord Strathcona ' ; this is plain ' Strathcona.' The wrecking steamer is a very expensive article and we could not possibly hope to get her for $4,000.
Winter steam navigation service during winter of 1904-5, between Quebec and St. Lawrence harbours, down to Murray Bay and River Ouelle, $12,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was anything done last year towards establishing this service?


Richard John Cartwright: No, we were not able to get the winter service performed. After a great deal of consideration I understand from my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that he has come to the conclusion that it will be necessary to have a special steamer constructed and he proposes to apply to the House for power to have such a steamer put on. The problem of winter navigation of the St. Lawrence, as my hon. friend is aware, is interesting and important, but it is clear that if you are going to make a success you will have to have steamers of un-sual strength and probably of unusual power constructed in order to enable the service to be carried on with any satisfaction, and therefore the minister thinks it will be better to have a steamer built expressly for that service. Later on we will be in a position to give the details about it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad to hear this announcement because it interests us greatly in Montreal. I think the experiment would be well worth trying because a steamer of that kind would not cost an extremely large amount and even if the experiment proved unsuccessful the steamer would still be of use. My hon. friend will notice that we take power to spend $20,000 a year on steamers going into the Gulf. We have just passed an item of $8,000 for the 1 King Edward ' service.


Richard John Cartwright: That is a summer service.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And we have this past two years voted $12,000 for the winter service.


Richard John Cartwright: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have to guide us the experiments made in Russia under the invention of the late Admiral Makaroff.


Richard John Cartwright: You refer to the famous Kronstadt ice-breakers I presume ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They have been used in the Baltic Sea and on Lake Baikal. I see they

[DOT] 7455

have broken through very thick ice, three, four and five feet or even more. There is no doubt I think that we can also navigate the St. Lawrence, at any rate to Quebec, all through the winter with a steamer of this description. X was surprised in reading a review to observe what a comparatively small amount an ice breaker costs.
Sir RICH Alt D CARTWRIGHT. Does my hon. friend know what such a one as he has referred to costs ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know the exact figure.


Richard John Cartwright: I think the sum is large.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I read several articles in one of the periodical reviews on these Icebreakers. I have not any of the data here but I was surprised at the relatively small cost; it is of course always a considerable sum. I anticipate that a steamer of this description could be used to very good effect in the spring in opening up the navigation to Montreal earlier than the river is naturally opened. There are one or two places in Montreal and Quebec where the bridge is maintained even after the ice is rotten everywhere else. If we -had a steamer of the strength of the ' Ermaak ' for instance, that ice could be easily broken up, and it has been considered by many that the navigation could be opened at least three weeks earlier than at present. That would make an immense difference to the people along the St. Lawrence, between Quebec and Montreal. We spend $20,000 to $25,000 a year on winter navigation from Quebec downwards, and I anticipate that a steamer of that kind would be available in summer as well as in winter. It seems to me it would be easy for us to get a steamer that would be able to obtain the same results as those which are secured in Russia, 'me government could easily obtain exact information as to the cost, &c., of those used in Russia and there is nothing which prevents us following the same course here as has been pursued in that country. I think this should be a matter for the earnest consideration of the government at the earliest possible date. These experiments in Russia date back several years and since reviewers and newspaper men have been able to obtain information pretty exactly it would be easy, I think, for the government to have these results for their guidance. Thus, without spending more than is now being spent very profitable results could be secured.


Richard John Cartwright: I dare say that it will prove practicable to do pretty much what my hon. friend has been suggesting. I may say that the subject to which he refers, the extending of the period of navigation from Quebec-and of course if possible from Montreal-by several Mr. MONK.
weeks at the beginning and end of navigation, has attracted the attention both of my own department and of that of Marine, and I understand that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who I regret to say is not present will have certain projects to submit to the House having in view the carrying out of this idea. It is reasonably certain that with proper appliances we could extend the period of navigation from Quebec outward for a considerable period. As to the question of opening it earlier in the spring my hon. friend has stated what is no doubt correct that there are occasional barriers that could be removed by such a steamer, but whether you could depend upon that in view of the enormous masses of ice that are frequently encountered in the gulf to increase the period of navigation in the spring I am not quite so certain.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I refer principally to the inland navigation, so far as the spring is concerned, between Quebec and Montreal.


Richard John Cartwright: I was rather referring to ocean navigation. That could undoubtedly be extended. Whether it could be extended all the year is another question.


Mr. MORIN.: I agree with what has been said by my hon. friend from Jacques-Car-tier (Mr. Monk). It would undoubtedly be useful and advantageous for the government to have a boat so constructed as to be able to open the ice op the St. Lawrence river above Quebec. I have been living there for upwards of sixteen years, and understand very well how the matter stands. Navigation is sometimes open in Montreal three or four weeks before it is open at Quebec simply because there are no boats at Quebec able to break the ice. Sometimes what is called the key is only about ten miles long in the Narrows at the Quebec bridge and if the government had a boat of the kind described they could open that channel for both local and the general navigation. The steamships from Europe very seldom come to Quebec before the month of May. Of course, they cannot come until the channel is open ; but the government could make preparations to have the channel open from Quebec to Lake St. Peter every year by the 15th of April. Does my hon. friend know what ports it is proposed to stop at from Quebec down to Murray Bay ?


Richard John Cartwright: We have not been able as yet to obtain any steamer capable of carrying on that navigation in the winter season, and that fact has led the Minister of Marine to consider the propriety of having a boat built for that express service. When that is obtained it will be at the disposal of the authorities to call at any point that may be thought expedient between Quebec and Murray Bay ;

but I cannot state at what particular points it will call.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There are very few points at which it will be necessary for it to call. The principal point will be Baie St. Paul. On the north shore, from Quebec down to St. Joachim, there will be no need of a steamer, because the cars run there every day ; and on the south shore the country is served by the railway all the way down. Baie St. Paul is well served by a stage route. A steamship mail service on that short route could only be established at a very large expense. Then, in many winters the ice freezes from Quebec down three or four miles, and it would be next to impossible to open a channel through it. I have often heard the ferrymen and the men who handle the boats say that the ice is sometimes fifty, sixty or even one hundred feet thick at Quebec in the winter season.


Mr. WILLIAM ROSS (Victoria).: The points of call for this steamer are I think matters to be decided after the steamer is built and brought here. There are no steamers at present capable of doing the work except those owned by the government of Russia, and therefore a steamer must be built. When the ice is formed I think this steamer will prove to be successful to a certain depth of ice ; but when it comes to the drift ice in the gulf, it will probably have to be discontinued. But I think the experiment is well worth trying in the interest of navigation on the St. Lawrence. *
Summer service between Murray Bay and RiviSre Ouelle, $6,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This service was done formerly by the North Transportation Company, and the steamer 4 Admiral ' was employed. It is now conducted by the Intercolonial Railway as a kind of subsidiary service.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Is not the government paying too much for carrying the mail between these two places, especially in the summer time ?


Richard John Cartwright: The parties we employed complained bitterly that it was not enough, and withdrew their steamer. We have had a great deal of trouble in getting anything to keep up the navigation there. Of course, a large number of passengers cross between these two points, and the steamer is in a sense a feeder for the Intercolonial.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think my hon. friend from Dorchester is perhaps right, that this amount is either too much or not enough. The government acted very wisely in establishing this service, which has been very useful, enabling people in Montreal whose families were at Murray Bay to go down on Saturday, and return to their business at Montreal or other western points on Sunday 237J
evening. At the same time, the ' Admiral * is a very old steamer, and the accommodation it provided was most inferior in every way, although a considerable sum, comparatively speaking, was charged for the trip across. For the sum of $6,000 there ought to be a better steamer provided, and the government ought to fix the rate at a more moderate figure. This steamer is a very important feeder for the Intercolonial Railway, and last year it had very large passenger and a considerable freight traffic ; so that its profits must have been considerable. With regard to the larger question of keeping that ferry going all the year round, my hon. friend knows that the ferry between Quebec and L&vis crosses very regularly the whole year round, and it is asserted by many that the crossing between Murray Bay and River Ouelle could be performed just as easily. I think the government ought to consider the advisability of providing such service, either by itself constructing a steamer, or by giving a larger subsidy for a better steamer than that which runs at present. If the opinion which I have obtained is correct, that service could be provided without any very considerable additional expense.


Richard John Cartwright: All I can say regarding the subsidy is that the party who got it complained very bitterly that he lost money and would not tender again, and we have had great trouble in supplying the service.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my memory serves me right, the charge for crossing from Riviere Ouelle to Murray Bay, some eighteen or nineteen miles, is fifty cents, or a dollar for the round trip. In view of the subsidy of $6,000 and the kind of steamer that did the service last year, that seems to be a little excessive. It tends to prevent the extensive traffic that should exist, because that is the only means of daily communication between the north and south ; it would be the sole navigation in winter. This year the government should arrange that the fare shouid be more moderate.


Richard John Cartwright: I founl it impossible to get anybody to tender for this service. I tried several times, and sent out several applications. I tried to obtain vessels in the upper lakes since we could not obtain them in Montreal or Quebec, and finally the matter was taken in hand by the Departments of Railways and Marine at my request. At present the Railway Department have borrowed a vessel from the Department of Public Works, and are running it as a kind of ferry. I cannot tell what rates the department are charging, but they have great interest in encouraging the traffic, and am sure will make the charge moderate.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the department is doing the service, they can control the rates. I strongly call attention to the consideration

that if that service were performed winter and summer and reasonable rates charged, there would be a great traffic indeed over that line, because it is the only outlet th; north shore has. There is no communication between Quebec and Murray Bay except by water. I think that matter should engage the attention of the government.


Richard John Cartwright: I have taken a note of what my hon. friend says, and will call the attention of the departments concerned to it. This is quite a recent vote.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, only since two years. It was a very meritorious innovation, and I think could be improved.


Mr. TARTE.: What is the name of the boat that is running now ?


Richard John Cartwright: It is the ' Eureka,' and belongs to the Public Works Department.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I would ask the right hon. gentleman to look carefully into this matter. I know the boat very well. The department got it when I was minister. An upper deck has been added to it, which causes it to roll very much in a heavy sea. I think, if the hon. minister will look carefully into the case, he will find it advantageous to change this boat for another one soon. I have been on board it many times, and while I would not like to say anything that would injure the line, because I am very favourable to it, I think that the boat has been raised by two decks, and it would be safer to change it for another. I do not want to throw any cold water on the line-very far from it. But I do not think the boat would be able to stand a heavy storm.


Mr. EMMERSON.: The difficulty in getting a boat at all was so serious at one time that it looked as if that service could not be attended to this year. The matter is one of very great importance to the people in that section, especially those on the northern side, and it is a matter of prime importance to the Intercolonial.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have constructed, at considerable expense, the Riviere Ouelle branch for tourist traffic. If a properly constructed and properly kept boat were to run between Rivi&re Ouelle and Murray Bay, the traffic would he very considerable indeed. East year it was quite an important factor in increasing the earnings of the Intercolonial. The matter is having very careful attention, and every activity was displayed during the past two months to procure a boat. There was no other boat available in the Public Works Department, and it was impossible to get one from the Marine Department. There have been negotiations with a view of getting a special boat, and I hope it may be possible, to secure such a Mr. MONK.
boat. I am informed by some parties interested in that section of the country, and particularly by my hon. friend from Charlevoix (Mr. Angers), that this boat is not quite large enough, but she is considered safe and satisfactory for the present. We are putting forth every effort to get a larger boat with a view of later service, and I hav reason to believe that the efforts being put forth by the Marine and Railway Departments, in connection with the Public Works Department, will result in a service being established 'which will accommodate, not merely the summer tourist traffic, but the later traffic of the fall, and even of the winter months.


Joseph Israël Tarte: The boat now in use is a very strong one. I went all around the gulf in it, but that was before the upper decks were added. She draws 12 feet of water. If the captain is a safe man, he will not take the risk of running during a storm, because the boat could not stand a storm, raised as she has been.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad to hear the Minister of Railways anticipate that considerable business will be developed by this line, 'ihe Intercolonial is not paying so much that we would not be glad to see its traffic increase. It would be increased a very great deal if there was really good service there. The boat at present in use is, of course, inadequate for the traffic. I do not know w'ho runs the ferry boats between Quebec and Levis, but the boats are very strong ones, and the owners have no doubt acquired extensive experience in that kind of navigation. If one-half I have heard be true, we could navigate from Murray Bay to Riviere Ouelle almost continuously. The crossing might be interrupted a day or two. but could be carried on pretty regularly. Under these circumstances, I should think my right hon. friend might perhaps call for tenders for the construction of a suitable boat. It would not require a very fine boat, though that might be desirable for summer traffic, but it would require a good, strong, safe boat; and, the traffic being what I anticipate between the north and south shore and over the Intercolonial, it would require a boat of considerable size. I think the matter ought to be attended to without delay.
Steam communication between Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton and Newfoundland, $8,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This was a contract with Messrs. Hugh McMillan and Henry Aitken.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: What will be the starting point in the province of Prince Edward Island for this service and what will be the port or ports of call in that province ? Also, what will be the port or ports of call in Cape Breton and the port of destination in Newfoundland ?


Richard John Cartwright: Leaving Charlottetown, thence to Bridgetown, An-nandale and Souris, Prince Edward Island ; thence to Glace Bay and Sydney, and thence to St. John's, Newfoundland ; returning over the same route.


James Joseph Hughes: In any agreement that may be made with a company for this service, that will be one of the conditions, of course ?


Richard John Cartwright: That is our intention, of course.
Steam service between Canada and Australia, $194,666.66.


Richard John Cartwright: 
Robert Laird Borden: What steamers perform this service ? What is the frequency of the trips ; and what trade, if any, has been developed ; also between what ports in Canada and Australia is the service conducted ?


Richard John Cartwright: The service is performed by the steamships ' Mio-wera,' ' Aorangi,' and ' Moana.' It is a foui-weekly service, and is carried on from Vancouver to Sydney.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this the same as the service to Japan ?


Richard John Cartwright: 
Richard John Cartwright: This is in the nature of an experiment to see if we can prolong that service during the winter months. We are now in negotiation and hope to obtain the service.


Robert Laird Borden: We had an item in the estimates for this year ; did the hon. minister utilize that ?


Richard John Cartwright: No, we did not succeed in getting a boat to carry on the service during December and January. They were afraid to face the ice in the Gulf at that time.
For the service of a wrecking plant on the St. Lawrence for the year ending June 30, 1905, $10,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This is in the nature of a retainer. For this the wrecking plant must be held in readiness constantly to go to any vessel that may be in trouble.


John Dowsley Reid: When did the government begin granting this subsidy ?


Richard John Cartwright: I think it was two years ago.


John Dowsley Reid: As the hon. minister is aware this same firm has been in the wrecking business for the last thirty years. The same plant has always been kept in readiness. These people have been making a lot of money annually. About two years ago when Captain Leslie, of Kingston, whom the hon. minister knows well, removed his wrecking plant down to that district to take part in assisting these vessels that were wrecked, and spent an immense amount of money, the hon. minister immediately gave this other wrecking firm a subsidy. By this, of course, Captain Leslie is placed at a disadvantage. It seems most unfair that when a gentleman with the ability of Captain Leslie, a gentleman whom, I am sure, the minister will say is a most reliable man and whose wrecking plant is a very tine one, removes clown there, he should be met with a subsidy to an opposition concern. This wrecking firm has been in existence for thirty or forty years without a subsidy, and I would like to know wThy this subsidy of $10,000 is now paid to it within the last two of three years. What is the necessity for it? They had their plant there, I saw the plant there ten years ago, they had an enormous plant of their own. They have some vessels, I think they sold the ' Lord Stanley,' but they have got the ' Strathcona,' a vessel of about the same size. There seems to be something wrong in this matter when a subsidy is given at this particular time, though another wrecking outfit has, gone down there.


Richard John Cartwright: So far as I remember, the subsidy was granted to the Messrs. Davis before Captain Leslie had gone down there at all. I think it is only within the last year or two that Captain Leslie has gone dow-n the St. Lawrence.


John Dowsley Reid: He has been there some time.


Richard John Cartwright: In the next place, the ' Lord Strathcona ' is a very much more powerful boat and has much better appliances for wrecking than any that have been in the service before. I can only say that this was a request upon the government *by, I think, the entire shipping interests in the St. Lawrence. An enormously large and influential petition was presented to us, and I remember' that a large deputation called on myself and I think the Premier. The whole of the shipping interests of the St. Lawrence made a request to us that we would see that this service was kept constantly in the best condition. Unless this grant was given it would be optional with Mr. Davis to have taken his craft anywhere, and I believe he had beeu in the habit of taking it occasionally far

outside the St. Lawrence to assist vessels in distress to go to Boston and New York. I have no wish, as the hon. gentleman knows himself, to discriminate in favour of one against the other ; but when the whole St. Lawrence trade come to us and request that we should insist on this vessel being kept steadily in readiness, it seems to me a proper request to make, and everybody knows that at that time the St. Lawrence route was a little in disfavour owing to the number of accidents that happened and the great difficulty in bringing assistance to vessels in distress. Since this grant has been made a very considerable salvage of property has been successfully effected, which, I think, could not have been affected unless this vessel had been always in hand and ready to go out.


John Dowsley Reid: I know that Capt. Leslie has effected quite a lot of salvage since he has been down there, and I know for a fact that his wrecking plant is just the same now as it has been for the last ten or twelve years.


Richard John Cartwright: The ' Lord Strathcona ' is a much better vessel than they ever had before.
Mr. ,T. D. REID. I think the 'Lord Stanley ' was the best steamer there previously. I have seen the ' Lord Stanley ' and she was the larger vessel. They have purchased the ' Strathcona ' since this subsidy was given and they are making a large amount of money there yearly. They never went to Boston, because there is a large wrecking plant at Boston which they could not interfere with. It is a very easy matter for Mr. Davis to get up a petition and every one of the vessel men will sign it ; they would not want to refuse for fear they might get into trouble themselves. As this wrecking firm has been in existence for the last thirty or forty years, and in addition the government have given them the Levis dry dock,-


Richard John Cartwright: I am not aware of that.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that to be the case. This has all been given free, and if such is the case, it does seem strange that the government should now give this subsidy. In addition, by giving this subsidy, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is doing his best to get Captain Leslie and his fleet off the St. Lawrence. I know for a fact that he has saved vessels when the ' Strathcona ' could not get there soon enough. I think it would be fair for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to divide this subsidy with Mr. Leslie, or else give him a subsidy as -well, because he has rendered great services to the shipping industry. I think the minister should be a little easier with Captain Leslie and not give these people a subsidy that will have the effect Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
of driving him out of business and thus leave the vessel men in that locality at the mercy of one firm.
Sir RICHARD CARTW'RIGHT. This objection will apply, I am afraid, to a great many subsidies besides the present one. But I am advised that the 1 Lord Strathcona ' is very much the most powerful steamer that has ever been engaged in the wrecking business on the St. Lawrence. The first subsidy was granted to an inferior steamer, the one the hon. gentleman referred to, the ' Stanley.'


John Dowsley Reid: When was that granted?


Richard John Cartwright: A matter of three or four years ago.
Steam service between Petit de Grat and the Intercolonial Railway terminus at Mulgrave, $3,000.


Richard John Cartwright: This is for the purpose of facilitating the transport of fish between these two points, and it relieves the other vesels from calling at Arichat.
Steamboat service between Canada and Mexico, $50,000.


