1904-07-08

THE ALASKAN BOUNDARY-CORRESPONDENCE.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg to lay on the table correspondence respecting the Alaskan boundary.



PAPERS RE COLONEL GREGORY.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The papers relating to the extension of Colonel Gregory's term of command have not, I think, been brought down. The Minister of Militia stated that they would be here shortly.
SUPPLY-THE 12th OF JULY.


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. EMMERSON.: 


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Mr. Speaker, before toat matter is taken up, I take the liberty of drawing the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that next Tuesday will be the 12th of July, which is a day honoured by a great many people of the Dominion of Canada, and a day on which a great many members of the House would like to get away to different parts of the country. T would, therefore, ask the Prime Minister if he would be good enough to take it into his consideration, and let the House have a holiday on the 12th of July ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no doubt that my hon. friend feels divided between his duties outside and his duties inside ; but there is no precedent in that respect that I know of.


Samuel Hughes: The right hon. leader of the government can easily create a precedent. That is no trouble to him.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Intercolonial Railway, to strengthen bridges, $385,000.
Henry Robert Emmerson: I was asked to give a statement as to the bridges that were to be strengthened after the appropriation of $385,000 is exhausted. This is exclusive of the Oxford and New Glasgow and Cape Breton railways. The bridges and estimates are : East River, $75,000 : Shubenacadie, $24,000 ; Stewiacke, $16,000 ; Elmsdale, $25,000 ; Enfield. $14,500 ; Hall's Creek, $3,000 ; Hammond River, $32,000; Bic, $14,500; Isle Verte, $25,000; St. Henri, $46,000; Har ris' mill stream, $4,000. There are also a number of small bridges on which it is estimated that we shall require plate girders to the amount of $11,500, and rolled beams to the amount of $18,000. The whole, after making an allowance for estimated credits, will amount to $280,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a great deal more information promised by the hon. gentleman on some of these items.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not on this item.


Robert Laird Borden: iSome of the information required is set forth on page 6123 and following pages of the unrevised ' Hansard.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: I propose to give that information in connection with each item.
To exchange drawbars of freight cars on Intercolonial Railway, $45,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was asked to furnish some information respecting the protection to Grand Narrows Bridge. I find that I was a little in error in giving the prices of timber. For two inch creosote sheathing the lowest tender, that of Wyckoff Creosote Co. of Stamford. Conn., at $45 per thousand feet board measure, was accepted. For ballast
6265	JULY 8, 1904	6266
poles, A. Mackenzie, of River John, was tlie successful tenderer at one and three-quarter cents per lineal foot. Hemlock logs, ten inches, was given to D. McLean, Orangedale. at six cents per lineal foot for a portion and another portion was let to R. McGregor & Sons, of New Glasgow, at seven and a half cents. Hemlock logs, twelve inches, was given to R. McGregor &. Sons of New Glasgow at nine and three-quarter cents per lineal foot. Square timber was given the same firm at $10.50 per thousand feet board measure. I was asked by my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) for the name of the party who got the contract for car couplers. It was given to Geo. McAvity, of St. John, and the Monarch Coupler Co., of Detroit. The price to McAvity is $17.50 delivered in Montreal, and to the Monarch Coupler Co. $17 delivered in Detroit. What page of ' Hansard ' did my hon. friend refer to a few moments ago ?


Robert Laird Borden: 6121 and the following. On 6121 there is a reference to a bridge. The hon. member for Hamilton said he wanted some information, and perhaps that is what the hon. minister has just given. The minister said then :
X will give a list oi forty bridges for which the Dominion Bridge Company has a contract. I can give the names of the bridges hut not the exact amount required for each bridge. I could probably furnish that later.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given that just now. On page 6124 I find that the hon. member for Hamilton asked me how many new freight cars have been furnished with the brake equipment, and also how many, cars out of service have been rebuilt and equipped. In reply I would say that 207 new freight cars were purchased, equipped with Master Car Builders drawbars, and 383 have been rebuilt and equipped.


Mr. BARKER.: In both cases have they been equipped with the drawbar and the air brakes ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were 207 now freight cars purchased with air brake equipment, and 388 cars have been rebuilt and equipped with air brakes.