Richard John Cartwright: With respect to this vote I may say to the committee that contracts have been called for the purpose of ascertaining whether we can promote communication between Canada and Mexico. The Mexican government have agreed to give a similar sum of $50,000. We will receive in a little while, I hope, some communication on this head. The intention is, in the first place, to see if we can establish a service on the Pacific coast from Vancouver and Victoria, touching at various points on the Mexican Pacific ocean. If we .succeed in that we will also see if we can establish a service on the other side, going from points in the Gulf of Mexico up to St. ,Tohn and Halifax. As yet we are not in a position to say how far our negotiations will be successful, or what tenders we will receive. I trust in a short time that I shall be in receipt of the information.


Robert Laird Borden: Were tenders issued in the first instance calling for a service on the Pacific side ?


Richard John Cartwright: They called for both. But the Mexican government appeared to think that it would be better for them to have a service on the Pacific side, and they propose to devote the major part of their subsidy to that side. We are at a disadvantage no doubt in the Gulf of Mexico owing to the number of American routes that converge there. I should like myself to see the service established on both sides of the continent, but we may have to confine ourselves in the first instance to the western side. If the hon. gentleman remembers the geographical configuration of Mexico, he will see that our

chances are better on the Pacific coast than on the Atlantic coast at present.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the nature of the trade that is expected to be done ?


Richard John Cartwright: 
Frederick William Borden: What is the amount of our export and import trade ?


Richard John Cartwright: Our trade with Mexico is very small at the present time but it is probable that a certain amount of our exports go to Mexico via New York and are classified as imports from the United States. The total amount of trade is very small at the present time. Whether we can develop a larger trade remains to be seen.


Robert Laird Borden: This is somewhat in the nature of an experiment ?


Richard John Cartwright: This is in the nature of an experiment but we have thought that when the Mexican government have displayed so much good-will we might better meet them. There are good reasons why we and the Mexicans stand particularly well with each other.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.
Trent canal-to complete west entrance pier at lock, $1,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This pier was completed for a length of about 175 feet. It requires about 125 feet of further extension and it is estimated that the cost will be [DOT]51,500. The same remarks apply to the next item for $1,500 for the pier at Burleigh.
Trent Canal-Dredging-Katchawannoe lake, $3,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We require to deepen the channel between Lakefield and Young's point in a number of places as during periods of low water the boats ground.


Mr. LENNOX.: Why is this charged to income ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because it is an old part of the canal that has been navigable.


Haughton Lennox: We generally have to make a complaint the other way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I know, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.


Haughton Lennox: I am not going to object to this.
Trent canal-blasting and dredging channel above lock 1, Lakefield, $3,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The water here is very shallow and requires to be deepened at least two feet. This work is all done by contract except the dredging. We have a dredge and do our own dredging.
Trent canal-to provide one dredging engine! boiler and steel boom, $6,500.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is that awarded by tender and contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We will ask for tenders. There was an item last year for the rebuilding of the hull of the dredge ' Otona-bee.' That has been completed and it was intended to place the machinery of the old dredge in the new hull but it was found that the amount of repairs on the machinery would be so great that it is deemed more economical to purchase new machinery. We will ask for tenders from the trade.


John Dowsley Reid: Do you simply write to a few firms in the trade ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We advertise in the newspapers.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that going to be the rule ? It has not been done for the last few years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have been doing it right along.


John Dowsley Reid: You have not been there very long.


Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.: There is an improvement already.


John Dowsley Reid: Is this to be advertised ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I assume that no change will take place ; I have not contemplated any change.


John Dowsley Reid: There were a great many cases along the canals where tenders were not called for in the newspapers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is only in the case where there are only a few manufacturers of certain articles in which case we send a circular to them and so avoid the expense of advertising, but with respect to cement and all other items of that kind in connection with the canal, so far as I have had any experience in the department and been able to observe, general advertisements are placed in the newspapers. I know that every newspaper in the country wants an advertisement.


John Dowsley Reid: Prior to 1896 the government would advertise for tenders along the St. Lawrence in the local papers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So we do now.


John Dowsley Reid: Tell me of one newspaper along the St. Lawrence canal in which there is given an advertisement for supplies ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not suppose my hon. friend reads some of the newspapers in which the advertisements are to be found or he would see them. We cannot advertise in all the papers. I know that we advertise in the Peterborough, Hamilton, Toronto and Ottawa papers. We are sometimes a little select; we have to select one out of a great number.	[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: No tenders are called for locally by advertisement but letters are sent to a few friends of the government asking them what they will furnish supplies for, and the same thing applies to the building of scows.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I say most distinctly with reference to the scows that we would not invite general competition all over the province. That would cost more for advertising than the amount appropriated. In the immediate vicinity there will be a general advertisement. There are three dump scows required in that section of the country for which we ask $2,500 in this vote and the public will have an opportunity of competing, but it would be unwise and unbusinesslike to ask for tenders all over the province owing to the expense of advertising.
Mr. 'J. D. REID. I would like to know why tenders are not asked for along the St. Lawrence for supplies or for the building of scows. If the minister would advertise in one or two papers, one in each county along the St. Lawrence, I am sure that would not be asking too much. There are dozens of men there who can furnish sup-Mr. A. T. THOMPSON.
plies or build any scows required. The cost of the supplies for the maintenance of the canals has been almost doubled since 1896, and I do not believe one tender has been called for in the last seven years. The parties furnishing these supplies are outside of the county, and there are many people in the county friends of the government too, who would be glad to furnish these supplies. Therefore I think the government should adopt the system of advertising for tenders instead of distributing these orders without proper competition. It is understood that these shall be advertised for tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What are these to be used for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In connection with the dredging along the Trent waterway.
Trent canal-to complete rebuilding dam at Peterborough, $4,000.


Haughton Lennox: Is this the last item connected with the Trent Valley system ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the main estimates. I do not see my hon. friend from East Durham (Mr. Ward) here. He wants to speak on the subject, and I am going to arrange so that he will have the opportunity to do so.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I wish to ask the minister if he is going to bring some more estimates regarding the railway, as I wish to ask some questions ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does my hon. friend want to ask regarding the Intercolonial or the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not know.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then, I do not understand my hon. friend. If he wants information on either, he will have the opportunity when the proper items come up ; but in connection with canals, it would be a little irregular.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that my hon. friend wants to ask some questions in regard to the construction of a railway near Levis. So long as the opportunity is afforded to him, that will be satisfactory, I think.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: The minister will know at once whose railroad it is, which is under construction near Levis.
St. Peter's canal-dredging, $2,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: $1,500 of this is a revote. This amount is to be expended for removing a shoal at the south entrance of the canal and also for doing some dredging at the north entrance. At low tide there is only nine feet of water, and at times vessels cannot leave the canal until the tide rises. There was difficulty last fall in getting a dredge to do the work. It will cost ap-

proximately 60 cents a yard, as a dredge *will liave to be brought from a distance for a few day's work. The whole is expected to cost about $2,000.
Rideau canal-to rebuild bridge at Smith's Falls, $5,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to rebuild a bridge across the west channel of the Rideau canal, below the basin, at the town of Smith's Falls. The present bridge was built many years ago of timber, and lias been repaired and maintained ever since. It is over twenty years old, and is beyond repair.


Mr. LAVELL.: Has the minister made any arrangement for /rebuilding the dam at Poonamalee ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That will necessarily be provided later on. we could not in the main estimates, which were prepared before the accident occurred.
presents an interest charge on $75,000 at the rate the government pays interest.


Henry Robert Emmerson: An attempt was made to do away with it. One-third of the dam was blown up but the lumbermen universally protested. They said that even though abolished as a canal and even though the government repudiated liability in connection with it, yet it should remain as it was, so that they might get whatever benefit from it they could. The government will no longer be liable for the value of the damage done.
Chambly canal-to macadamize towpath,


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to macadamize ten and half miles nine feet wide, twelve inches deep in centre and nine inches at the sides. It will .be let by tender and contract.


Richard Blain: Has any of the towpath been macadamized heretofore ?


John Reeve Lavell: I hope some provision will be made for covering the damages caused by the breaking of the dam.
Culbute canal-damages by flooding caused by dams of the canal, $2,305.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this an annual charge ? What does it mean ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, this towpath was a number of years metallized with gravel from Lake Champlain. It is now almost impossible to procure this material, and as the metal is practically worn out, we must substitute macadam, ordinary macadam without delay. It is supposed to cost $3,000 per mile. The amount asked for will only macadamize three miles.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This canal is on the Ottawa river. The canal has not been much used, and very serious damage has been caused by flooding. For 1903-4 there was an appropriation of $2,315, which was paid. The damages were inquired into by Mr. Surtees, civil engineer, of Ottawa.


John Dowsley Reid: Is not that kept in regular repair annually ? Last year quite an amount was spent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was in connection with the road and not the towpath.


John Dowsley Reid: Is not the towpath kept


Robert Laird Borden: If it is a case of permanent flooding, one would have supposed that the land covered by the waters thrown back by the dam should be expro-jiriated once for all. If that is not the case, I would like to understand just what the situation is. It seems unusual that a charge for flooding should be an annual charge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This canal is now abandoned entirely and by proclamation has been done away with. That was done within the last two or three months. It was built previous to confederation for the benefit of the lumbermen on the Ottawa river. There was only sufficient land procured for the purposes of the canal and none purchased to guard against flooding, and the result has been damages from year to year. An unusual damage occurred a year ago last spring near the township of Allumette Island and under the advice of the Justice Department we made the best settlement we could.


Robert Laird Borden: One would suppose that if the canal were no longer useful, it would be better to do away with the dam instead of paying $2,500 annually, which rein repair regularly ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. The towpath is on one side of the canal and the road on the other. Some portions of the roadway were macadamized last year, and a vote was given a few years ago to macadamize a further portion of the road.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely $3,000 a mile is a very large amount to macadamize a narrow road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can give the estimate. The cost per mile for the material, labour and rolling is $3,025. That is the amount made up toy the engineer. Of course we will ask for public tender and will then discover whether this is too high an estimate or not.


John Dowsley Reid: What position can the government take in so far as the collection of tolls is concerned ? There are $34,008 paid for the collection of canal tolls and none have been collected for the last two years. There is no reason why the lock-masters should not be utilized to issue passes and thus save $34,000 per annum. Even though there were a mistake in the lockmaster issuing passes, it is easily recti-

lied. It seems to me that that amount of $'14,008 should be saved.
. Mr. EMMERSON. As my hon. friend knows, it was determined to try the experiment of abolishing the tolls on the canals for two years and see what effect that would have on the traffic of the country. It was also stated that these men, some of whom were long in the service, should be continued in order to keep an accurate record of the business done. After this year, the whole matter will be determined. It_may be that the tolls will be permanently abolished, but we will know from the returns given just what the effect has been.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the second year. What was the result of the year's operations ? Did it increase trade ? Are the results such that the government would continue the present free system ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Last year there was some improvement. As to this year, judging by what has been done up to this date, it would be a question whether, taking the average into consideration, there has been an improvement in the trade.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think that the re-imposition of the tolls would be a good move. The abandonment of the tolls tends to bring more trade by the St. Lawrence route. But, for the very reason that I think the tolls should not be re-imposed, I feel very strongly that the government should at once reduce that expense. If the hon. minister will not do it this year, I hope that next year the government-whatever government may be in power-will put it right.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Any opinion offered by my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid), or by myself, on that subject, could be only a casual opinion, and the government could not act upon it. It is necessary to have accurate information with respect to the trade. On the basis of that accurate information the government will determine what is the best policy. I know how difficult it would be to restore the tolls, even though in the judgment of the country it would be wise to do so.


John Dowsley Reid: The lockmasters are quite capable of issuing the passes which would be the basis of the information. OI course, where money had to be collected- and it was collected in large amounts-the lockmasters, perhaps, did not wish to take the responsibility of holding that monev. especially for the small salaries they a>-e getting. But there is no reason they should not issue the passes. It does seem ridiculous and absurd that a man should be paid $1,000 for doing work that the lockmaster, who is already under pay, could do. And this work is done by the lockmasters on the Rideau canal. That being so, why cannot the lockmasters do it on the St. Lawrence canal ?


John Dowsley Reid: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would not do to do this work in a careless or haphazard way. This information was necessary. Quite a number of these men were in the service, and, to carry out the hon. gentleman's idea, they would have to be superannuated or dismissed ; with the result, possibly, that at the end of two or three years it would be necessary to fill their places again. The extra expense is certainly not to be taken into consideration as against the importance of the information that [DOT] these gentlemen are required to secure and furnish for the department.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister's statement is a reflection upon the men on the Rideau canal, who actually do this work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nobody has been dismissed on the Rideau canal. The men who were doing this work before on the Rideau canal are doing it now just as on the other canals.
Canals, miscellaneous-surveys and inspections, $3,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is an ordinary annual vote. The expenditure under this head for the year ending 30th June, 1904, was $3,252.18.


John Dowsley Reid: Since, the death of the late Mr. Rubidge, the steamer ' Alert ' has been in charge of the superintendent of canals in that district. Surely the government are not going to furnish the superintendent with a pleasure yacht to run up and down the canal. There has never been anything of that kind in the history of this country on any of the canals. This boat, in fact, is larger than the ordinary pleasure yacht; she is a steamer that costs $8,000 or $10,000 per annum to run.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The steamer 'Alert' has been for years employed on the canals that were under the supervision of the superintending engineer, Mr. Rubidge. By the death of Mr. Rubidge the office became vacant, and it has not been filled. In the meantime the boat has been placed in charge of the superintendent of canals in the same way as the rest of the plant connected with the canals. At one time, in addition to the superintending engineer, they had a superintendent of the Cornwall canal and also a superintendent of the Williamsburgh canal. The present superintendent. Mr. Stewart, is now in charge of both canals. He has to go from one place to the other. The point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) is one that occurred to my own mind as to the necessity of continuing the steamer. If the dredging is to be done and the engineers- even though there is no superintending engineer-have to get out at the different points, and if the superintendent has to go to the different canals, it may be necessary, for the present at least, to continue the steamer. Meantime, I purpose taking into consideration whether some cheaper method

cannot be devised, and tins steamer placed elsewhere or disposed of.


John Dowsley Reid: I remember the way the * Alert ' first came on that route. A number of years ago the government had under construction the Cornwall canal, the Farran's Point canal, the Williamsburgh canal, the North Channel and the Galops Rapids. At each one of these works there was an engineer in charge. The late Mr. Rubidge was superintending engineer over all me works, and the government furnished him with this ste&mer to enable him to run up and down and inspect them. These works have practically all been completed, and there is nothing going on at the present time except at Galops Rapids and the North Channel, which are side by side. At that time there were two superintendents not very distant from each other. When a change of government took place it was decided to abolish their positions, and these two men were dismissed, and Mr. Rubidge was placed in charge of all the canals as well as of the work of construction. These two men that were dismissed were Dr. Hickey and Mit Ross. Shortly after it was decided that it would be well to appoint two men as assistants, but practically they were in the same position as the others had been. One is Mr. Tally at Cornwall, just as able a man as Dr. Hickey or Mr. Ross. One was appointed for Morrisburg and one for Cornwall, with Mr. Stewart superintending the two systems. Now we have got the same number of men as before, though they are called by different names. Mr. Stewart is over the canal in the same way that Mr. Rubidge was, except that he has no construction work to do. I am satisfied that this expenditure of $8,000 or $10,000 per annum for this steamer running up and down, is waste of money. Suppose this man wants to go from Morrisburg to Cornwall, a distance of twelve or thirteen miles. In the olden times the superintendent hired a livery man to drive him up at a cost of $2 or $3 per day, while the cost in the whole season would probably be $300 or $400. But now this steamer is put on, with a crew, and it will cost a lot to run her up and down. A pleasure party will be brought on board of this steamer, and she will run up to Cornwall and on as far as Prescott, and then turn and head down towards Williamsburg probably at a cost of $50- for the trip ; whereas the superintendent could drive along the whole system in a couple of hours and at very small expense. Now the government have put on a boat which is a laughing stock for the whole public, even strong Liberals cannot believe that it will be continued. It is such an outrageous thing that the government should drop it. I was told the other day that Mr. Stewart had started out with a great pleasure picnic from
Morrisburg, simply going to Cornwall, I presume.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I don't know as to that. I am satisfied that Mr. Stewart will not make any improper use of the boat, or anv use that is not necessary in connection with the canal. My hon. friend knows that Mr. Rubidge had this steamer for all these years, and I do not know that my hon. friend made any serious complaint about the cost.


John Dowsley Reid: I complained about this steamer every year, about its being kept up for Mr. Rubidge's service after the work was completed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Rubidge only died a month ago, and the matter came under my observation very recently. I have not had an opportunity of looking into it myself. I hoped the session would have been through before now, and that I would have an opportunity of going down there and studying the situation. In the meantime this boat has been placed under the charge of the superintendent of these canals, who is the proper man to have charge of her. Also there are some engineers engaged finishing up the work, and this boat is placed at their disposal the same as Mr. Rubidge used it in connection with the canal works. I shall determine what to do, and if we find that the work of the superintendent can be carried on by the use of a train or in any other way, the cheapest and best course will be adopted.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that when Mr. Rubidge died Mr. Rheaume was placed in charge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Stewart is simply using the boat to run up and down the canal. Mr. Rubidge had not done much with the boat during the present season because he was too ill, and the boat was lying at Cornwall doing nothing. I do not know why it should be taken out and put on a new service running up and down the canal. It it bad been placed in Mr. Stewart's charge to be responsible for it, that would be a different thing. Every time she goes out it means a lot of money. Mr. Stewart goes down to Cornwall armed with a letter from the department, showing that this boat is handed over to him. is in his charge and that he can do as he likes with it because it is handed over to the engineering staff,

and Mr. Rheaume's responsibility for it has been taken away.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Itheaume was ill no way responsible for that boat. Mr. Stewart, the superintendent of the eanal is responsible for its proper use just in the same way as he is responsible for any other plant in connection with the canal. He is instructed to place the boat at the disposal of the engineers in connection with the work on the canal. He is now using it in connection with the work on the canal.


John Dowsley Reid: He is employing it for his own use on the canal. There is no work of any kind going on now. I hope that when this matter comes up again it will be straightened out in such a way that the public as a whole can feel that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals does not wish to put an expenditure upon these canals such as was never known or that no person, either Liberal or Conservative, would undertake to justify.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know why the vote is required. Is not this inspection and survey made by officers of the department V And if so, what is the purpose of the vote V


Henry Robert Emmerson: Are you referring to the $3,000 ?


Mr.   I@: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is in connection with the travelling expenses of officers. Officers of the department and resident engineers are sent out to different points from time to time and this is to cover their expenses.


Mr. FOWLER.: How much did you expend last year V


Henry Robert Emmerson: 

Mr. LfeNNOX. You are asking for $3,000 and this is a revote.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is an annual vote, not a revote.
Railways and canals-surveys and inspections, railways, $18,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is for the same thing.