Samuel Barker: I understand the minister to say that both the cars which have been purchased new and those that have been built in the shops have been equipped with the air brakes and the special draw bars.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that is my information.
To strengthen bridges, Intercolonial Railway, 3385,000.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman did not give us the other day the amount he was appropriating for each bridge. He mentioned the names of the bridges he proposed
to strengthen, but did not say what amount he would spend on each.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I gave the names of the bridges : Chisholm's Bridge, $629.64; Riversdale, $3,169.42 ; Bible Hill, $723.49 ; McManus, Mill, $1,505.84 ; North River, $1,416.52 ; South Coeaigne, $723.81 ; Buctouche, River, $685.34; South Coal Branch, $3,084.54; Red Pine, $465.82; Little Elm Tree, $1,201.26; Fournier's. $616.31 ; Martin's Mill Race, $706.78 ; Charles River, South crossing, $2,971.42 ; Charles River, North crossing, $4,427.34 ; Gordon, $1,229.01; St. Alexis. $722.69; Tobogote, $690.99 ; West Tobogote, $488.11 ; Cedar Hall, $713.76 ; St. Moise, $461.74 ; St. Moise Tank, $1,068.71 ; Ste. Flavie, No. 1, $474.67; Ste. Flavie, No. 2, $469.96 ; St. Luce No. 1, $588.66 ; St. Luce, No. 2, $459.26 ; St. Luce, No. 3, $672.13; St. Anaclet, $440.01; Bic, $467.14 ; St. Fabien, No. 1, $369.01 ; St. Fab-ien, No. 2, $376.89 ; Trois Pistoles, $234.15 ; Isle Verte, $356.14 ; Halifax street crossing, $8,725.96 :	Beaver River, $905.73 ; Canal
Bridge, $804.29 ; McDermld's. $272.14 ; Hil-don Station, $375.29 ; Lydia Brook, $429.27 ; Torryburn, $1,589.35 ; Brookville, $2,800.12.


Samuel Barker: I wish to state to the minister my reason for asking for these details. For two or three sessions I have complained of the manner in which the railway estimates are brought down. We find large items such as this $385,000 in a bulk appropriation covering a large number of works. There is no other department of the public service that treats the House in this way. If the minister will turn to pages 50 and 51 of the estimates he will find the appropriations of the Public Works Department. In these there are ten items of between $500 and $900 each. This form of estimate enables the Auditor General to carry on his work properly. But he cannot properly audit such an item as this of $350,000 covering thirty or forty works. The Auditor General lias before him only an appropriation of $385,000 for strengthening bridges, and, so long as the department keep within the amount, they may expend the whole sum on only half the bridges and leave the other half to come up again next year, when another similar appropriation may be asked for. I am quite sure the officers of the railway understand that that is' not the proper way to bring in appropriations. It is not the way the bridge department of a railway submit estimates to the general manager. In fact, as we have seen, the general manager of this railway submits to the minister, very properly, the details showing exactly, even down to a single cent, as the hon. gentleman has read, just what he proposes to do on each particular work. The very information the minister needed to enable him to deal with this subject is needed by the Auditor General as the work goes on to check the purposes to which the money is applied. I am glad to have in ' Hansard ' the list of items the minister has given. But such a

list should be in the estimates. It would be muc-b less expensive, for it would save the time of the House, and it would enable us to get the information more satisfactorily. We should be saved a great many questions which now must be asked. If the sum was divided into items as it should be, many of those items could be passed without any consideration to detail. I would suggest to the minister, therefore, that next year he should give the estimates in such detail that we may not be obliged to take the time of the House in making these inquiries.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The course pursued this year is the same as that pursued for many years past-so I am informed by the general manager. But I will take a note of what my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) says of course, the change will mean very voluminous estimates where so many particulars are to be given. That, I think, would be the only objection. I think there is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend says.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman will see that last year we had votes of three and three quarter millions in a bare half page of the estimates. As I said before, there is not another department that gives so few items as the Department of Railways and Canals.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It seems to have been the custom.


Samuel Barker: But that, perhaps, is the very best reason why it should not be done.
I have called attention to the matter more than once, and I am glad that the hon. gentleman now says that he will give attention to it next year. No attention has been paid to the matter hitherto.