Haughton Lennox: If the hon. minister will refer to the Auditor General's Report for 1903, pages W-48 and W-47, he will find an account of the expenses of the cattle-guard commission amounting to $6,942.83. Then it says :
Less charged to surveys and inspections, railways (page W-47), $1,946.61.
leaving an apparent total of $4,996.22. I want to know from the hon. minister what is the reason for taking off that $1,946.61 ? That is a portion of the expenses incurred in con-Mr. J. D. REID.
neetion with the railway cattle-guard commission. Turning back to page W-47 we find, referring to that item of $1,946.61, the expenses of Mr. F. W. Holt, under the heading of ' Miscellaneous surveys and inspections ; cattle-guard commission ' showing that this is an item in connection with the cattle-guard commission and that alone. I refer to that because of the somewhat peculiar system of bookkeeping which seems to obtain and for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that the commission actually cost us $6,492.83. In collection with the matter I had occasion to ask some questions a short time ago. The questions and answers appear in ' Herald ' of the 13th July last. I asked :
Did the services of Geo. Robertson, Esq., as commissioner, from August 16, 1902, to February 13, 1903, 181 days, include a Sunday service as such commissioner ?
The hon. Minister of Public Works gave the following answer to that question :
Mr. Robertson was paid $5 per day for days he actually worked, which did not include Sundays, and reasonable travelling expenses and living expenses when absent from home.
As a matter of fact the hon. minister will find, whether it is due to an error or otherwise, that, if he takes the dates that Mr. Robertson puts in his own account

Services : Aug. 16, 1902-Feb. 13, 1903, 181 d. at $5, $905.
-it includes every Sunday. It surely could not have been the intention that Mr. Robertson should work on behalf of the country in connection with the inspection of cattle-guards and superintending the general conduct of that wall-eyed steer on Sundays as well as on other days of the week. I do not know how it is that the hon. minister gives the answer in the way he does saying that he was only paid for the actual work he did not including Sundays.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I got the answer from the accountant of the department.


Haughton Lennox: It is not a matter of great importance but it is as well to be correct.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly, I supposed the accountant to be correct.


Haughton Lennox: If the hon. minister will add up the figures he will find that they include every day. I also find from the returns that have been brought down that there is a difficulty between Mr. F. W. Holt, one of the commissioners and the government. I have asked whether the difficulty has been adjusted but I have not received an answer. Probably the hon. minister will answer me and say whether the matter is settled or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can tell the hon. gentleman how the matter stands.


Haughton Lennox: Probably I had better say what I have to say. While Mr. Holt got for his services $150 a month he is claiming a thousand dollars more, according to his correspondence. He gives reasons which I think ought to commend themselves to the minister although I do not know whether they would commend themselves to the farming community. I notice in connection with these accounts that the grievances which used to be urged against the Conservative Premier in regard to the charging of cab-hire are continued by the Liberal government. There are also charges here for the polishing of these gentlemen's boots which I suppose would have to be done if they were at home. They also include an account for the expenses of providing office room at St. John and so on. I find that Mr. Holt says that the arrangement made with him by the government was that he should get $150 a month and his actual expenses. He claims that he is entitled to more money. These expenses include not only items such as I have mentioned but they also include railway fare. If the railways are to be exonerated from the payment of any other sum I think they might at least have been asked to bear that part of the expense, to carry these parties from place to place. Mr. Holt further claims that he is entitled to extra compensation and in writing to Mr. Schreiber on the 7th of January, 1904, he puts in this very weightly claim. I want to call the attention of the minister to it, and indirectly the attention of the country, as indicating exactly what was done on behalf of the people in the matter of cattle-guards and the kind of investigation that actually took place in this matter. Mr. Holt says :
When the tests were completed we had not then found a thoroughly satisfactory guard	 It then became my duty to find out the reason

I have some doubt about that, but that is what he says :
.-the only way to do this was to study the structure of the animal as a piece of mechanism. This has been done as to his anatomy by the veterinarian as a surgeon, but I have been unable to find an idea as to his capacity as a machine other than in his ordinary walk.
I suppose he menus his ordinary walk in life.
In emergency motions as in passing a cattle-guard.
It breaks off abruptly there. I do not know exactly what he means. I suppose he means that no special study has been made of the animal in emergency motions as in passing a cattle guard.
And it was from this point of view I have had to treat it. In making this search, I have found that there is very little literature available to the general reader, &e.
And upon this basis he contends that he is to apply himself seriously to this matter, studying this question seriously from the standpoint of the mechanism of the animal and his action in cases of emergency and that he is therefore entitled to at least $1,000 more. I do not know how the government looks upon it, but he gives very good reasons, and I am sorry to say casts some doubt upon the bona fides of the government in this matter. He says :	I went
at it seriously, I thought the government were in earnest. He does not say that the government were not in earnest but he suggests that the government did not bona fide intend to find out a suitable and sufficient cattle-guard. I would be glad to have an explanation from the minister as to the position in which the account stands, as it does not appear to be closed.
Mr. EMMER'SON. It seems to be generally admitted by Mr. Holt and all interested that he was employed in connection with this commission at a fixed rate of payment which was settled at the rate of $150 per month and all his actual travelling expenses and other expenses incident to the work of himself and his co-commissioner. He was paid in accordance with that agreement but subsequently he presented to the department a claim for an additional amount because he had been employed longer than he had anticipated when he accepted the position. Mr. Holt, is, I may say, an engineer of good reputation, and personally I would speak in the highest terms of him both as a man and, so far as I had experience with him, as an engineer. He was arbitrator with Mr. Walter Shanley and Mr. Surtees in a celebrated case in New Brunswick in connection with which I was employed as one of the counsel. Later on I appeared before a tribunal of which he was a member and I may say that on both of these occasions he distinguished himself by the care with which he considered everything and the attention he gave to the cases and the arguments presented before the court. As I knew him well professionally and personally as a friend, he, naturally, after I came into office, presented his view of the case to me. Although the matter had been determined by the department previous to my accession to office he thought I would review it. I did so ; I went into the matter very closely, and I felt that an agreement having been made and carried out both by himself and the department I could not recommend that the decision of the department should either be reviewed or set aside by action of the Council. I felt tkat the Auditor General too would not authorize any departure from an agreement which had been carefully entered into and acted upon by both parties to it. Under these circumstances, while I would have liked very much to have seen him get an additional amount I felt that by reason of the agreement entered into by

7480'
him it was impossible to allow him any additional compensation, even although the time occupied by him was longer than he had anticipated. Usually in such cases when men are willing to work for so much a month the more months the merrier, and I would rather argue it from that standpoint, but in this case a different view was taken by Mr. Holt. I am sorry that Mr. Holt was dissatisfied with the decision but I certainly could not reverse it and I think that the judgment of this committee will be that the decision arrived at by me was correct.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does the minister think that Mr. Holt was required to spend as much time as he claims to have spent in this investigation ? Has the minister satisfied himself as to the length of time he took in making this supposed investigation ? I ask this because the prevailing opinion in Ontario, so far as I can understand, is that ten times as much time was consumed as was necessary and not one-tenth as much information was obtained as should have been secured. Any ordinary man, not claiming to be (especially skilful can find cattle-guards that will turn cattle at a crossing. This gentleman seems to have spent month after month in accomplishing nothing, whether he was trying to accomplish anything or not I do not know but his effort seemed to be to find some defect in every cattle-guard which was submitted for his examination. I attended almost every meeting of that commission in Ontario and I know that a great deal of useful information was submitted to him and many models were shown to him but he did not find any of these worthy of consideration. He seems to have gone off to discover the structure of the animal and how he would walk in an emergency. I cannot understand for the life of me what Mr. Holt was getting at there unless he was trying to make a report to this government that the railways could not get an effective cattle-guard.
I repeat that at all the meetings in Ontario at which I was present, and I was at all but two, a great many good structures were offered to these gentlemen ; and there were no two opinions that many of them were effective, and would turn back ninety-nine out of one hundred animals. Tne hon. gentleman, not expecting at that time to be Minister of Railways, probablj did not go down to the fair grounds here, as I did, when Mr. Holt was experimenting, or he' would have found that the situation which Mr. Holt was trying to deal with there was not the situation as it existed in the country at all. He did not have a highway, from which the anfmai would have to turn aside to the right or the left to get on the railway, but he constructed a railway, and put the animal on the track, and surrounded the track with human beings on both sides, and urged the animal along the track and over the guard to the open highway; and as the


Henry Robert Emmerson: animal had no other way to go, he struggled across. Therefore, because the animal got over the guard, Mr. Holt said the guard would not turn back the animal. That was very different from the situation in the country which Mr. Holt was employed to investigate. Therefore I think Mr. Holt has been very well paid, particularly as he chose to make a bargain at $5 a day ; but I wonder that the minister did not tell him that three-fourths of his time was wasted, and that the commission accomplished nothing. X do not know why the report of this commission has not been published and circulated through the country. X can only suppose that it is because it does not contain the information which the government thought it ought to contain. Perhaps it is not a work of very great literary quality; but I do know that when this matter was brought up in the House, the reason the late Minister of Railways gave for not making the railways liable was that he was going to have the matter investigated by a commission, and that when he found what was the safest and ,most effective guard-a guard which he might call the standard-he would pass a law to make the railways adopt it; and they would be liable if they did not adopt it and not liable if they did and it failed to turn iback the cattle. But, like many things which this government has promised, that did not happen, and we got the law which was contended for by myself and others on this side of the House, making the railways liable in any event and allowing them to provide their own guard. We are now dealing with the cost of this commission. I understand that Mr. Holt got $5,000, and that he wants $100 a month more. I think the minister, when inquiring into this question, ought to see whether or not Mr. Holt earned the money he did get. The farmers of the country, who are paying this expenditure of $6,000, which they have always claimed through their representatives in this House who knew anything about the matter, was a useless expenditure, believe that the results of this commission have been absolutely nil to the country. I think the Minister of Railways owes it to the farmers who pay the larger portion of the taxes of this country, to see whether Mr. Holt earned the money he did get or not, and, if he did not, to have it refunded. The farmers do not know what particular instructions were given to Mr. Holt; but they have a right to suppose that he was instructed to do his best to ascertain what is the best guard that could be obtained. I understand that the report says that there is no guard that can be obtained that will turn cattle. Now, the farmers of this country will not swallow that; I may as well tell the minister that first as last, I may also tell him that at these cattle-guard meetings il saw models of a good many guards with which the commissioners could not find fault; but they did try to find fault with every guard presented to them.

Several questions were discussed at these meetings as to the structure of the guards ; opinions were taken from the farmers and mechanics present as to what sort of mechanical contrivance should be used ; and I have looked in vain in the commissioner's report for all that evidence. If it is so as I gather from the hon. member for South Simcoe, that these gentlemen, charged railway fares while travelling through Ontario, that is an imposition on the country, because I was on the train with them, and I know they travelled from one place to another on passes which were furnished to them by the railways. I know they did not pay their railway fares then.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend does not say that they charged for railway expenses which they did not pay out 1


Haughton Lennox: I do not think they have charged all their railway fares, but they have charged some.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is, where they had not passes.


Haughton Lennox: I might ask the hon. minister if it is the intention of the goveimment to publish the report of this commission ? It should be published unless that involves a large expense, because we might as well know what was done. It looks to me as if it could be published at an expense of a very few dollars, judging by the public accounts, where there is a charge for a typewritten report of the commission, COO copies, at 5 cents each, $30. If it is a 5 cent report, I think we ought to have copies of it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is not that 5 cents per folio ?


Haughton Lennox: I do not see anything to show that it is 600 folios.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have been asked by my hon. friend from Lincoln as to whether I thought Mr. Holt took up more time than was necessary. If I were to answer that question, I would say that if more time was taken than was actually necessary, it was not done intentionally or for any improper purpose by Mr. Holt. I have a sufficiently high opinion of him to reach that conclusion. There is a great difference between men in this respect. Some are quick in thought, in action and in speech. Some are slow in thought and in speech. Mr. Holt may have been slow in his methods to work out the ideas he had before him, but he claimed to me it was necessary for him to take thal time, and that he was entitled to some additional compensation.


Robert Laird Borden: Because he was slow ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; he claimed that he did the work with great rapidity, and that the speed made by him in reaching a conclusion was a further reason why he should
be paid more. I have decided against Mr. Holt, although he is a personal and, I believe, a political friend of my own. I am informed that Mr. Holt did not urge the cattle in any direction on this track. The Deputy Minister of Railways was there, and he said that the only thing that was done was to place hay on the track on either side of the cattle-guard, and the cattle were driven, along and, seeing the hay, they turned in its direction. I intend studying the report, which I have not yet had time to do, but as the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission, I have felt that it was incumbent upon that commission rather than me to deal with it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In view of what the minister has said, I can only say that there must be a double sort of structure down at the grounds where these experiments were made, because I not only saw the animals forced over the guards, but remonstrated with Mr. Holt about the way they were treated. His answer was that he wanted to put each guard to the strictest possible test. I toid him two or three times that it was not a fair test to force an animal over the guard. Thfere was no way for the animal to escape except to struggle over the guard. As regards the printing and publishing of this report, the only reason I can see for publishing it would be to show the farmers what little value this government gives them for their money.


Richard Blain: I am in favour of the government publishing the report. As I understand from the hon. minister, the cost will not be very great. The government has already expended about $5,000 in testing cattle-guards


Haughton Lennox: Almost $7,000.


Richard Blain: I stand corrected. As the government has spent almost $7,000 in testing cattle-guards


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. I do not understand my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) to say we have expended $7,000 in testing cattle-guards.	[DOT]


Richard Blain: The country has been expending $7,000 for the purpose of testing cattle-guards to find


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) has a right to choose his own language. I only wanted to know what he meant.


Richard Blain: I only wished to state the case as it is. So, I will ask the hon. minister to explain it to me.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand the work of testing the cattle-guards to be that which was done out here at the Exhibition grounds, which was attended by my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and in relation to which he disputes the declaration

of the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals-another illustration that if half a dozen men attend a dog fight each will give a different account of it. The total cost of the commission is something over $6,000, but I should think that the work of testing cattle-guards was that done out here at the exhibition grounds.


Richard Blain: I do not know that the hon. minister has made it much clearer. I made the statement that the cost of testing the cattle-guards was about $7,000, and I understand that the exact figure is $0,942. This money has been spent in the effort to find out whether a suitable cattle-guard had been invented. I think that some of the guards submitted for examination were very suitable and might be adopted by the railways in Canada. I know of one, patented by a gentleman from Cookville, Ont., and brought to the city at considerable cost to the inventor, to be submitted to tests. X understand that for more than an hour and a half in one case, and more than two hours in the other case, the cattle were unable to get over this cattle-guard. The inventor felt that it would be a suitable cattle-guard for use on our railways, and if the government were making the test for the purpose of recommending or prescribing a suitable guard this one, perhaps with others, should be most favourably regarded. Furthermore, the cost is very little-not more than $7. A practical engineer who saw it said that it could be manufactured in large quantities at $5 each. The government have not done their duty in regard to cattle-guards submitted for test. And I have no hesitation in saying that, as the government have spent'$6,942 in testing and paying the officers to make observations in connection with the test, the government should spend whatever small further sum might be necessary in order to publish the report. So long as the government keep the report secret, people will imagine that there is something wrong about it. The people should know how their money was expended and what the results were. "Whether those results are valuable or not valuable is a matter for further consideration.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It seems to me unnecessary to publish the report of the commission. ' The evidence has been taken and typewritten ; the report of the commissioners has been made ; and the whole now comes under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission wTho are the ones to finally settle this question.


Richard Blain: Was not the test made under the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Emmer-son's) department and was not the report made to his department ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, and the whole business laid before the Railway Commission. At the time the commission began Mr. EMMERSON.
its work the Railway Department had jurisdiction and they naturally reported to the Railway Department, and about that time this parliament transferred jurisdiction from the Railway Department to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not know that my opinion under any circumstances would weigh with hon. gentlemen opposite, but it certainly would not have the weight of authority even if expressed, because the individual holding the position of Minister of Railways at this day is not clothed with jurisdiction with respect to this matter. It seems to me that in discussing a matter of this kind, we can hardly hope to accomplish great good through the department of Railways.


Haughton Lennox: When I called attention to this matter, I did not suppose that it would be discussed for so long a time. Certainly, I shall not take many minutes in what further I have to say on the subject. The amount of money spent is not so very impiortant in itself.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) will allow me :	There was one
thing he called my attention to-and very properly-the Auditor General's statement of the expenses of making a deduction. There was a deduction from the sum total because a proportion of the time of Mr. Holt was taken up in connection with the inspection of railways, and it was held to be properly chargeable, apart from the cattle-guard question, to the Railway Department.


Haughton Lennox: So far as the $2,000 is concerned, I only called attention to that so that there might be no misunderstanding. Expense amounting to practically $2,000 by reason of the fact that the government had an investigation of the cattle-guard question on which there was a total expenditure of $6,942. I notice what the minister said as to Mr. Holt being a little slow.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not wish the hon. gentleman to say that I said so. I am willing to accept Mi\ Holt's estimate of himself that he was very speedy.


Haughton Lennox: As to whether the minister considered Mr. Holt slow, I am not concerned about that, except that I think it right to call attention to the fact of the investigation that took place ; and I think that if we take his own estimate we get a good gauge of the investigation that, as a matter of fact did take place. When Mr. Robertson retired in February the House was sitting. I was instructed by the Minister of Railways that the investigation was then practically completed. So we find that for four months afterwards the investigation continued, and with no practical benefit to anybody. Now with reference to the report, I do not think the minister has taken pains to ascertain

Low that matter stands. If this was a five cent report, being a matter of less than two folios, less than a page at all events, it might be well to have a copy. I have gone to the trouble of going over the matter, I find there is a lot of interesting matter in it but none that is very valuable. There are 9S8 pages of this stuff, and I think four-fifths of it is absolute rubbish. It is a repetition of letters, of copies of letters, of letters original and so forth. There is nothing in it of the nature of a report. You cannot tell where any report begins or where any report ends. The commissioners reported the evidence, but they have made no finding. If there is no report worth five cents a copy, there is no report at all that I could conscientiously recommend to have published because I would say that three or four hundred pages of evidence are reported but no finding as a result. I do not think the minister is right in the conclusion that this is a matter for the Railway Commission. I think it is a matter for his department. Mr. Robertson appears to be of no particular value in the matter, because he was allowed to leave before he had completed his duties, before he had made any report. We paid him for six months time, including Sundays, $905 and $S43.42 for expenses, and we got nothing from him in return. The other gentleman spent ten months, and complains that his salary was not large enough.


Robert Laird Borden: How much was expended last year an account of this item V


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Robert Laird Borden: What was it expended for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In connection with the surveys and inspection of subsidized roads.


Robert Laird Borden: Why were the commissioners, to whom reference has been made, paid before they made their report?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As a matter of fact, they were paid by the month, as they went along.


Robert Laird Borden: That seems an unusual way of doing business.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that is the us-usual way with these commissions.


Robert Laird Borden: One of the commissioners, apparently, not only broke away from the commission, but he ceased operations and did not make any report. The House does not enjoy the advantage of appreciating his opinion on the subject of cat-tie-guards. How is that serious defect ever to be remedied ? Does the hon. Minister of Railways think it ever can be remedied ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Robertson was chiefly appointed for the purpose of taking evidence ; he was not a scientific man at 238
all, only an ordinary common sense business man.


Haughton Lennox: Very common sense.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, I like to see good, genuine common sense men on such a commission, with the emphasis on the common,' and Mr. Robertson is such a man.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not reflecting on either of these gentlemen, I am discussing the methods which were pursued. If the only duty of the commissioners was to take evidence, it would strike one who was not familiar with the technical way of dealing with these commissioners, that perhaps one could have done it as well as two-that' would seem to follow from the minister's remarks. Might I inquire whether any marked difference was found in the efficiency of the commission after Sir. Robertson had ceased to co-operate with Mr. Holt ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Robertson only ceased when Mr. Holt started in to draw up his report from the scientific point of view ; he studied the question from the scientific and mechanical side.


Robert Laird Borden: Have we not been robbed-I trust ' robbed ' is not too strong a word-of the aspect of the question presented from the common sense side to which my hon. friend has drawn attention ? As I understand it. Mr. Robertson was the common sense man of the commission, and the other gentlqman was the scientific man. If we are to have presented to parliament only the scientific side and not the common sense side, how are we to understand the latter side ? Is it likely that at any time in the near future the common sense side will be presented to us by Mr. Robertson ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I may explain to my hon. friend that the people of the country and parliament can draw their own deductions from that common sense presentation of the evidence. I do not wish to have it crystallized here ; parliament is supposed to have a great amount of ordinary common sense, and I do not suppose we need it to be crystallized in a report.


Robert Laird Borden: Then do we understand that Mr. Robertson gave evidence himself ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He took the evidence and arranged it. I want my hon. friend to understand me. Mr. Robertson arranged who should give evidence at the different points where the commission sat. Mr. Robertson attended to the business side of the commisssion and the other gentleman was as the scientific member of the commission, having scientific knowledge as an engineer. Mr. Roberston arranged where and when the meetings should be held, he was practically the chairman of the commission. They went from place to place taking this evid-



ence, and he has reported that for the benefit of parliament as I think for the benefit of the Railway Commission, because that is the tribunal which will have jurisdiction in the settlement of this matter.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty seems to be that although the common sense to which my hon. friend refers may have been crystallized in the ease of Mr. Robertson, parliament does not enjoy the advantage of having the crystals placed before it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The evidence has been reported to the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I know. My hon. friend says that Mr. Robertson's common sense was valuable in connection with this evidence. To what can that amount unless Mr. Robertson is possessed of some intuition which enables him to select the proper persons to give the evidence? I suppose that any man possessing an ordinary knowledge of the difficulties that surround the construction of a cattle-guard could have taken this evidence in about one quarter of the time and at about one-tenth of the expense that has been incurred. As far as I can see the whole commission has rather degenerated into a humbug. The only advantage that the country enjoys is that of paying the expenses of these gentlemen during a very considerably greater period than one would reasonably have expected to be occupied in making this inquiry.


Haughton Lennox: There is one question which the hon. minister did not answer. I did not notice it at the time but this ' common sense ' discussion has brought it up. Mr. Holt in claiming compensation does not present the same view as that of the hon. minster in regard to the common sense of the other commissioner. Mr. Holt claims that the whole weight of the matter fell on him, that he was the chief person engaged in the inquiry and that therefore he is entitled to greater compensation. That is a matter that we will have to leave to be decided later on when we get more light upon it. But, the hon. minister has not said whether he agrees with the suggestion which is more than once repeated in the correspondence of Mr. Holt, that the government were not in earnest, that the government did not want the work to be done, that the government were not serious in the matter and that he was serious. As to that I would like the hon. minister to answer. Does he agree with Mr. Holt in his suggestion that the government were not serious, or is he able to say that the insinuation that they were not serious has been repudiated by the government ? I object very decidedly to this expenditure considering that we have nothing in the nature of a report from Mr. Holt or from Mr. Robertson. Mr. Robertson did not pretend to Mr. EMMERSON.
make a report. He performed a service for the party in another capacity by dropping out of the commission entirely to contest an election in the interests of the Liberal party and for that service I suppose he is excused from making a report.
Railways and canals-Miscellaneous-railway statistics, including clerical assistance, notwithstanding anything in the' Civil Service Act, $2,500.


William Findlay Maclean: Are these statistics required to be collected under the new Railway Act.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the usual vote from year to year. These statistics are provided for in the Railway Act.


William Findlay Maclean: In connection with these statistics I would urge upon the hon. minister that the Railway Commission and his department should be more active in getting statistics. It' developed here only the other day that while the Railway Act requires railway companies to file their standard passenger rates-


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have until November to do it.


William Findlay Maclean: I know that because the commission gave them an opportunity as a result of my calling attention to their dereliction in connection with the matter. All these statistics that are called for under the Act should be made good immediately. I also want to point out for the information of the Railway Commission that all statistics bearing on railway questions and especially on railway tariffs ought to be in the hands of the commission and available for the public. Anything I desired to ascertain in connection with railway operations I have had to go out and collect myself at very considerable expense. I have had to send out my own commissioners to find out these things and I think the time has arrived when the Railway Commission ought to collect th,ese statistics and that they ought to be available for the public. I would also say that the Railway Commission should see that its clerks assist those of us in the House who desire to get information and the information when obtained ought to be available for every one.


Samuel Hughes: Before this item passes I would like to bring a matter to the attention of the hon. minister and I might as well bring it up on this item as upon any other. I want to ask the hon. minister if he will be good enough to tell the committee about McLaren's Creek. Last year and the year before there were items in the estimates for the construction of a roadway across McLaren's Creek but the work was stopped. I do not find any item in the estimates at all this year. Last year the department sent up an embankment,

about balf way across the creek, but the [DOT]dredge was taken away and no more has been done since. I understand that a gentleman in the Senate who claims to exercise patronage in that riding interfered and had the dredge taken away. This was not done in the hon. minister's time so that if he does not know anything about the matter be can give me the information at a later stage.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My information Is that the department offered to pay one-third of the cost of making the roadway providing the municipality, or interested parties, paid the remainder. The department started in to do their work and they were ready to do it but the others would not and the department has delayed matters until those interested are willing to perform their part of the work. That is my information.


Samuel Hughes: I presume I know as much about this matter as any person but I never heard a hint once before that the municipality were supposed to do something. The understanding was that the road was to be left in such a position that the municipality could finish it up. This is the first time that X ever heard that the government were to pay one-third and the municipality two-thirds of the cost. The municipality have no right to do any of it at all. Owing to the construction of the government dam at Bobcaygeon teams have to go two miles west and two miles back to the east again to reach Lindsay. If it were not for the government dam, the creek would be readily accessible. I do *not know where the hon. minister's information comes from. If there is any correspondence in the matter I would ask the hon. minister to bring it down or I will go over to the department and see it.
There is another matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. minister and it is in regard to Pigeon river bridge at the mouth of Pigeon river. It was taken away by the ice last winter. Inasmuch as the Pigeon river will be open to navigation as soon as the Trent canal is completed I would ask the minister to have his engineer look into it and consider the advisability of having a swing bridge at that point.
Salaries of extra clerks, copyists and messengers other than those who have passed the civil service examination, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $3,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the usual vote in connection with the department. Last year the full amount was expended.


George William Fowler: Would the minister give a list of these people ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: During the season these extra clerks are employed ; they are Ottawa people, but I have not the list here.
23SI


George William Fowler: That is very vague information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the list; it is the usual number of people, but I could very readily get the list; there are some three or four.


George William Fowler: I think we ought to know what this is for, and who gets it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I find I did not go far enough in my explanation. There are two stenographers in the minister's office who are ^paid out of this vote.


George William Fowler: Extra ones ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; employed continuously outside the civil service. They are paid $000. They are Miss Scott and Miss Quain. Then we have temporarily employed for the session Miss Helmer and Miss Stewart, who are paid at the rate of $500 a year for the session. Miss 'Scott and Miss Quain are employed in the office of the private secretary of the minister, doing the typewriting all the year around, and I know that they are very hard-worked officials, because they have no holidays on Saturdays, and their day's work is not concluded at four o'clock as in the case of appointments under the Civil Service Act.
Salaries of engineers, draughtsmen, extra clerks and messengers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $29,450.


Henry Robert Emmerson: During 1903-4 we had employed and paid out of this vote Thomas Ridout. consulting engineer ; R. C. Douglas, hydraulic and bridge engineer ; E. B. Johnston ; J. B. Spain, chief draughtsman; Mothersill, auditor of the engineers' accounts ; Leslie, draughtsman; T. L. Simmons, inspecting engineer ; Mr. Lawlor, assistant law clerk ; the photographer and extra clerks, who are not on the permanent staff under the Civil Service Act.


George William Fowler: What proportion of this goes to the extra clerks ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are 15 extra clerks, in addition to the messengers. About $18,000 of it goes to the higher officials, the engineers, &c., and the balance goes to the extra clerks and messengers.


George William Fowler: Do you have the same clerks every year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have been described as the permanent temporaries. They are not on the civil service list; they are employed temporarily, but they are permanently there.


George William Fowler: I would suggest that the minister bring in a short Act to put them on the permanent list.


Richard Blain: How many officials were engaged in the minister's department last year who had not passed the civil service examination ?

7492r


Henry Robert Emmerson: Since I have been in the department no additional ones have come in. A new assistant law clerk came in, Mr. Alward, hut he is not required to pass any examination. Mr. Alward simply replaced Mr. Hansard, who was th* former assistant law clerk, who was promoted to the position of law clerk on the resignation of Mr. Rue:, who has taken a position at Toronto.


Richard Blain: I suppose that we are to understand that the minister will not employ any one who has not passed the civil service examination for positions for which an examination is required ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Only temporarily, as the work requires.
Governor General's car, repairs and alterations, $2,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would like to ask the minister how many of these so-called government cars there are. I see it stated in this morning's paper that the Minister of the Interior left in his private car on Saturday for Winnipeg. I remember seeing in one of the prominent newspapers last winter that one of the government cars had arrived in Winnipeg to bring a relative of the Minister of the Interior to Ottawa for Christmas.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was a mistake.


William Humphrey Bennett: I beg the hou. gentleman's pardon-it was not a mistake. One of the government cars left here and went to Winnipeg to bring a relative of the Minister of the Interior down to spend Christmas.


Samuel Hughes: Brought his father down.


William Humphrey Bennett: What I want to know from the minister is for what degree of relationship may the cars be sent ? What is the extent of the consanguinity, and how many of these private cars are there ? It will not do for the minister to say that these things are not done. I myself saw two government cars standing in the Union Station at Toronto, and there was not a minister in one of them. It was a party of ladies.


Samuel Hughes: A pleasure excursion up the line ; and when an hon. member of this House dies, and his fellow members wish to attend his funeral, they have to pay for their own Pullman's. The government would not even provide a private ear to take the body of the late Mr. McCreary to Winnipeg. I thought it was simply disgraceful. These cars can always be got by any of the ministers or their friends who want to make a junketting trip through the country, making exhibitions of themselves, and laughing at the poor farmers sweating in the fields. And yet when a member of the minister's own party dies, his body is sent in a baggage car to the Northwest.


Mr.   BRAIN@: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the hon. gentleman' language lis not within proper-bounds. The use of private cars is to-day just what it has been since there have been private cars.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Henry Robert Emmerson: -I happen to know something about that. When a minister applies to the Department of Railways for a car, it is assigned to him and the department knows nothing about the purpose for which he wants it. The ministers do not own private cars. The Department of Railways and Canals has, I think, five official cars, of which two are at Ottawa, and if a minister wants one in connection with any business he may have in hand, and if it is in the yard here he gets it on his requisition. Beyond that the department has-no knowledge. I am sure the statement made by my hon. friend about junketting is simply a figure of speech. He wishes to convey an idea of a condition of things which does not exist, and I am sure that on reflection he will feel like withdrawing the statement.


Samuel Hughes: My language is not at all overdrawn. I say to the minister that it is a scandal in his own party. Hon. members sitting on his own side of the House have objected to it in much stronger language than I have used. I may not repeat the language because it was in the shape of personal attacks on the ministers and their friends.


Andrew B. Ingram: They used to call them small potatoes. I do not know what they call them now.


Samuel Hughes: I will not repeat the language which was used by members of the minister's own party, because it would not be parliamentary. If it comes to a vote, they will fall into line, but in their hearts they condemn the misuse of the cars ; and on the occasion of the death of Mr. McCreary, when one of these cars might properly have been used to remove his body to Winnipeg, members of the hon. minister's own party were indignant when they learned that the body had been sent, in a baggage ear ; and some of those who went with it came very near being left behind and not reaching Winnipeg at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With respect to the statement of my hon. friend I would say that this is the first time I have known that there ever was a request made to the Department of Railways for a car to go to Winnipeg on the occasion of the much lamented death of Mr. McCreary. I never heard of it before. If any such request had been made. I am sure the Department of Railways would have been only too pleased to have met the wishes of Mr. McCreary's friends.


George William Fowler: It seems to me very strange that the minister should require a request for a car under such circumstances. A prominent member of the Liberal party died practically in the House while in the service of his country, and his body was carried in a baggage car instead of one of the government cars being used for that purpose. As a matter of fact, several ministers were approached on the subject by the member for North Victoria, and each one said it was not in his department. It should not have been necessary for any request to have been made at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a wonder the hon. member did not mention it to the head of the Railway Department.


Samuel Hughes: I rang up the office of the Minister of Railways half a dozen times at the request of some of his own friends. I was told that the minister was not there, but was at Council. Then I rang up the Privy Council office. The message was sent to the Prime Minister while the cabinet was In Council, and I do not know what became of it. I also rang up the office of the Minister of the Interior, and spoke to the deputy minister and several other officers of that department ; but nobody seemed to care enough about the matter to do anything. I spoke personally to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and he declined to Interfere. The sum and substance of it is that they had no more use for the late member of Selkirk, and they allowed his body to go to Winnipeg in a baggage car, while they kept the private cars for pleasure trips up and down the side lines.
'Mr. BENNETT. Do I understand the minister to say that the statement I made about a private car having been sent to Winnipeg to bring down a relative of the Minister of the Interior is incorrect ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, because I have no knowledge of the matter.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman said before that it was a mistake. He gave the statement a point blank denial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because I did not understand what it was.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the rule as to the extent of relationship governing the sending of these cars across the country ? Has the minister any policy on the subject ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought I made myself quite clear, that any minister asking for the use of a car can get it if there is one available. This is the custom that has prevailed for a great many years, long before this government came into power, and it continues. The department does not have a record as to the use to which a car is to be put. That must be for the judgment of the minister getting the use of the car.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many of these
government cars are there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are two here for that purpose.


William Humphrey Bennett: How many at other points ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At Moncton there are three official cars. Then there is the Governor Generals' car, with which the Railway Department has nothing whatever to do.


George William Fowler: That makes five outside of the Govenor General's car ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George William Fowler: Is it true that some time last year one of these cars was sent from Moncton to California ? If so, for what purpose was it sent ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: What time does my hon. friend refer to ?


George William Fowler: Say within the last two years. I think it was some time yast year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Sir William Mulock had one of the cars to go to Mexico.


William Humphrey Bennett: AVhat-Sir William Mulock, the farmer's friend ?


Samuel Hughes: Is it the same gentleman who was sympathizing with the farmers in Ontario the other night, who was rolling over the country to Mexico in a private car ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend had such a quantity of sympathy to express that I do not know how Sir William Mulock could find opportunity to get a word in.


Samuel Hughes: If Sir William Mulock were to die, his body ought to be sent home in a baggage car the same as Mr. Mc-Crearys. I would be quite satisfied to see him sent home that way.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much money is invested in these private cars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: These are practically the same ears as have been owned by the government since the early days.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, the hon. gentleman is quite wrong in his history of these government ears.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not tell you the amount of money invested for that purpose.


William Humphrey Bennett: There was only one government car in the old days and that was the ' Jamaica.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: They began with one.
iMr. BENNETT. And these magnates have five now. I suppose that is because the ministers have always lived in private

cars of their own. What do these cars cost on an average ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can tell my hon. friend that he is very much mistaken when he says the late government had only one private car. I remember at the time of the funeral of the late Sir John Thompson, down at Halifax, there were four different ministers who had private cars at the time, each one having a car of his own.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the hon. gentleman sure that those four carriages were owned by the government at the time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Quite certain.


William Humphrey Bennett: What were the names ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not tell you that. One of the cars now in use cost $4,500. Another one cost $9,500. The one bought for the Duke and Duchess cost $20,000.


George William Fowler: Are you not building another private car ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is something in the estimates for the Governor General's car and I was going to explain that when I got the opportunity.


George William Fowler: Is there not an item of $18,000 to build a new car ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Railway Commissioners will require a car if they have not already purchased one.


George William Fowler: That is ordered now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Whether they have actually ordered it or secured it I do not know.


William Findlay Maclean: How much is it to cost?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 

Mr. FO WhEfi. The hon. minister has not answered my question about that trip to California.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was no trip .that I was aware of to California except the one to Mexico.


George William Fowler: This private car was sent to Moncton in connection with Mr. Tiffin.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Tiffin is the general traffic manager and has an official car in which he travels on business. Whether he went in it as far as California or not, I am not in position to say.


George William Fowler: Mr. Tiffin was away on leave for six months, and it was during that time he had this car. My information is that during those six months he had this car with a party of friends, and went to California in it at the expense of the people of Canada.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would not be at the expense of the people.


George William Fowler: The government own the car.


William Humphrey Bennett: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, but if he took the car away on such a trip it would not be at the expense of the government.


George William Fowler: Would he pay for haulage ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a courtesy extended by railways.


George William Fowler: What would he pay ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He would pay his living in the car and all the expenses connected with it.


Haughton Lennox: Which of the cars went to Mexico ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it was car 109.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not a fact that when private cars are used by other ministers than the Minister of Railways, the railway companies generally charge for the haulage ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is paid by the individual minister and not by the government. All the expenses are paid by the individual and he simply has the use of the car.	.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the charge per mile ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon friend will find that the courtesy is extended by railways to a minister even on American roads. They extend the courtesy of haulage. I know they do in Canada. I think that the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway never charge any of the ministers for transportation and the Intercolonial does not charge railway directors. Unfortunately these railway magnates do not go down over the Intercdlonial often enough, or they would realize better what a fine country we have down there.


Samuel Hughes: I would not say a word about private cars. If the minister goes off on business, it is his duty to travel in a private car, but what irritated me was that at the very time when poor McCreary's body was sent away in a baggage car, I heard from Liberal members in this House


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am only sorry my hon. friend did not state the matter to me. All that would have been necessary would have been to mention the fact to me. I never heard a whisper of it. I regret that the suggestion did not occur to myself.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the name of the cal built for tlie Duke and Duchess of York ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. 109.


George William Fowler: Is that the one the minister uses for his own private use ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do not put it in that way. It is the car that has been used by

the Minister of Railways, and X have the temerity to use it now.


Samuel Hughes: Perfectly right.


George William Fowler: I understood that the hon. minister went to Nova Scotia with a party of friends. I presume he had oar No. 109 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the car I had.


Andrew B. Ingram: What private oars were there in connection with the government railways and used by the ministers in 1890 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A return was brought down about that during this session. X have not the papers here.


Andrew B. Ingram: The minister might ash his deputy for the information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is one additional ear now over those that existed in 1896 in connection with the Department of Railways.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was there a Governor General's car previous to 1896 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes ; that is the one that has cost so much to repair. It is called the ' Victoria.' It was provided for the use of the Governor General. His Excellency has reported time and again within the last two or three years that it was much out oi repair. It seemed to toe cheaper to purchase a new car than to incur this annual expense for repairs. In a few minutes I shall ash the committee to vote $18,000 for a new car for the Governor General.