Mr. LENNOX.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) is not correct in saying that the same system is pursued this year as last year. For, last year the hon. member for Hamilton urged upon the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who then had charge of the railway estimates, what he has urged to-day and the Minister of Finance absolutely refused to give us certain information which was then asked for and which has been given this year. In that respect the Minister of Railways is to be congratulated upon having adopted a part of a system that was advocated by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) last year. Last year the hon. member for Hamilton insisted that when a certain sum was asked to pay for sidings along the line, a bulk sum of $100,000 or so, the committee should be told the particular places where this expenditure was proposed, with the amounts in each case. The Minister of Finance absolutely refused to give the amount of expenditure in each case, but he did in the end give the names of the places where the expenditure was proposed. He said it was not proper to give the amount. This year on the other hand Mr. BARKER.
we have the Minister of Railways giving us not only the proposed expenditure for sidings and increased accommodation along the line, but he is giving us in each case, at the request of the committee, the amount proposed to be expended in each case. Now,
I think the minister, having started out so well, ought to consider, in case this administration should have another opportunity of presenting the estimates next year, which we hardly think they will have-the minister should consider the advisability of placing upon the estimates each sum and the place where it is proposed to expend it, along with the necessary particulars. That would greatly expedite the work of the committee.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I find that I did not give the information I should have given with respect to the other amounts, that together make this total $385,000. For instance, tjiere is fthe conveyance or the transfer of these bridges, that is estimated to cost $8,000. To erect and double up certain bridges, $46,000. I can give the names of the bridges that it is proposed to double up. New Glasgow, Canal, Christie's brook, Beaver river, North Coc-aigne, North Coal brook, Richibucto river, Nelson's, Dickie's, Benjamin river, Otterbrooke, Indian brook, One-half mile west of Sayabec, two miles west of Sayabec, one-half mile west of St. Anaclet, one-half mile west of Trois Pistoles, twenty-five or twenty-six bridges at these places.


Samuel Barker: Can the hon. gentleman give the cogt as he is reading off the names ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is one and a-half mile'west of Trois Pistoles, three bridges at Benjamin river, three at Ricliibuetou river, three at North Coal Branch, two at Beaver river, two at canal, three at Indian brook ; these require to be doubled up, that is, to have two spans. The doubling up is estimated to cost $46,000. Then at Sackville we require $66,000 to replace a bridge. That is in Westmoreland county, New Brunswick. Then there is the Sackville bridge, $66,000 ; Laplanche, $11,000 ; Sutherland river, $25,000 ; Salmon river, $19,400. Then Nicolet river, bridge No. 1, $110,000 ; and bridge No. 2, $85,000. The whole of these items will total more than the $3S5,000, but a portion was paid out of last year's appropriation, and $385,000 will be sufficient to complete the work.


Samuel Barker: The hon. gentleman sees that under cover of this item he has sums of $85,000 and $110,000 for instance. He must see that it is not treating the committee properly to lump all these together. Surely the committee is entitled to discuss separately an appropriation of $100,000 for any work. Then I would ask the hon. gentleman what he means by the carriage of the material. Is that included in the charges for carriage upon the Intercolonial?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, these bridges are built at points beyond the Intercolonial, and this is for freight. The contracts are made for delivery of the work, and this is for the freight.


Samuel Barker: Is it only for freight off the Intercolonial, or do you include any freight on the Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Freights delivered at the bridge on the Intercolonial, and a portion of the freight would therefore be payable to the Intercolonial itself^


Samuel Barker: So he is doing business for the country on revenue account, and charging for hauling the material upon this railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is proper, it is capital expenditure.


Mr. BELL.: I observe the New Glasgow bridge is mentioned as being doubled up. My impression is that that bridge was doubled in some way a few years ago. Is it proposed to repeat the operation, or what is meant by doubling up ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Doubling up is putting two girders together. The work that was done a few years ago was simply to strerfethen it a little.


John William Bell: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: It is doubling up and strengthening. Instead of having the strength of one girder y.ou have the united strength of two girders.


John William Bell: Will there be new work, or are the spans taken from some other points?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That means taking up some of these. This is new work.


Mr. BLAIN.: The minister has given us a statement of the total amount to be spent on bridges. He has also stated that he could Dot give us the specific amount for each bridge. May I ask how he makes up the sum total ? Are we to understand that the [DOT]engineer in charge of that work gives a general estimate of the total amount to be expended on the different bridges, or does he not give the department a specific amount or an estimate of the amounts required on each bridge ? If he does not, how is it possible to make up the sum total without just simply guessing at it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given to the committee the information in respect to the individual bridges, but there is an item of $46,000 for doubling up certain small bridges. I have given the names


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman misunderstands my question.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given the names of these twenty-five bridges that it is proposed to double up and I have stated that we have not the specific items in respect to each one of the number. But, the engineers have made an estimate as to the total cost of them and their estimate is $46,000. That is included in the $385,000.