George William Fowler: Then what is this $2,000 for 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the changes necessary to make it into some other kind of a car.


John Dowsley Reid: As a private car ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; it is not so intended.


Andrew B. Ingram: Wre have one car now in addition to those we had in 1S96, and when this $18,000, to which the minister refers, is voted, that will make a second additional car.	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; that will put the 'Victoria' out of commission, so that there will not be an additional car.
Mr. INGRAM, Then why spend this. $2,000 r If that amount is spent on a car, it must be in order to keep the car in use.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This.item was put in last February, of course, before the determination had been reached to build a new car. Since then, talking with His Excellency and others who are interested, it seemed to me it would be better to vote money for a new car ; and my idea is to utilize the old car in some way in connection with the Intercolonial. If that cannot be done the money will not he spent.


Haughton Lennox: Then it is not true, as was raid a few minutes ago, that this will make an additional car which will become available for the Intercolonial or officials of the government ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My idea is to make it into a passenger car in connection with the Intercolonial.


George William Fowler: The government is going to provide an additional car for the Governor General and also a car for the Railway Commission. Besides this they have one additional car since 1896. That makes three new cars since 1896.


William Humphrey Bennett: In the four cars which he says were owned by the government prior to 1896, does the minister include the Governor General's car ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: What were the four cars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My memory is not good enough to give the hon. gentleman that information.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not expect the hon, minister to be able to remember details of that kind. But he has his officials beside him, and surely they can tell him.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They do not remember.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister tell me that the deputy minister does not know how many private cars there are on the road ? Why, any school boy living along the road can tell that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I may tell the hon. minister that as long ago as 1892 there was an old oar that stood down here on the siding that was used by the ministers of that time during an election tour. I think it was the only car around here. I do not think the minister can be allowred to make the statement that there were four cars at that time unless he gives us the names.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was the ' Ottawa,' the ' Cumberland,' a car known as No. 84, and another car whose name or number T do not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: "Where were the four cars kept ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Two here constantly- the 1 Ottawa ' and the 1 Cumberland.'
Sir. FOWLER, And where were the four in commission ?	[DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: I gave the exact information to answer that question, but I have not the notes at hand, and I cannot remember.	-


George William Fowler: I think we ought to be able to get the exact number of these cars, there are not so many of them. The min-



[Stage Direction]
ister says that in 1896 there were four cars ; I want to know whether those four are still in commission, and if so, where are they used. For instance, at Moncton-as 1 understand it, Mr. Pottinger, the general manager,'"has a car of his own. Mr. Tiffin also has a car of his own. Are there any other cars kept at Moncton belonging to a particular official ?
Henry Robert Emmerson: We have two cars at Moncton, one No. 75, used by the general manager and the general superintendent, the other, the number of which I do not know, is used by the traffic manager. Then we have one used by the deputy minister, which "was also used by the deputy minister previous to 1896 ; that is known as the ' Ottawa ". Then we have the car known as the ' Montreal I do not know her number. In addition we have the ear No. 109, the one that has been used by ministers. That makes five, and as I stated there were four previous to 1896 ; the sixth is the Governor General's car.


George William Fowler: The ' Ottawa used by the deputy minister, is that also used by members of the government ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is still known as the deputy minister's car, and is used largely in the business of the department. When it is not engaged on that business it is used by members of the government. When ministers want a car and send in a requisition to the department, if the other car is not ready that one is taken. On the occasion this last winter when the Postmaster General was ill car 109 was used by him in going to Mexico.


George William Fowler: Do I understand it is the intention of the minister to condemn the present Governor General's car and use it as a passenger car on the Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is my idea, to convert it into a passenger car.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that these cars are made with compartments, and it would seem to involve a good deal of sacrifice to make that change. But I would point out that we have this condition of things, that the estimates are brought down with a vote of $2,000 to repair the Governor General's car ; we have no objection to that, if it is necessary.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I may explain that we put that item in the estimates when it was supposed that the car would continue to be used as the Governor General's. Since then I have changed the estimates and put in an additional amount of $18,000 for a new car ; and I have decided to change the present car used by the Governor General into a passenger ear for the Intercolonial, probably a parlour car.


George William Fowler: 


Haughton Lennox: That appears to be a second thought on the part of the minister, we must follow events as they have occurred.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is no second thought at all.


Haughton Lennox: We discussed this item at considerable length before the minister made this intimation, we are discussing this $2,000 item for the repair of the Governor General's car, and just now the minister announces that it is not for that purpose at all. Then I think I am justified in assuming that probably it is an afterthought when he says that it is to be turned into a passenger car. Now I venture to predict, having regard to circumstances as they have occurred, that it is highly probable that the minister will again change his mind, and that the car will be devoted to the same class of service as the other cars that are denominated official cars, and that it will make one more car available for members of the administration. It seems to be impossible to ascertain just how many official cars we have. It is remarkable that it should be impossible to know clearly by name and number their proper official designation. and how many cars we have. An inquiry was made a month ago upon this question, it was referred to several times in the House, and the minister has sitting at his elbow the deputy minister, and yet we cannot get explicit information as to what cars we have in the service of the government. So far as I understand, we have the Ottawa, the Montreal, the Cumberland, we have No. 109 for the Minister of Railways, we have No. 75 and No. 34. I think we can now safely conclude that after the purchase or construction of another official car for the Governor General, we will have seven or eight cars at all events.


William Findlay Maclean: Are these two new cars to be built in Canada ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is only one car to be constructed, the Governor General's car. which is to be constructed in Canada.


William Findlay Maclean: I think he said the commissioners had ordered a car for themselves.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They purchased a car.
I think they got it for immediate use, from the Pullman Company.


George William Fowler: Where are they going to have this new car built ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think I should tell my hon. friend at this moment. I have an offer from people in Canada, but I am not prepared to accept it until the vote is passed. However, I have stated that it will be built in Canada. I have an .offer that will enable us to have it built in Canada within the sum mentioned in the item.


George William Fowler: Was this car 109 built In Canada ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


William Findlay Maclean: Did the minister authorize this expenditure on the part of the Railway Commissioners ? On what authority did they order it or purchase it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Under the authority of a vote. It was necessary for them to have an official car for the Railway Commission. They were obliged to go to Toronto and other points in the west, and there was no car in the service of the Department of Railways and Canals that would accommodate them. There are three commissioners, and they have their officials with them. It is quite a large party. They require at least three rooms, one for each commissioner. There is no car at present available, not one of the cars has that number of rooms and it is therefore necessary to have such a car for the Railway Commissioners. Efforts were made to purchase one from the railway companies in Canada if they had any available but none could he found that would at all suit the requirements. The Railway Commissioners have assignments for holding meetings in the west at very many points and they require to leave here at a very early date.


George William Fowler: I do not think the hon. minister has answered the question as to where their authority came from. Is there a sum of money placed at their disposal to be used as they see fit ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not at their disposal, but, at their disposal with the authority of the Governor in Council.


George William Fowler: What is the amount ? Is it unlimited ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. There was an amount placed in last year's estimates for the expenses in connection with the Railway Commission. The expenditure of that had to be authorized by the Governor in Council and they have received authority to purchase a car for $20,000.


William Findlay Maclean: The authority of the Governor in Council ?


George William Fowler: We never anticipated that the item of $20,000 passed last year would go without the authority of parliament for the purpose of purchasing a car. It was for incidental expenses, and the purchase of a private car was scarcely contemplated. I would think that it would cost them at least $20,000 to provide a private car suitable for their purposes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend, will admit that they should have an official car.


George William Fowler: Is not this car, which I understand is so beautifully fited up, sufficient for them V


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not large enough.


George William Fowler: How many officials do they carry with them ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have at least one engineer and they have a number of secretaries.


George William Fowler: Does each one have a secretary '!


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not each one. They have one secretary and they require a stenographer, and I think they will require a legal assistant.


George William Fowler: Have they any yet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think they will have one.


Robert Laird Borden: Will they take a chaplain with them V


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is my hon. friend open for such a position ?


William Findlay Maclean: I think this commission ought to have a car but I think it is a reflection on Canada and the industries of Canada that that ear should be built outside of this country. Some arrangement should be made whereby the car should be built in this country. They require a first-class car as far as accommodation is concerned. I do not begrudge them that, but it is a reflection on our country and on our manufacturers that we should not be able to build that car in this country. Some provision surely could have been made until such time as a Canadian built car could be placed at the disposal of the Railway Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When I asked tenders from Canadian car builders for the Governor General's car there was only one concern in Canada that was willing to undertake it. All the car men were written to and asked for prices and the firm to which I have referred were not in a position to undertake it until next autumn. That is the position and it is necessary to have the car for these people at once. If you hired a car from the Pullman Car Company you would expend in their exorbitant charges for rental in a few months almost enough to build a car. Therefore, in the interest of economy it was deemed advisable and necessary to buy this car elsewhere.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Governor General's car-repairs and alterations, $2,000.
Mr. .1. D. REID. As I understand there are five of these government cars besides the Governor General's car which makes six altogether.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I explained that there are two cars here, two at Moncton, and the

one generally used by the Minister of Railways No. 109, although it is not exclusively used by him at all times.


Mr.   J.@: I). REID. Then there is one now to be supplied to the Railway Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that car has been arranged for and that they are going west within a day or two.


John Dowsley Reid: That then makes six cars, besides the Governor's car.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend wants to include the Governor General's car that will be six. Let us understand it; I do not wish to hide anything in respect to it. I am speaking of government cars here and at Moncton under the charge of the department. There are live of such ears. The Governor General's car and the Railway Commissioner's car are not under the control of the Railway Department.


John Dowsley Reid: Then there are seven private ears used by the government and the Railway Commission ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do you not think you had better say official cars, offices on wheels ?


John Dowsley Reid: Very well, official cars. Do I understand that there are only two of these ears used by Ministers of the Crown ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are none of them assigned to Ministers of the Crown. Ministers occasionally require the use of a car and they make application to the Department of Railways and Canals, and if there is one available it is assigned to their use for a particular trip.


John Dowsley Reid: Could the minister give me any information as to the cost to the country of maintaining each of these cars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I gave that information to the House in answer to a question.


Richard Blain: I wish to enter my protest against the government sending Canadian money to the United States to purchase a private car to be used by the Railway Commission. The minister stated that last year $20,000 was voted to be expended by the Railway Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not name that amount because I did not have it before me.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. gentleman say what the amount was ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot from memory.


Richard Blain: There was an amount voted last year to be placed at the disposal of the Railway Commission. As I understand a request was made to the Governor in Council for a private car to cost $20,000 for the use of the Railway Commission and the Governor in Council gave their sanction to that amount being expended.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: In last year's estimates.


Richard Blain: I think it was the duty of the Governor in Council to stipulate that the car should be purchased within the limits of Canada. My hon. friend has said that an advertisement was published asking for tenders fqr the purchase of a car and that the only reply-


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not for that car. I said that as respects that car an effort was made to find out whether such a car could be secured in Canada at all. It was impossible to get it in time or in fact before next fall or winter. So far as the Governor General's car was concerned, it was not required immediately. I have received an offer from one Canadian manufacturer to furnish such a ear to be delivered sometime during the present fiscal year, but the car required by the Railway Commissioners, could not now be furnished at all in Canada and it was necessary to get one that was already constructed.


Richard Blain: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: So it would be if we could get it.


Richard Blain: The government should have stipulated when voting $20,000 for a car for the Railway Commission that that car should be purchased within the limits of Canada. The minister says that one could not be secured before the fall or winter. Even if that be correct-and I accept the statement and say it is correct-I say that the Railway Commission should have used one of the cars that is at the disposal of the . government now. There is a car for the Governor General, a very expensive car, which was constructed by the government a short time ago at a cost of $20,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have explained to my hon. friend that that car is not large enough for the Railway Commission. They require for their purpose a car containing three rooms. I think my hon. friend will take that statement as being correct.


Richard Blain: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement ; I am not disputing that at all ; but the Railway Commission is not travelling through this country all the time, but only occasionally.	[DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: They want to be away two or three months in the west, and they need a car. They should have gone at an earlier date than the present.	-


Richard Blain: When was the commission appointed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In February last.


Richard Blain: The minister and the government knew full well that the commission would require a car. I am not saying whether the car already constructed is suitable for the requirements of the commission or not; but I do say that a car that would have been suitable could have been ordered, and if the commission had to wait five or six or even twelve months to secure the construction of that car in Canada, they should have done so and they could in the meantime have used one of the cars already at the disposal of the government. I do not think the people of Canada will sanction the expenditure of money in this way. Here is a Canadian Railway Commission travelling through western Canada in a car on which is written, ' manufactured in the United States,' when they should be travelling in a car on which would be written. ' made in Canada,' which is the popular term now. I say the government did not discharge their full duty to the people when they voted that $20,000 should be spent on a car without stipulating that the money should be spent in Canada. The hon. minister says they could not wait. Well, there are a good many people in Canada who have to wait, and if the Railway Commission do not meet any greater obstacle than that of having to wait five or six months for a car, they will get through their duties very easily. I object, and I think the Canadian people will object, to the government setting this example by passing an Order in Council placing at the disposal of the Railway Commission $20,000 of Canadian money to be spent in the United States.


Haughton Lennox: The minister has referred two or three times to the fact that an appropriation was made last session for the use of the Railway Commission. I ask him now, what was the amount of the appropriation placed to the credit of the Railway Commission last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Haughton Lennox: I venture to say that not one dollar of that appropriation was intended to be used for the purchase of a car, and I call the attention of the minister and the members of the government present to that abuse of their power. There was absolutely no excuse for it. The minister says none of the cars owned by the government are large enough. X am not prepared to say that is not correct. It may be, and I think very likely is so, that some different accommodation may be required in the end from that furnished by any cars at present owned by the government. But we have five government cars, and if one of these cars was not sufficient to accommodate these gentlemen, two of them wquld have been sufficient, and should have been assigned to their service for the time being rather than that this large amount
of money should be devoted to this purpose without the sanction of parliament, and the money sent to the people of the United States-the manufacturers of Canada deprived of that money, and, a great deal worse than that, the fact advertised throughout Canada and the United States that such a car could not be manufactured in Canada. The minister has brought forward no reasonable justification for the action of the department or the government in this matter. It was not necessary for these gentlemen to have absolutely convenient accommodation upon this trip to the west. They are not going to take evidence or hold investigations in any unfrequented places along the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway or other railways. They are going to hold investigations at the large centres, and it was not necessary that they should be able to lodge upon their car during the time of those investigations. It would have been reasonable for these gentlemen for the present to have had one official car at their disposal. Others could very well have been accommodated in a state-room upon a Canadian Pacific Railway pullman car ; and the other officials, the engineer and others, could have obtained very fair accommodation upon the pullman cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Therefore there is no justification whatever for the government having appropriated this money to this purpose. I submit in the first place that it is absolutely unconstitutional because the money was not voted by parliament for that purpose ; and, in the second place, even if it had been voted for that purpose, it is a very poor principle on which the government has acted, in diverting the money to the United States, to the pecuniary loss and the great detriment of the people of Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: How does this car compare with the car built for the Duke and Duchess ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a larger car, and has more accommodation.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the difference in length ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot tell, because it is the Railway Commission which sees to the dimensions of the car and the arrangement of it. It has better accommodation for a greater number of people than the car purchased for the Duke and Duchess. The car purchased for the Duke and Duchess is not a oar that surpasses every other.


Haughton Lennox: A very comfortable car.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As my hon. friend says, it is a very comfortable car, and I have no wish to decry it.


Mr. GANONG.: By whom was this car built ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: By the Pullman Car Company. There is no concern in Canada
75 07

at this moment in a position to take an order for a car of that character. They are not fitted up for the purpose. There is only one concern which contemplates doing that business, and they are not in the position to do it now. They do not furnish pullman sleepers in Canada.


Gilbert White Ganong: They may not furnish pullman sleepers, but they can build a car plenty good enough for the class of railway commissioners we have.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They will not undertake to do it.


Gilbert White Ganong: They are not given much opportunity.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Surely my hou. friend will not make that statement in the face of what X have just said. X have said to my hon. friend that they are not in a position to do it, and I say that from their own statement. I hope my hon. friend will not show me the discourtesy of insisting that they have not had the opportunity.


Gilbert White Ganong: Who are these people to whom the hon. gentleman refers ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Crossen Company, of Cobourg ; the Rhodes, Curry Company, of Amherst; the Rathbun Company, of Deseronto. These are the only three concerns that make cars in Canada.


Gilbert White Ganong: Did they give any statement as to the limit of time they would take ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were asked whether they could tender for any cars. One said they were not in a position ; the *others said they would not accept the order at all. The Rhodes, Curry Company said they were not now in a position, but that they would place themselves in a position, so that by next fall they could undertake the construction of such cars.


Gilbert White Ganong: Evidently if the government had not been in such a hurry, and the ministers been willing to make a little saeri flee and travel as ordinary people do, we would have sufficient cars to accommodate the commission. There is another question I would ask. This car has been made by the Pullman Car Company, of Chicago. I presume that the company will have a travelling advertisement on it. Will their name be on this oar, and where it was made and the date ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I presume so. I have not inquired, but I observe that on cars throughout the country the name of the maker is always painted somewhere.


Gilbert White Ganong: I would suggest that the minister should have that painted in black, as a sign of mourning for the poor Canadians who cannot build a car for the commissioners.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the $20,000 come our of the $40,000 voted last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have a copy of the Railway Act. Subsection 4, section 21, refers to the expenditure of money. I see under this subsection that :
The salaries or remunerations of all such officers, clerks, stenographers, messengers, and appointees, and all the expenses of the hoard of, and incidental to, the carrying out of this Act, including all actual and reasonable travelling expenses of the commissioners, secretary, and of such appointees or members of the staff of the board as may be required by the board, to travel, necessarily incurred in attending to the duties of their office, shall be paid monthly out of moneys to be provided by parliament.
Does that clause cover the expenditure ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think so. It is to be
paid out of the vote last session of $40,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Under this particular clause, does the hon. minister think the government are justified in making that payment ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the government is justified in paying for the car as an incidental expense connected with the Railway Commission, and it has already been provided and paid for.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the item passed the Auditor General ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I could not say.


William Humphrey Bennett: The only words I see in the clause that possibly could attach to it are these : ' travelling expenses incurred in attending to the duties of their office.' Surely he will not contend that under those the government are entitled to take $20,000 out of the $40,000 voted by parliament and use it to build this car. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that last year the government stated that $20,000 of this vote was intended to be for the purchase of a car, does the hon. minister assume that it would have gone without protest ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sure I would not assume that. I do not know of anything that would go without protest, but I assume it would have gone all right.


William Humphrey Bennett: I do congratulate the minister on his frankness. He says anything will go with the majority of the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Any reasonable proposition which ought to go.


William Humphrey Bennett: In the face of the fact that the government have five private cars for which the people have no use, is it not the height of extravagance to buy another one V When one minister wants to bring a relative from Manitoba, he sends a private car for him. Another one takes a private

car on a jaunt to California. Another minister takes a private car for a trip to Mexico.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No minister took one to California.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the mnnister was asked about one of these private cars being sent to Manitoba to bring the relatives of one of his colleagues down here, he knew nothing about it. When he was asked with reference to one minister or his family taking a private car to California, he knew nothing about it. The people are long-suffering, but there must be a limit to their endurance. Had the minister stated last year that five of these private cars were standing on sidings not being used at all-


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do no think the hon. gentleman is justified in making that statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: I mean for the purposes of the government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Three of them are in use by the officials of the Intercolonial.