Richard Blain: Would the engineers estimate not be for each separate bridge rather than for the total amount ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The amount is not given for each separate bridge.


Richard Blain: It makes it rather difficult for the committee to understand where this amount is to be expended and it gives a great deal of liberty to the minister in the expenditure of it. Would it not be better, when the engineer inspects a bridge and finds that a certain improvement has to be made upon it, that he should report to the department that it will cost a certain specific amount? It would be better that he should report the amount required for each specific bridge and then we could tell if the money was expended for the purpose for which it had been voted.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The twenty-five bridges which I have named are to be doubled up and that $46,000 can only be applied to these twenty-five.


Richard Blain: Could it not be expended on five instead of twenty-five?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. This is for paying for the whole wTork. We say that we are going to do that work. We must necessarily do it, and we say that $46,000 is all that we require for that purpose.


Richard Blain: How are we to hold down the minister to the expenditure which he tells us he is going to make ? He says that it will take $46,000 to do the work. Now the hon. minister could expend that $46,000 on half the number of bridges proposed tp be strengthened and he could still be within the vote. My, hon. friend shakes his head; I cannot understand it in any other way. If the hon. gentleman will say that he is asking for $3,000 to be expended on a specific bridge when he brings in his report showing how the money has been expended we can tell whether the money has been expended for the purpose for which it was voted.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not see it in that light. If the engineer reported to me that twenty-five bridges which he named required to be doubled up and that it was going to cost $46,000. and if he was only able with the $46,000 to dispose of half of them, it would strike me very forcibly that he should be condemned and I think he would place the minister and the department in a
ItEVISED EDITION
<5271

very false position. We state that we propose to apply that $46,000 to the doubling up of all these bridges. If we were to come back next year and say that we used the $46,000 and that only half a dozen or fifteen of that number were dealt with and there still remained ten more it would be a matter which might be very severely criticised.


Samuel Barker: I think it would too.


Mr. LANCASTER.: In one case the opposition and the country would have to content themselves with criticism and in the other case they would have the prevention. Prevention is a good deal better than criticism with this government. In the one case they would not be able to spend the money improperly, because the Auditor General would say, you cannot do this because you announced when you submitted your estimate to parliament that you were going to expend so much on each bridge, and that is the statute. The government might, in the other cases, if they chose strengthen one or two of the bridges, say that they were not going to do any of the rest and still be within the item. Then, the hon. minister says that we may criticise them. What good would that do the people of this country after the money had been spent in an improper way ? Suppose the hon. minister gets the item through upon the understanding that he is going to make this expenditure on twenty bridges and he only spends the money on two bridges and does not spend anything on the eighteen remaining ones, and suppose the Auditor General under the item has not the power of preventing the expenditure, you will have to be satisfied with simply finding fault. The country has had some experience in that regard with this government. The people are rather tired of finding fault with the government for not doing what they say they will do. It is better to have the purpose of the vote stated in the statute so that the Auditor General will be able to say, if the money is diverted to any other purpose, that this is not a proper expenditure and that the money must lie expended under the terms of the vote. The hon. minister says that this amount is required for the strengthening of so many bridges. Let us take the hon. minister at his word and at the same time put it in the statute. In my opininon, the criticisim of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) is quite right.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is asking to do something that no minister has previously asked. Last year we had the same nature of discussion up and the item under discussion which evoked a reference to this matter was an item of $63,500 for additional sidings along the line of the Intercolonial Railway. What the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) then claim-