William Humphrey Bennett: One was used by the .Postmaster General to go to Mexico on a trip ; another was handed over to the tender mercies of a government official to go to California ; while another was used for one of the ministers to send for one of his relatives to come to Ottawa. There were times probably, when these gentlemen did not travel in this style ; when they were pleased to take the ordinary cars of 'which the train was made up. An hon. gentleman behind me suggests 'first-class'; but they did not always get up to that even, perhaps. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) laughs. I was in this House when that hon. gentleman was on this side. I will give him credit for not having been so blatant about the use of private cars as was the present minister the Postmaster General (Sir William Mu-lock) and some others. But those hon. gentlemen scorned the use of private cars. We remember how, when the present Prime Minister attained office in 1896, he was offered a private car to come to Ottawa, but he said he preferred to travel in the ordinary car as a plain democrat. And this was heralded all over the country. This will all be interesting and amusing to the people of Ontario. And we remember that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said that so far as the Conservative party were concerned they could not elect a man in Quebec at all


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) will permit me, I made no allusion

	*


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. minister allow me to finish the sentence ?-and if one of them did get here it would be through an accident or a mistake.
Mr. B'lELDING. That is right.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister lost his head as he was applauded vociferously by his supporters. And perhaps that statement will be heard of in the province of Ontario and other parts of this Dominion. The people of Ontario will be called to listen to the remarks of the junketting Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) who used to go about the country reviling the ministers who used private cars, even though half a dozen of them travelled in one coach. And when the people remember that he took one of these cars belonging to the country-and, forsooth the best one, the one impregnated with the air of royalty- and, as 1 a democrat to the hilt ' junketed off down to Mexico, while another car is sent by one of the ministers to bring his father from the city of Winnipeg, they will realize where these ' democrats ' are to-day. And. so far as the statement of the Minister of Finance is concerned, if he will refer to 1 Hansard ' he will find there in black and white-that if a Conservative were elected from the province of Quebec, it would be the result of an accident or of a mistake.


Wilfrid Laurier: That applies to all the provinces.


William Humphrey Bennett: The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will be making a tour of Ontario within the next two months. He will have all the influence of this government behind him ; he will have all the influence of the local government behind him, and he will have all the influence of the Grand Trunk Pacific behind him ; and I think he will come back from that province with the same stinging rebuke of defeat that was administered to him in 1900.
New car for the Governor General, $18,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Carried.


William Findlay Maclean: Provided that it is made in Canada.


Haughton Lennox: We understand that the minister tells us that this eighteen-thousand dollar car is to be made in Canada ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated that the Governor General's car was to be built in Canada. I hope it is not necessary to repeat it more than once.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. minister say where it will be built ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not in a position to make a statement on that point until the offer is accepted. Perhaps my hon. friend may infer from what I have-already stated.
Railways and canals-chargeable to collection of revenue-canals-staff and repairs, $789,562.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I propose to bring up again the question of the payment of the

employees of the Welland canal which I brought up last session and. on their behalf to try to find out some reason from the government why it is that they have not been paid an increase. Last session, when this item or a similar item was under discussion, I took some trouble to place before the House and the government the position of the loclcmasters and tenders and the bridge masters and tenders upon the Welland canal. We received a promise from the then Minister of Railways that the matter would be given attention and that a supplementary estimate would be brought down. A supplementary estimate was brought down, and a statute was passed which provided for an increase of twenty-five cents a day on the canals throughout Canada. Yet, strange to say the employees of the Welland canal have been told that they are not to get the increase and tney have not yet received it. Though it is a repetition of what was said last year, 1 propose to state the position of these men, who, I think, are entitled to their increase in an additional way to that in which they were entitled to it last year. Last year they were entitled to it on the merits and this year they are entitled to it technically as well, if I understand anything about the meaning of a statute. These men earn from about $360 to about $400 a year. Last year I pointed out, and I may now repeat-as we have done a good deal of business and the matter may have been forgotten-;that the salaries of civil servants, who make about as many thousands as these men make hundreds, were increased on the ground that the cost of living had increased and that they needed more to support themselves in the scale of living to which they had been accustomed. To-night, I have pointed out. and I repeat, that you are beginning at the wrong end. If the cost of living has increased and you are going to increase salaries, you ought to begin with the men who get three or four hundred dollars and not with the men who get three or four thousand. At all events if you do not begin there you should finish there-the men who make only three or four hundred a year certainly should be increased if increases are to be made on any ground. Now the circumstances of these men on the Welland canal have not been well understood by this government, I fancy, or they would have increased the wages years ago. I find that these men have not had an increase -though it seems to have been supposed that they have had-since what is called the New Welland canal was built twenty-five or. more years ago. The officers, men who get from $1,500 to $2,000 and so on, have had their salaries increased.
This government appears to think that when a man gets a good salary it is a sufficient reason for increasing it. whereas the man who gets a mere pittance of a few hun-Mr. LANCASTER.
dred dollars a year must remain at that figure. I find also that these men are required to have a certain amount of skill in locking these vessels through the canal, and that they do have skill is shown by the fact that there have been very few accidents on that canal ; Still they get less than ordinary labourers do. The question was asked this session by some hon. gentlemen opposite. what wages were paid to the labourers on the Soulanges and Lachine canals and on the St. Louis lock, and the answer, as found on page 5582, made by the Minister of Railways, was, that the ordinary labourers are getting $1.50 a day on these canals. These labourers however do not require any skill or any knowledge about the mechanism of the locks and no particular fitness for that position at all. Now what do the Welland canal employees get ? The labourers get $1.50 for nine hours work. I am not finding fault with that, that is about the same as labourers get on other canals. But I am speaking about lock tenders and bridge tenders upon the Welland canal, those men who are not employed the year round, and still are prevented from getting any other lucrative employment outside the canal. They work only about eight months in the year, and they get $45 a month.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some of them take their turn at employment during the winter season.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They get very little that way. I am safe in saying that their average salary does not exceed $360 u year. Now these lock tenders and bridge tenders are paid 144 cents per hour, while the ordinary labourer gets 10 j cents per hour. In other words, men who have no skill get two cents an hour more than lock tenders and bridge tenders who are required to have skill. Now I do not wish the minister to think that it is only these men who are concerned ; the whole country is concerned in having properly qualified and therefore reasonably paid men upon these locks. The other night when we were discussing railway estimates, the Postmaster General saw fit to interject the remark that the Welland canal employees were appointed for political reasons and that I might expect these men would vote against me. Now I want the minister to understand that I don't care anything about that. If a man votes against me I still want him to be paid a fair wage while he is working for the King. I don't want the minister to think that he is pleasing me if ho does not raise the salaries of these men, oven if every one of them voted against me. No matter how they exercise their franchise, as long as they are kept in the service, I want to see them paid a reasonaole price for the work they do. The whole country is concerned in these men being properly

paid, because if you do not pay men reasonably well you cannot expect reasonably good service from them. These men lock and unlock not only bridges for railway trains, but bridges over highways for vehicles of all kinds ; therefore they are entrusted to a certain extent with the lives of many people. and the travelling public upon both the railways and highways as well as ships are concerned in having this work properly done and these men properly paid.
Now the wages of workmen on the Intercolonial are higher than those on this canal. During this present session the minister took good care to tell us on the 7th of June, in Introducing his estimates, that he had increased the wages of the Intercolonial Railway employees, and he took to himself much credit for doing so. He also increased the wages of the men on the Prince Edward Island Railway, giving as a reason that living expenses have greatly increased. Now the canal employee getting $45 a month for a day of twelve hours, only gets 14* cents an hour, working twenty-six days in the month. If they do a little extra work on Sundays, they get paid for that, so it is fair to leave that out of the discussion. I don't think anyway that they ought to be called upon to work Sundays. Now if they work twenty-six days in the month for eight months, and they have no chance to earn anything extra worth speaking of. that means from $360 to $400 a year. But their living expenses have increased just as well as they have increased for the m-ani who is getting $2,500 or $3,000 a year. If the latter suffers from increased cost of living he only has to economize in luxuries, he does not need to economize in the necessaries of life. He may have to buy less opera house tickets, lie may have to take a shorter vacation or a less expensive vacation 'in summer, and forgo a few little pleasures of that kind. But the man who gets $3(30 or $400 a year has got to forego probably shoes for his children to go to school in, he has got to forego perhaps fuel and clothes to keep them warm in winter ; he has to economize in the absolute necessities of life. Last year I made a plea on behalf of these men, and the then acting Minister of Railways said he would consider it. An estimate was brought down, that estimate was made a statute, and now I am curious to know, and so are the lock tenders on these canals, why that statute has not been carried out. because it has not been carried out by the government. We know of this government having made pledges and having broken them and apparently thinking it was not a serious thing. We have got a step further now. We have a statute of the Dominion passed last year providing that these men should have an increase of 25 cents a day and they have not received it. I refer the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to chapter 4 of the statutes of 1903
wnich is the Appropriation Act (No. 4) of last session and page 92 of this statute where he will find under the heading of ' Collection of Revenue-Railways and Canals ' and under the sub-head of ' Canals" the following :
Generally-increase of 25 cents per diem to the wages of lockmasters, lockmen, bridge men and ferry men of the various canals, $37,000.
There is the statute providing that the increase shall take place. These men have been told, that, notwithstanding the fact that the Act came into force in October last, they are not to get this increase, that this government are not going to give it to them. I do not know where this government stand upon this matter. We got a statute passed providing for an increase of 25 cents a day to lockmasters, lockmen, bridgemen and ferrymen on the various canals. None is named. If that money is paid to the men on one canal it must be paid to the Welland canal employees. I am told that it had been stated by the superintendent of the canal, or at least it was stated on the streets of St. Catharines, that the government had said that this increase was not intended to apply to the Welland canal. If the government meant that' they should have said so in their statutes. After I went home last session and told these men that this statute had been passed they were entitled to believe that they were going to get that 25 cents a day. If they are not going to get it no one should get it. There is no canal mentioned ; there is none excluded. There is no authority on the statute for paying that 25 cents a day to anybody if there is no authority for paying to the lockmasters, lockmen, bridgemen and ferrymen on the Welland canal. These men knowing that this statute was passed, knowing that this is the law of the land, knowing that this is the only way you can make a law that is binding on this government, surely had a right to expect that they would get the benefit of it. But, it seems that this government are not going to be bound by a statute although this is the only way in which we can bind the government to anything. This statute provided that these men on the various canals should receive an increase of 25 cents a day, yet, notwithstanding the fact that this statute has been passed, they are not getting the increase and they are told by the authorities that the statute does not apply to the Welland canal. On behalf of these men I urge their claim for a twofold reason. To begin with, on the merits of the case, they should have an increase. They are getting the same pay that they had twenty years ago and they so forcibly brought their claim to the attention of the government last year that this statute was passed. If the statute gave them 25 cents a day they ought to get it. I stand for the whole of Canada although I am speaking

particularly atoout the men of the Welland canal because they are the men who are complaining to me about this matter. I say they should have the same rate of pay as men on the other canals. Men who do the same work on the Soulanges canal or on the Sault Ste. Marie canal should get the same pay. I do not say that a man should get higher pay simply because he is on the Welland canal. Not at all. I want to give every Canadian workman the same increased pay wherever he may happen to be in Canada. I think it is fair to suppose that the expenses of living has increased in the same proportion in all parts of Canada and I therefore say that all these men are entitled to an increase of 25 cents a day. Whether it has been paid on the other canals or not, I do not know, but I do say that if this increased rate of pay has been given on the other canals and not on the Welland canal the government are doing something which the statute does not authorize them to do. The statute, as I have said before, applied generally to all of the canals and this increase of 25 cents per day should be paid upon all of them. The case of these men is certainly meritorious and I believe that the government would be in a very difficult position if one of these men who had worked on this canal since last session proposed to sue the government for this increased pay. I do not know how he could get a stronger contract than the statute. I cannot understand why the benefit of this statute has been withheld from them. It may be that the government-I hope not in the face of the meritorious ease which they were able to present-intended to make an exception of the Welland canal, because of the political stripe of the representative who comes here, but I do not think this government would punish these men in that way. These men do the work just the same. It is not their fault that a supporter of the Conservative party comes to this House and I do not believe until I receive better advice that such would be the reason for excepting the Welland canal. I do not know whether the government intended to except the Welland canal, but if they did they did not draw their statute properly. If they did not intend to pay the increase to the men on the Welland canal, and if they did intend to pay it on the other canals they should have made a different law, while, if they intended that all these men should be entitled to the benefit of the statute then the statute [DOT] certainly carries out their intention. These men have a right to expect that the government meant what the statute says. Some of these men, when I got home last autumn -not my political supporters-told me that if they had not got that increase they would have resigned because the pay was altogether too small, and they could not support their wives and children upon it. I told them that they had the increase, that the Mr. LANCASTER.
statute said so. Was I correct in that statement? If the government intended to-except the Welland canal they should have worded that statute differently. These men are not the drawers of the statute, they are not in parliament, they cannot discuss these things with the government; they can only go by the phrase that is in the statute and assume, that, this statute having been passed providing for an increase of pay generally, they would get their increase. I could not imagine any reason why the government should have not paid them. The failure of the government to pay them has resulted in my promising that when the-House did meet and when we got the right item in the estimates I would question the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, or whoever happened to be in his place, and give them the answer that the government might make as to why this increase has been withheld from them and I shall await that answer with a great deal of curiosity.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The explanation of that is that for twenty years, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) has said, or at least for a number of years, the employees on the Welland canal and on the Sault Ste. Marie have enjoyed the privilege of drawing $1.50 a day for their services. On the other canals they only received $1.25 a day.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Those are the labourers. I am talking about the lockmasters, lockmen, &c.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, that is the class of men to which the hon. gentleman has been referring, so I am informed by the deputy minister. I get my information from him as to what occurred in the past. Provision was made in the estimates of last year to equalize to make uniform the payment to the classes of employees named in this item to which my hon. friend has made reference. I have a great deal of sympathy with all that my hon. friend has said as to the desirability of paying the employees on these canals the highest possible wage consistent with the compensation that men under similar circumstances are getting from private corporations. Of course it is difficult to make a comparison as between canals and other employments, because we have no precisely similar occupations. In the railway branch of the department the Intercolonial Railway can equalize the pay received by the men to that received under similar circumstances on other railways in Canada. That rule has been followed. This clas? of employees all over the canal systems in Canada receive the same pay. Whether that was right or wrong, that was made uniform and I am informed by the deputy that that was the object of the vote of last year. I am not just as familiar with the appointments of the men on the canals as I have been with regard to the railways,

but I shall make It a point to look into the matter. I admit that the cost of living has increased not so much by the increase in the cost of material as by the fact that what were the luxuries of a few years ago have become the necessities of to-day. That applies to all classes and all conditions of men in Canada today. My hon. friend says the labourers are paid 2i cents per hour more than the lock-masters. That is perhaps not making as fair an argument as my hon. friend wished to do. The labourers work nine hours per diem and get $1.50 per day. The others are on duty 12 hours it is true but they get $1.50 per day. I am not prepared to deny the contention of my hon. friend that men in that position should receive a higher wage than labourers employed elsewhere on the canal. It may be that they should ; that is a matter which I shall investigate personally, and I shall be only too glad to have a readjustment made so that the men will get what will be a fair compensation for their services. That is the principle adopted on the Intercolonial Railway and that course will be followed while I am in charge of the department in regard to the canals. When this matter was under discussion last session the Minister of Finance said :
If they are now receiving less than $1-50 per day, they will he increased to $1.50. This applies to all the canals except the Welland and the Sault Ste. Marie canals, the men on which had previously received an advance.
Thus it was explained at the time that this $37,000 was required in order to bring the standard wage on the other canals up to the wages on the Sault Ste. Marie and the Welland canals. This explanation of it accords with the explanation given me by the deputy minister and chief engineer who is more familiar with the details than I am. However, while that entirely refutes the argument of my hon. friend that any unfair action was taken by the government against the men on the Welland canal the other contention of my hon. friend that these men are worthy of a higher wage will certainly have consideration. I had intended to do it ; I have had many applications along this line from the employees of the canal and I have promised myself an opportunity of personally scrutinizing the paylists of the several canals and looking thoroughly into the question.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am afraid the minister does not yet understand. He seems to think they are paid $1.50 a day. They are paid $45 a month.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And they work 30 days.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is all right as an argument. They are paid $45 a month, and are paid by the month, that would be $1.50 a day if they worked 30 days. I was 239
quite correct in what I said. Assuming that they work 26 days they get 14| cents an hour. If they work 30 days, they would be getting a little less per hour and my argument would be all the stronger.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I pointed out to my hon. friend that in that item the Welland and Soo canals were especially exempted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is no answer at all. These locktenders make an application, and a statute is passed. Does the minister intend to tell this House and the country that he can explain away a statute by something said in this House. Does he think any judge will overrule a statute because of something which appears in ' Hansard ? ' The minister is shirking the question ; there is a statute providing for an increase of 25 cents a day for a different set of people altogether from those with whom the minister is dealing. I thought I made it clear that I was not talking about labourers. They get the same wage all over the canal system. The minister wants to make this House believe, perhaps he himself believes that it is for the labourers I am making application. I think I said distinctly that it was for the lockmasters, the locktenders and the bridge keepers, those mentioned in the statutes that I was applying. No one disputes that the labourers on the Welland canaj had their wages increased a few years ago, but the wages of the lock-masters. locktenders, and bridge tenders were not increased, and these men are now getting the same wages as they got on the very first day the new Welland canal was opened. They have never had an increase in that period of some 25 years. The labourers having obtained an increase a few years ago were getting a better rate of pay last year than on the other canals and that was equalized. But that is not the statute. This statute deals specifically with the very men on whose behalf I am applying. It deals with the lockmasters, bridge tenders and ferry men, not the labourers at all, unless under the general acceptation of the word that all men who work are labourers. These men get $45 a month as they have done ever since the new canal was opened.
That statute provides for an increase of 25 cents per day in the wages of lock-masters, lockmen. bridgemen and ferrymen on the canals of Canada generally. The minister has not told us how he gets round that statute. I do not care what ' Hansard ' may show that anybody said as to what the intention was. Here is the statute which we have to go by, passed after the supplementary estimates were brought down, and it is worded exactly as the supplementary estimates were. I was satisfied that if the supplementary estimates went through as brought down, these men on the Welland canal would get what they wanted ; and the minister will not say that I was foolish

enough, on behalf of these men, not to let well enough alone. The statute was passed, it became the lawr of the land, and the minister has not attempted to tell me yet how he can justify his failure to pay those men the increase mentioned in that statute. The statute applies to all the canals in Canada ; the Welland canal is one of those canals, and if the increase is not to be paid to the men on the Welland canal, there is no more authority for paying it on the Soulanges canal or the Lachine canal. The ordinary labourers on the Welland canal had their :pay increased a few years ago. They are not included in the item of the statute, -and they do not come within the description -of the men on whose behalf I have been ..pleading for the increase for two years, and to whom the statute applies. I *can assure the minister that his saying that it was never intended to be given to *these men will not satisfy them. The statute has been passed to apply to them, and if it does not apply to them, to whom does it apply ? I suppose the increase of 25 cents a day amounting to $37,000 has been paid to somebody. I do not suppose it was appropriated by this parliament to be withheld. If it has been paid to anybody, I want to know, on behalf of these men on the Welland canal, why it has not been paid to them. If that money has been paid Ho other lockmen on other canals, the ain blister must give some better explanation than he has yet given as to why he has not paid the increase of 25 cents a day to the Welland canal employees, who, it seems to me are entitled as a matter of law to have that increase from this government by the terms of last year's statute.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the Minister of Railways done anything towards granting the request as to which I have had considerable correspondence with the department, in reference to the old canal bank at Lachine ? The citizens have requested the government to give them a lease of the bank in order that they may convert it into a pleasure ground. The government cannot lose anything by acceding to their request and I believe my hon. friend was favourable to granting it. Some time ago I mentioned the matter to him and he said it would be attended to in a few days. That was nearly a month ago and the summer is far advanced, and I hope he will see his way clear to granting this request. It is a small matter for the government, they do not stand to lose anything by it, and it will be a considerable advantage to the locality.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The matter has been Tinder consideration but is not one that can be settled off hand. There must of necessity be a lease, and that lease must be authorized by the Governor in Council, and there is such a congestion of work before that body that this item has been lost sight 'Mr. LANCASTER.
of. However, I hope to be able to state shortly, as representing the department, the position in which the department is placed as regards that matter.


John Dowsley Reid: What are the lockmas-ters getting on the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $45 per month.


John Dowsley Reid: The other evening we had a dispute as to the number of locks on the Farran's Point canal. I wrote a gentleman at Farran's Point, and he replied that there was only one lock. I also inquired from a pilot who came through the canal the other day, and he gave the same information, but on page W-74 of the Auditor General's Report I find that on lock 22 there is a lockmaster and three men. I would like to know where that other lock is or. that Farran's Point canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a new lock, and right alongside of that is the old lock. Personally, I know nothing about it, but I am informed by the reports of the department and the officials and the chief engineer that there are two locks there. Some body is under a wrong impression, and I would be sorry to think it is the Chief Engineer of Railways and Canals.


Mr. PRINGLE.: Does this item cover the salary of the ornamental gentleman who is supposed to be superintendent of these different canals ? I am referring to a gentleman named Stewart, who was a short time ago the Liberal organizer in the county of Glengarry.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is very much to his credit.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: It may be to his credit, but I do not know where he learned anything about canals when organizing the Liberal party in the county of Glengarry.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He must have been watching the other side.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Although he had no experience, he was put in a position over men who have had a lifelong experience in that work. What is he receiving now ? I would ask also whether the government have given him possession of the little steamer called the ' Alert,' formerly controlled by Mr. Ru-bidge, late engineer in chief of canals ? Mr Stewart is now moving about the river fron canal to canal with this steamer. I think it has only a crew of half a dozen men, and probably does not add to the expenses of the country over $50 a day, but it does seem a little expensive for Mr. Stewart, who formerly could take a horse and carriage and go along the banks of the canals. Has this boat been handed over to him for his pleasure travel during the season of navigation, or is it to be retained for the engineer in chief ? Or for what purpose is this steamer to be used ? I have yet to see that it has ever served any useful purpose. Its only purpose seemed to be to give

pleasure to a very worthy man, the late chief engineer.
Mr. EMMERiSON. That matter was discussed very fully this afternoon, and had my hon. friend been present I would have been spared the necessity of repeating what I then said. The steamer ' Alert ' has been under the superintending engineer, Mr. ltu bidge. He used it in connection with his duties on the canals. Unfortunately, that gentleman passed away and, pending a final decision as to whether the steamer was necessary on the canal or not, it was placed superintendent of the Cornwall canal who also has charge of all the other plant and material in connection with the canals. If it was necessary for the engineers on those canals before the death of Mr. Rubidge, t assume it would be necessary for them to use it now. I have not had opportunity of personally finding out , what is necessary there, but when I do have that opportunity I will determine whether it is necessary to continue the boat at all in connection with the canal. If the facts be as stated by my hon. friend, who probably has coloured them somewhat, it would not be wise to continue it. The superintendent has charge of the Cornwall and Williamsburgli canals, which are-separated by quite a number of miles, and the engineers are still there. They will be required, probably, in connection with certain works not yet completed, to visit different points, and the steamer is at their disposal for that purpose.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Why is it necessary t-j have half a dozen superintendents at present when these canals were formerly managed with a far less number ? Take the Cornwall canal, which is one of the largest. In former years there was a superintendent receiving $1,400 a year. To-day we have a superintendent of the Cornwall canal who is called an overseer. Then we have an overseer of the Willlamsburgh canal and an overseer of the Edwardsburg canal, and above them all is Mr. Stewart as superintendent. The expenses have practically trebled in the last few years. I would also like to put another question. We have another gentleman down there called O'Callaghan. I do not know just what his position is, but I know he is a farmer, and he spends all his time on his farm. He has a very nice little farm a short distance from the town, where he spends all his time except when he comes in to draw his salary from this government.
He is of no assistance whatever to the party whom he is supposed to assist, for he is never there. From early morning till late at night, I am informed, he is engaged attending to his farming duties, and only comes up to draw his pay. That is only one instance. I find signs there of an approaching election. When I go home I find men by the score employed on the banks of the canal. All a man has to do is go to the gentleman who has received the nomination as standard bearer of the Liberal party, 239J
and he gets employment. I do not know what these men do, but I am told that they are engaged in pulling weeds and drawing their salaries. I assume that they are supposed to vote right when the election comes on. But, seriously, I would draw attention to Mr. O'Callaghan's case. I am speaking from information given me by reliable parties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What position does he hold ?


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I cannot just tell.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman's information must be very inadequate.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: All I know is that he is engaged in farming and drawing his pay from the government. What particular position he is supposed to hold or what he is supposed to do, I have no means of knowing. 1 suppose the deputy minister could tell the hon. gentleman what he is supposed to do. For my part I never saw him do anything. Surely, the hon. minister might tell me-


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not wish to be discourteous and interrupt my hon. friend (Mr. Pringle).


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Very well, tell me what he is supposed to do.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One man is employed there as collector for the day service. Mr. O'Callaghan is the night man, and the reason my hon. friend (Mr. Pringle) does not see him there is because the hon. gentleman is not there at night. I am afraid that my hon. friend's remarks are tinged with extravagance and not altogether free from bitterness. due to the fact that Mr. Stewart and the other gentleman were at oue time identified with the Liberal party. He should not harbour resentment against them on that account. I think it is to their credit that they were Liberals and I do not think that they should be misrepresented in the House because of that fact.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Perhaps the hon. minister will -allow me to say that Mr. O Callaghan was always supposed to be a Conservative.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That shows how fair we are


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: It shows how fair I am. He was appointed at the instance of the late Dr. Bergin.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it is an example of our fairness. Were we actuated by the bitterness shown by my hon. friend, if this man does nothing but draw his pay how quickly we could get rid of him. And surely my hon. friend does not wish the committee to understand that the men employed on the banks of the canal are employed in pulling weeds. Surely he knows-what is the fact-that these men are employed on the stone lining of the banks of the canal.

The hon. gentleman admits that his information is very inaccurate. It is shadowy, so to speak. He is depending entirely upon hearsay, and somebody has been telling him things that were not in accordance with the facts.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Will the hon. minister tell me how many of these men are employed on the rip-rapping at the present time ? The number has increased very largely during the last three weeks.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The number of men varies. My officers cannot tell me the number of men.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I suppose the number varies as the election approaches.	,


Henry Robert Emmerson: If that were in mind, it would be better to ' bide a wee.'


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister will see that there are others along the St. Lawrence canal who have noticed the fact of Mr. Stewart having taken possession of the steamer ' Alert.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is the superintendent of these canals, and the ste'amer .* Alert ' has been placed in his charge as has the rest of the plant. The hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) says there are three overseers. As a matter of fact there are only two, one on the Williamsburgh canal and one on the Cornwall canal. These canals are ten or twelve miles apart, and it is necessary to have officials of this class at each canal.


John Dowsley Reid: Now, let me tell the minister the position. In the old days there was a superintendent at Cornwall and one at Morrisburg.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And the superintending engineer.


John Dowsley Reid: And the superintending engineer, the late Mr. Rubidge. These superintendents made out their reports themselves and sent them to Ottawa. They had plenty of time to do it. They had only to drive up and down the canal, one day east and the next day west. Shortly after this government came into power they passed an Order in Council abolishing the position of superintendents of canals, so as to get rid of these men.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman is imagining that.


John Dowsley Reid: Not at all. One of them was Dr. Hickey, for many years a member of this House, and the other was Mr. Ross. The hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) can corroborate what I state. And shortly after the government decided to have overseers. And they not only have two overseers but they have another gentleman whom they call clerk to the overseer. I think the hon. member for Cornwall will say that there is an officer of that kind there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: At all events, we have one on the Williamsburgh canal. So, instead of having two men they have three and I think even four men on this canal, besides Mr. Stewart. Now, this boat has been given to Mr. Stewart to run up and down the canal. The minister states that she will be used by the engineers on the different works as heretofore. But is it not a fact that all these works are completed, and is it not also a fact that even if these works existed, the engineer on one of these works would have nothing to do with another ? There is no way that they can use this boat. It is a well known fact that this boat is absolutely of no use, yet it involves an expenditure to this country of $8,000 or $10,000 per annum. But on account of Mr. Rubidge having been connected with the canals for thirty years or forty years, there was not the same general fault finding that there is now since it has been handed over to Mr. Stewart to be left in his charge without being used.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is there any jealousy in connection with it V


John Dowsley Reid: No jealousy whatever ; but the people of this country expect the Minister of Railways to manage their affairs as economically as they ought to be managed, having due regard to the country's interests.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I do not think the Minister of Railways should talk of jealousy. It is public money that he has control pf, and not his own. 1 want to tell the minister that the editor of the Brighton ' Ensign ' announced that this government steamer was up at Twelve O'clock Point in East Northumberland, and Mr. Stewart's family was on board the steamer. I suppose the country is paying the board of that gentleman and his family on board the steamer while they are on a pleasure trip to Twelve O'clock Point, at the head of the Bay of Quinte. There was not any jealousy in the breast of the editor of the Brighton [DOT] Ensign ' when he announced that fact; neither is there any jealousy in my mind be cause I object to the government paying out the people's money for the board of this gentleman and his family on that steamer. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that it comes with bad grace for him to talk about jealousy in view of the fact that every man was turned off the Murray canal when his party got into power. I give as much credit to Liberals of the county of East Northumberland who represented that riding in past years, as I give to Conservatives, because up to the time this government came into power no government official was ever turned out of his position in that riding by Mr. Biggar, the Reform representative. Men died in their public positions who were appointed by Mr. Mackenzie's Liberal government. But when this so-called Liberal government came

into power they were so low in their minds that they turned men oft' that canal because they were Conservatives. Every man who was a Conservative was turned off that canal. They turned men out of houses that they built themselves on the authority of the government, and this fact can be verified by the deputy minister who is now sitting by the bon. gentleman ; and they put their Grit friends into their positions and into these houses that had been vacated. and gave them $C a month, whereas they had only paid the men who owned the houses $3 a month. That is the way they conduct business in East Northumberland. What does the superintendent of that canal want with an inspector over him ? The superintendent of that canal was a purchaser of cheese, and knows nothing about canal work. The minister is paying the superintendent a salary, and giving him $6 a mouth for a house, and $6 a month for office rent, and he is paying him $1.50 for each one of 255 trips to the Murray canal. That is the way they work it, Mr. Chairman, and I know your soul must be grieved in hearing of the extravagance of your party. Just think of the superintendent of the Murray canal living in Brighton in a house that the government pays rent for and au office that the government pays rent for, and then they give him $1.50 each for 255 trips to go down to the Murray canal to attend to liis business. Then they give him $2 a trip to go down to Trenton at the eastern end of the Murray canal, and when he takes a jaunt into the country they pay him $2 or $3 a day for that. And the Minister of Railways talks about jealousy 1 I want to tell him that I am here to look after the people's money and the way it is expended, and that is the venom that was in their bosoms when they turned poor men off that canal and put in their own friends.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before that item is carried I want to draw the minister's attention to another matter that I think is a grievance, and that is in regard to the pension of these lock tenders and lockmasters upon the Welland canal. I think in common fairness the minister ought to revise the system of superannuation as it is ap-lied to these men on the Welland canal. As the minister mentioned a few minutes ago, these men are employed sometimes on extra work on the canal ; by virtue of their being lockmasters they are given the first preference when this extra work presents itself. Now they get that money just as much because they are lock tenders as they do their $45 a month salary; but they are not allowed to include that in the computation of their superannuation. It seems to me that their contention that they do not get the right amount of superannuation is a fair and just one. Take for example the case of Mr. Henry Hare, whose case I think his
deputy is acquainted with. I have in my hand a letter from Mr. Ij. K. Jones, the secretary of the department, to Mr. Hare, written on the 29th of January last, and here is what Mr. Jones writes :
I am directed to inform you, as desired, that your pay for the three fiscal years pre-ceeding your superannuation, as returned in the pay sheets upon which you paid deduction was as follows :	1900,	$350.10 ;	1901,
$351.35 ; 1902, $353.07, making an avrage fori three years of $351.50.
The minister will remember that I was quite 11415111 the mark in saying that the locktenders did not get more than $360 a year and there is the case of a man working all the time who only got an average of $351.50. Now Mr. Jones goes on to say :
Your view that you are entitled to further-superannuation allowance on the amount paid to you for certain services in regard of water "level record during the winter, and the superannuation reduction should have been made from it, is a mistaken one.
The department could, had it seen fit, have employed any parties outside of the ordinary canal staff to do this particular work, and you surely would not contend that such parties would be entitled to superannuation allowance on the pay given therefor.
As a matter of convenience and advantage to the lock-tenders, they were allowed to look after this work of level taking, and were paid for it as any outsider might have been. It has nothing to do with their regular employment or regular pay, which last is a clearly defined monthly rate.
What I submit to the hon. minister is that it is because the men are lock tenders they have this extra work for a few weeks in the year. They are employed as any other persons might possibly have been but they are given the preference over an outside party because they are lock tenders. I think it is a fair contention that if a lock tender got that amount of money which he would not have got unless he had been officially in the capacity of a lock tender the govr eminent should take that into consideration in making their computation as to his superannuation. These men would not have got that money but for the fact that they were lock tenders and they did get it because they were lock tenders. They are given the preference and I think it is reasonable to suppose that these men who for eight months in theJ year are in the employ of the government will do better work in level taking than an ordinary labourer casually picked up and who would not take as much interest in the government service. I think in striking the superannuation allowance, as Mr. Hare contended, the fact of his having received this money should be taken into consideration, because, although it is true that this money is not part of his lock tender's wage, he would not 1 have received this extra money if lie had not

been a lock tender and it is therefore fair to take the three years added to his lock tender's wages in computing the amount of his superannuation allowance. He gets it from the government the same as he receives his wage as an employee on the Welland canal and he receives it because he is a canal employee. He would not have received it had he not been in a permanent position and I submit to the Minister of Railways and Canals that this fact should be taken into consideration in the future. The case which I am now instancing has been dealt with and I will not ask the hon. minister to overrule what has been decided. In this particular case it would do no good because Mr. Hare died since this session began. He died two or three months ago. His case is common to all of these men and I am using it as an illustration. I would like to ask the hon. minister whether it would not be reasonable to include in the amount that you strike for superannuation all that these men receive for the three years from the government whether it be their regular salary as lock tenders or any additional amount.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a matter that is controlled by the treasury board and it is decided in accordance with the interpretation of the Act. It is the permanent pay which the men get which is taken into account. It is true that it has been deemed advisable to give these men extra pay. That perhaps is an Act of grace but it is not in connection with their permanent employment. However, this is not a matter for the department. It is a matter that is determined under the law by the Treasury Board.


Edward Cochrane: I would like an answer to the question that I brought the hon. minister's attention to. What is the hon. minister's idea about paying a man for 250 days to attend to his work at $1.50 a day when he gets a salary for doing that business ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The gentleman to whom my hon. friend refers is paid in the usual way for the travelling that he does in connection with his duties on the canals. I think perhaps my hon. friend is looking at the matter through a glass darkly.


Edward Cochrane: I think the hon. minister is looking through a glass darkly. Are we to understand that this government employs a man, bring him up from another part of the riding altogether and instead of insisting on him living where it is not out of the way at all, because there are beautiful residences all along the canal, residences that a good many of us would be very glad to have, pay for the rent of a house and office in the village of Brighton for the use of this official ? Are we to understand that the government are willing to pay Mr. LANCASTER.
out the people's money for this official if he wants to run down the canal to attend to his business ? If he wants to go to Trenton they give him $2 a day and if he wants to go out into the country on an excursion to the old village where he used to live they give him $2 a day of the people's money.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I would like to say one word with regard to this ornamental gentleman-Mr. Stewart. I am a little surprised at the attitude which the hon. minister takes in standing up for Mr. Stewart in connection with the use of his pleasure yacht. I find in the accounts of last year many items charged by Mr. Stewart. They are only small items and I do not care about taking up the time of the committee by reading them all-$106 for travelling expenses and so forth. I find that last year he was in the habit of charging the government for tips, wines_ and hotel bills at the Place Viger. This is a purely ornamental official of no use at all, who knows no more about the canals than a mere schoolboy and who has simply been put over the [DOT] heads, of the men who have been employed for years upon the canals because he rendered good service to the Liberal Party. I would like to see this man treated generously, but I draw the line when he has a yacht placed at his disposal and has four or five men tu take him up and down the river and who runs up hotel bills at the Place Viger and charges his wines and tips to the government. I think the line should be drawn and that Mr. Stewart should be called down and instructed to perform his duties if you sent him away a hundred miles from the canal it would be better for the canal and for the government. But, if you are going to keep him there let him conduct his services without imposing such an enormous expense upon the country. It is time to cut off the steam yacht and these extra expenses which we see here in the Auditor General's Report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. minister how it is that the pay of the men, employed on the Lachine canal was delayed until the 18th July. My hon. friend cannot imagine what a very great inconvenience and hardship it is for these men to wait eighteen days for their pay. These men in the city of Montreal and along the whole length of the canal are poor men, they work hard and that they have to wait for eighteen days for their pay, seems to be a very great injustice if it cannot be absolutely ex* plained. While the hon. member for Cornwall (Mr. Pringle) was giving us a tableau of Mr. Stewart living like aliabob, and this other gentleman Mr. O'Callaghan, leading the life of a gentleman farmer, issuing from his house only on pay day, it seems almost a sin that those who are really at work, who are not, to use my hon. friend's expression, ornemental political employees, the hardworking men employed in and near great

cities, should have to wait eighteen days for their pay. I refrained from calling the minister's attention to this earlier, but I have since July 18th many complaints and I think it is only due to these men that my hon. friend should give some explanation of this delay.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: A number of men have been employed lately in connection with the Cornwall canal. Their pay is long overdue and some of them came	to me in reference to their
pay, asking when this government were likely to pay their wages. I told them it was impossible for me to say, that probably after the session was over they would find time to attend to the payment. These men can ill-aiford to wait for months for their pay. There should be some means by which they would be paid at once.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Before replying to these questions I wish to call attention to the way misstatements are made in this House and circulated. My hon. friend stated as a rumour that a certain gentleman worked in the daytime on his farm and drew his pay. I called his attention to the fact that that man was employed at night and that that duty required him to attend to the canal at night and that he was paid for that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Collecting when there is nothing to collect.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not the collection. His duties require him to attend at night. The daytime is free to him and he can be at his farm. That is the first misstatement I corrected, and my hon. friend repeated it as if it had not been corrected. There was a delay in paying the men on the Lachine canal during the month of June. The pay lists came up, they had to be checked over and had to be sent back to be corrected. They came back again and then they had to be checked over and then sent to the Auditor General who also had to check them over. By the time all of this wheel has revolved, it is generally the 15th of the month and that is the time these payments are usually made. With respect to the Lachine canal, there has been an extra delay for three days. That has been the procedure for a long, long time ; it is not peculiar to the present.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not agree with my hon. friend as to that. The delay on the Lachine canal could not have been as short as that or I would not have had these representations made to me. As to the collectorship, the minister said, in answer to the hon. member for Cornwall, that this singularly fortunate individual whose name is O'Callaghan, had night work as a collector, but we all know the collections on the canal have been abolished since last year-that is one of the boasts of the government-and if Mr. O'Callaghan is as busy collecting as the officials on the Lachine have been since the tolls were abolished, he must work at night to have such a defence as the minister liajs set up for him.


Gilbert White Ganong: The minister has not explained one item, the wines for Mr. Stewart. I am sure it will harrow the soul of that apostle of temperance, the minister of Agriculture the late general of the Canadian army, and I am sure the minister should state who the parties are who allowed Mr. Stewart to be furnished with wines and will prevent its being done in the future.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I asked the) deputy about this and he said there could not be any such charge, that it would not pass the department. I know nothing more of the circumstances than that.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I did not make the charge in ignorance of what I was talking about. If the minister will take the accounts of the Place Viger Hotel as against Mr. Stewart at the different times Mr. Stewart has been attending to Cornwall canal business in the Place Viger in Montreal he will find that Mr. Stewart was charged for wines, that he paid for them and that the government recouped him for them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am free to say that if such a payment was made it was improper and incorrect, and was not in accord with the wishes of the department. I have spoken to the deputy who said that it was not possible and if anything of the kind has been allowed, is was through the inadvertence of the accountants.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: It is a very, very small item and probably I should not have called attention to it, but the item goes with the man. Mr. Stewart has been putting in bills year after year including all the expenses he could have at the hotels, charging his tips, wines and everything, and the government have been paying them.


William Stevens Fielding: I have an understanding with my hon. friends opposite and I now desire that the committee would be good enough to suspend operations for a short time in order that I may bring down some important documents. With the understanding that the committee will return to its labours by consent in a few minutes, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Some resolution^ reported.


MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Canals-salaries and contingencies, collectors' offices, $35,835.
John Dowsley Reid: There is an increase in this item over last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a net increase of $110, which occurs in contingencies.


John Dowsley Reid: How does the minister increase this expenditure when it has been stated that there are no collections on the canals ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have to keep the officials just the same, in order to keep the record and pending the two years experiment.
Galops Rapids-to complete channel, $40,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I brought down to the house last week copies of the contracts relating to the Galops rapids. The documents were placed by me on the table, and some of the hon. gentlemen opposite got them. I would like to ask if any lion, gentleman has them ? I thought they were obtained by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say that I have been trying all afternoon to find out where they are, and no member on this side of the House acknowledges having seen them, the clerk says he never saw them, and they are not upstairs, where papers of this kind are generally to be found. For that reason I think it would be most unfair to press this item until we have an opportunity of seeing the documents which my hon. friend promised.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If we pass this item, it will finish the main estimates, and there is an item in the supplementary estimates for the Galops rapids on which the matter can be fully discussed, and I will have the information copied again and furnished to my hon. friend to-morrow morning.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. ,T. D. REID. Of course, I think it is unfair to ask that this item pass without my having an opportunity to see the papers. The minister may bring the supplementary estimates on at some moment when I am not here, and I may not have the opportunity of discussing this matter again.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend can rest assured that as long as I am in this House I will not take any course of that character with respect to the estimates under my control.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. minister will state that there is an item in the supplementary estimates for the Galops rapids, and that it will not be pressed through without my having an opportunity to discuss it, I am quite willing to let this item go.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is in the supplementary estimates an item for the Galops rapids, and my hon. friend will have that opportunity, and I will put myself out to accommodate him as to the time when it will be discussed.
Building a spur line of railway from Intercolonial station at RiviSre Ouelle to wharf on the St. Lawrence-balance, $6,300.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How long is that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Seven miles.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Is that built specially for the use of the government road or some other purpose 1 Has not somebody built a mill there, and does he not require that road to haul lumber ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; it is to connect the RiviSre Ouelle wharf with the ferry at Murray Bay. It is built for the benefit of the Murray Bay traffic.
Intercolonial Railway-St. Charles Junction -bore hole for water supply, $4,750.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We had to get water there. The Intercolonial was very much inconvenienced last year for want of water. This amount was expended because of the depth.
Intercolonial Railway - Campbellton-siding on wharf at, $1,250.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was necessary to put in a siding there. There is a large wharf at that place.
Intercolonial Railway-Sussex-platform extension at military siding, $950.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is where the militia drill. They have their permanent military establishment there, and the platform was furnished for the benefit of the military. [DOT]
Intercolonial Railway-Spring Hill Junction- -bore hole for water supply, $2,800.


Robert Laird Borden: Could no water be got tliere without boring for it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; this was absolutely necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: Are there not a number of hills there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There may be, but this boring for water was the last resort.
Intercolonial Railway-siding at Pietou Landing, $14,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This work was given under contract after tender, and the lowest tender was taken.


Mr.   I@: Is that the matter about which there was some discussion last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think not. This arises out of the shipment of coal. The wharf had been raised by the coal companies and there had to be a different grade, so that the grades go down one way and up the other. This siding became necessary on account of the grades.


Robert Laird Borden: A sort of switchback ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That is on the New Glasgow side, opposite the town of Pietou ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is Pietou landing, where the coal is shipped from the Acadia mines.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I would like to ask the minister if it is time now to talk about the question I asked this afternoon ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Item 91 of the main estimates has been held over, so that my hon. friend will have an opportunity to discuss the question on that item. I did not press it, because the hon. member for West Toronto said that when it came up he wished, to be present.
Lachine canal-electric generator, electric cables and shafting, $5,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that a new machine V


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the balance on the work of the new gates put in on the Lachine canal.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the total cost of all these ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the figures just now.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister seems to be rather short of information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have sent for the information, and I shall have it in a few minutes. Let the item stand in the meantime.
Item allowed to stand.
Railways and canals-chargeable to income- Lachine canal-repairs to old locks, 1 and 2, $25,000.


Richard Blain: Will the minister please give us some explanation of this ?,


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have had to repair the old locks 1 and 2 of the Lachine canal, and this $25,000 is required to meet the expenditure made for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1904.


John Dowsley Reid: Was this work let by tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Who had the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Quinlin & Robinson.


John Dowsley Reid: By the yard ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: By schedule. The contract was let to the lowest tenderer.


John Dowsley Reid: Was it publicly advertised.	*


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, generally advertised.
Lachine canal-tail race, Cote St. Paul, $3,956.10.


John Dowsley Reid: Was anything ever done about that basin near Montreal that the government own and that was used for a dry-dock ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Tate dry-dock. It is leased to Mr. L'Etand for $1,000 a year he making the ordinary repairs. But it is found necessary to rebuild that dry-dock, and there is an item in the supplementary estimates for that purpose.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it understood that this gentleman will have the lease still at SI,000 per annum ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If we continue the lease the terms will have to be arranged ? It may be that the terms will have to be increased.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the amount in the supplementary estimates ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Speaking from memory the estimate of the total cost is $10,000. If we get $1,000, that will be 10 per cent on the investment.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think there would be any trouble in leasing it for $1,000 a year now, aud let the lessee put on the repairs. It is a nice dry-dock for vessels running on the I.achine canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is small.


John Dowsley Reid: It takes in small canal boats and it is the only place at which they can be docked, unless they go to Quebec.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We can discuss the matter when the item is before us.
Lachine canal-water service for protection against fire, $1,800.


John Dowsley Reid: Where is that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to lay an eight inch pipe from the city water works

main on Mill street to the north side of the dry-dock, 650 feet where a hydrant will be placed. The canal fleet is put in the dock each winter and there are a number of buildings and also a considerable quantity of material for lock gates &c, without protection against fire. The value of the fleet dredges, tugs, &c., is about $100,000.


John Dowsley Reid: They are placed in the dry dock you have just leased ? I would like to know also if the government have to pay any charges for their vessels being taken out in the dry-dock, or if that point was reserved in the lease that was made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, we do not pay anything.
Lachine canal-raising shed No. 1, St. Gabriel Basin, $10,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is done to meet the shipping requirements. The work was advertised and put up for tender.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who got the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A man named Quinlan. I would like to reduce that amount to $8,000, because we will not spend more than $8,000, and the balance is provided for in the supplementaries for the current year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the amount of Quinlan's tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot give the exact figure.


John Dowsley Reid: How many tenders did you receive ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Three tenders and this was the lowest.


John Dowsley Reid: In every other department when we ask for this information it is generally given. I think we should know the names of the tenderers and the amounts, because the public in that vicinity are curious to know these things, and to see whether the lowest tender was accepted.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In other words, whether I was telling the truth or not.


John Dowsley Reid: Not for that reason, but because they like to know the difference there was between the tenders.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would be sorry if, when I stated that a certain tender was the lowest, any doubt would still exist in the minds of the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish the minister to take my request in that sense at all, I do not dispute his word. But I think it is fair that we should have this information. It has been shown in this House that the lowest tender has not always been accepted.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I should be sorry if that were the case. If the lowest tender had not been accepted in this case, then I think Mr. EMMERSON.
it would be desirable for the minister to come prepared with a detailed statement showing -why the lowest tender was not accepted. But I fail to see why it is necessary to bring forward voluminous information to show why the lowest tender was accepted. Tenders were publicly asked, a certain number were received, and the department accepted the lowest.


John Dowsley Reid: In items of this kind it is generally expected that the minister will have the names of the tenderers and the amount. Here is a vote for $10,000, and the minister says he has no information whatever as to who the tenderers were and the amounts, and he asks us to vote it blind.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend will allow the item to go through I will furnish him with a statement in the morning. I agree with him that the information should be furnished.


Robert Laird Borden: Sometimes these promises are not very well fulfilled after the item goes through. The hon. gentleman will be good enough to see that the information is produced. There is nothing to spur a minister's memory after the item has gone through.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has not occurred in connection with my estimates.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. I am not speaking of the present minister, I am speaking of all ministers. They do not take so much interest in getting the information about an item once it has passed. Therefore, if this item is passed we will expect that full information to-morrow morning without fail.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will bring it tomorrow morning without fail.
Lachine canal-lock gates, $30,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This amount is required to build four new lock gates, they were to have been completed before the 30th of June, 1904. This is a supplementary vote. They are being built by employees of the department under the direction of the superintendent.


John Dowsley Reid: Does this come under the head of repairs ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is for repairs, it is not a capital expenditure. These gates are for locks 1 and 2, which are being rebuilt.
Chambly canal-to complete waste weir at electric power house, $2,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is for a waste weir at the electric power house. The present weir is a wooden structure built twenty years ago. It is proposed to make one of concrete. Most of the materials are on hand having been purchased out of the appropriation voted last year for this work and another weir at Ste. Therese island. When the present one is completed it will only

leave a couple of wooden weirs on the canal, it is the intention to build them of concrete entirely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the government a powerhouse there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is in connection with a government owned power-house and has no reference to any electrical power company there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: None whatever.
Chambly canal-damage by flooding, $1,736.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In connection with this item I would like to ask the hon. minister who are the parties to he indemnified and what is the amount to be given to each ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The award was made by Marcelin Robert. This was for damages caused by the overflowing of a culvert under the canal. The persons to whom damages have been awarded, and the amounts are as follows :
Francis Xavier Gervais	$100


Ci W.: Coupal	 50
Joseph Dupois, pSre	200
Octave Poirier	 200
Julien Audette	 25
J. B.. Many	300
Lewis Dupuis	,	350
Jean Baptiste Sapaline, dit Gaboriau .. .. 310
Leonie Chartier	 40
Edward Chartier	400
Marcelin Robert (valuator)	 61


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is this amount intended to cover all the damages caused by flooding ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: All the damages caused by flooding from the culvert under the canal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has this sum any reference whatever to damages caused by flooding by the building of a dam there for the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. Two items stood over in regard to which there will be no discussion but in regard to which some information was wanted and while I have it here possibly there will be no objection to them.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Bring it down to-morrow.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are only these two items, and if there is to be any discussion I certainly will accede to the hon. gentleman's request.


George Taylor: What are they ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is item 27 :
Lachine canal-electric generator, electric cable and shafting, $5,000.


Mr TAYLOR.: Carried.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then, there is the item :
Lachine canal-enlargement and improvement, $24,000.
I want to take that out of the estimates for 1903-4 because it will be found in the supplementary estimates for the current year. I therefore beg to move that the item be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Henry Robert Emmerson: The next item is :
Lachine canal

construction and equipment (revote), $62,000.
I beg to move to reduce that item from $62,000 to $57,000.


George Taylor: What is it for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to provide for the construction of workshops at Cascades Point. The work is under contract and was completed in June, 1904. It is also to pay the balance due on the final estimates of R. McDonald and of the Canadian General Electric Company under their contracts. The whole amount is $62,000 but as there are only $57,000 of it paid out of the 1903-4 appropriation we are asking for that sum to be voted and the balance of $5,000 will be provided for in the supplementary estimates for the current year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Soulanges canal-land and land damages, $650.
Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to indemnify landowners for past damages for land taken at Bissonette's Gully. There are $3,000 in the main estimates for widening and deepening this gully and there will be no further damage by flooding.
Cornwall canal-strengthening and protecting north bank, &c., $5,600.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I beg to move to reduce that item to $2,600.


Haughton Lennox: That had better stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is by arrangement.


Haughton Lennox: I understood that the Cornwall - canal item in the main estimates stood. Is that correct ?
Mr. EMME(RSON. No. It was rearranged that those items were to be passed through in order to expedite the business of the House, and that the discusssion would arise on the supplementary estimates.


Haughton Lennox: I have been here most of the time, and I have heard nothing of the kind.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was this evening ; my hon. friend could not have been in the House.


Haughton Lennox: With whom was the arrangement made ? There are certain members who have charge of that matter and it was very distinctly understood that the

Cornwall canal item was to stand for dis-cusion of the Davis contract.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So it does.


Haughton Lennox: It should not have been passed to-night.


George Taylor: It is not passed.


Haughton Lennox: There is confusion somewhere.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The understanding was that there should be an opportunity for the discussion of that contract, and in the Sup-plementaries for this year there will be found a further amount and the discussion may be had upon it.


John Dowsley Reid: I have been here all evening and 1 did not hear of any such bargain.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that the two items, the Cornwall canal and the Galops Rapids, were to pass with the consent of hon. members and that the discussion which was desired in connection with the Davis contract and also upon the contracts in connection with the Galops Rapids should take place under the supplementary items referring to those two canals.


Haughton Lennox: We can shorten this matter. easily. It was distinctly understood the other day when the matter was partly discussed by the Minister of Justice that this item would stand in order to get certain papers and unless the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) or myself had made an arrangement it should not have been passed. We have charge of this matter and we do not propose that the main item for the Cornwall canal shall pass until after that, item is discussed. We have our own reasons for not wishing it to depend on supplementaries and I would ask to have that item considered as standing over as arranged the other day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. leader of the opposition was in the House when the matter was talked over and I made the statement I am now making. Of course if there is any objection I want to be reasonable.


Haughton Lennox: It was understood before the hon. the leader of the opposition left tonight that we had come to the end of the day's work and I think it is well to carry out our understanding of the matter. The item should certainly stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This item of the Cornwall canal ?


Haughton Lennox: This whole thing.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The other was passed.


Haughton Lennox: It should not have been passed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If an hon. member is out of the House he cannot come back and Mr. LENNOX.
complain of what has been done. I do not think that is treating the House fairly.


Haughton Lennox: I suppose my hon. friend understands that a member cannot always be in the House. In the absence of those who were known to have charge of this matter this item should not have been passed, and if it has been passed by mistake it should be reopened now.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister will remember that the hon. leader of the opposition was not in the House when the item passed. He came in just as we finished the discussion of the Galops, and the discussion was that if we allowed that item to go through we could discuss it on the supplementaries to-morrow.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were coupled together in my remarks. My hon. friend knows that all the papers he asked for were brought down. Very recently he made a request for some other papers and they are being prepared and will be ready for him in the morning.


Haughton Lennox: Some papers which were not on the tile but were referred to were asked for by us. and this morning when we came to look over them we found that certain papers were not included.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps we might go to the next item.


Mr. WILSON.: I think it is an open violation of the understanding reached the other day. It was well understood that this whole item should stand and that there should be a regular discussion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We cannot allow the one to stand that has passed already.


Haughton Lennox: The one that has been passed accidentally should be re-opened.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon.. friends' intention was to have a discussion might I suggest that we have an opportunity for that in the item of the later supplementa-ries touching the Cornwall canal. If the intention is to have a motion to strike out the item I realize that my suggestion would not meet his view.


Haughton Lennox: It does not meet my view because in the discussion of the Davis contract we should be absolutely at large and at liberty to take whatever course we choose. Of course I am now speaking subject to whatever decision the leader of the opposition who I am glad to see has entered the chamber, may take and I shall be glad to concur in any suggestion he makes, but I myself think that we should be left absolutely at large in regard to that item and not confined to any particular course.


Robert Laird Borden: The item should not have been proposed at all until the papers were printed and furnished to the House A great many demands were made to the

House that the papers should be brought down.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If there is any misunderstanding, I am perfectly willing that it should be left over.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister suggested that the file was an enormous file, that it would be a great expense and waste of time to print all the papers, and he asked me to name three gentlemen to look over them. I did so, and these gentlemen spent a good deal of time going over the papers, collecting at least a few of them to be printed. I suppose they are being printed now.
I suppose that it was by inadvertence that the item was passed, and 1 think it should be re-opened.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I knew it was the desire to have these papers ; and, in order to expedite the business, I made the suggestion that these items of the main estimates be allowed to go through, and that the discussion would come up under the supplementary estimates of this year, which contain an item relating to the Cornwall canal. If there has been any misunderstanding, I am willing to let the item relating to the Cornwall canal stand.


John Dowsley Reid: We might as well let the other stand also, because I intend to divide the House on the Galops Rapids item.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to divide the House on the other item.


John Dowsley Reid: I will let the item go through, but I wish to point out that it is an item which the Minister of Railways and Canals is trying to press through without, giving due justice to the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sorry my hon. friend is so uncharitable. My suggestion was only with a view of expediting business, not with the view of cutting off any discussion, or to prevent my hon. friend from saying what he pleases with respect to it. I move that item 93 in the main estimates- Cornwall canal, enlargement, $20,000-be reconsidered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.	[DOT]
Robert Laird Borden: What is the business for to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Justice will take up the Railway Bill, after which we will resume supply, with the estimates of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 26, 1904.