Henry Robert Emmerson: .
ed was that it was right enough to have these bulk items where no large expenditure was proposed in reference to any one item. He said that if the total expenditure on any one item was a matter of $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 each, the government need not bring each specific item and need not tie themselves to the same extent as if it were a large expenditure, the declaration that the hon. minister made being to the effect that if he proposed a number of these expenditures it gave the same safeguard which would ordinasily attach to a specific item, with a specific sum of money attached to it. It is impossible for the committee or this House afterwards to trace the expenditures of the administration if this system is pursued. Here we have exceedingly large amounts proposed to be spent upon a group of bridges with no particular amount attached to any one of them. The hon. minister of Finance pointed out at that time that the expenditure on sidings as contemplated under the item was $63,500 in all, being made up of small sums of money and that it would be unreasonable to tie the government down to a specific expenditure in reference to each of them. He said :
The engineer's estimates for sidings vary from $2,000 up to_$3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 ; there is one estimate of $10,000 for a siding at Camp-bellton ; but with that exception all the sums are comparatively small, none of them more than about $6,000.
Then he gives a list of the places at which these expenditures are to be made and he says further in illustration of what he means :
The vote for the double track which my hon. friend refers to can only be applied to that purpose. I can give the names of the places where we contemplate building sidings ; but I do not think it would be wise to confine us to a particular amount for a particular siding. Suppose, for instance, that one siding is estimated to cost $2,000 and another $3,000, and suppose it is found that they cost about $2,500 each ; I do not think it would be wrong to apply the $5,000 for the two sidings in that way.
And so it is that last year the Minister of Finance, having claimed the right to simply give us the names of the different places at which the expenditure was to be made, aggregating in all $63,500, a sum of comparative insignificance as compared with the $385,000 (proposed to be expended in this way this year, pointed out that the only latitude he required was in the case of small expenditures running from $2,000 to $6,000, but now the minister insists on having this large discretion and says that we can criticise the expenditure next year.
I submit that is not a fair method of dealing with the matter.


Samuel Barker: Do I understand that this $385,000 will complete the works for which it is voted or is this expenditure on account of new works ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That will complete the wqrk. That is the estimated cost.


Samuel Barker: Are any of these bridge items renewals, replacing worn-out bridges by new bridges simply ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: None whatever.


Samuel Barker: Are you proposing to replace any old bridges with new ones at the expense of capital this year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, that is not proposed.	[DOT]


Samuel Barker: You are not replacing one bridge at the cost of revenue ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, there are none in contemplation now.


Samuel Barker: Did you last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The engineer says not.


Samuel Barker: Not one last year, not one in the current year. Everything is done at the expense of capital.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does my hon. friend ask whether some of those charged against capital account have been renewed ?


Samuel Barker: You are charging now $385,000 to capital. I asked you what you are doing as to the bridges that have become worn out in the ordinary course of their lives and have to be replaced without regard to strengthening. Are you renewing any one bridge or did you renew one last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Wherever that is done, it is done out of revenue not out of capital expenditure.


Samuel Barker: Were there any ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The engineer says he cannot recall that there were.


Samuel Barker: Supposing the minister did not increase the strength of one of these bridges, but had to renew the bridge. What branch would bear the cost, revenue or capital ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not prepared to answer that question. I think that the repairs to bridges, where a bridge is worn out, would probably be a revenue item.


Samuel Barker: Are not these new bridges replacing Old or partly worn out bridges ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, these bridges would all be suitable for the traffic of the Intercolonial Railway had we not increased the size of the engines.	,


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. minister mean to assert that all his bridges are brand new bridges, and that he is not making money for revenue by charging the whole of this to- capital ? Are not some of these bridges, if not wholly, at least partly 200i
worn out ? Why should revenue get the benefit of a new bridge erected at the cost of capital ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I presume they are all somewhat worn, but I do not think any of them are worn out.


Samuel Barker: Has the hon. gentleman charged anything to revenue, in these cases against the liabilities which it ought to bear ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman not think he ought to do so. How can he show a truthful statement of his net revenue if 'he does not charge maintenance with its fair share of the cost of replacing every bridge whether it is only in the fifth year of its life or in its fiftieth year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I question the position taken by my hon. friend.


Samuel Barker: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman's explanation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I certainly would not be willing to go to the extent my hon. friend does.


Samuel Barker: I can only tell my hon. friend it is always done. Any corporate company would take care that the maintenance account was charged with a fair proportion of the cost of replacing a bridge so that capital would not be unnecessarily burdened. The hon. gentleman is never going to charge anything to maintenance as long as he can get the country to provide sufficient capital for him.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I have often wondered how we can get a clear and distinct idea of how much this railway is making which we cannot do now owing to the way in which the books are kept. Of course you can have a surplus, or a deficit, according to the way you keep the books. It appears to me that if a railway company like the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific Railway, that was making their road pay and that did not have the people of Canada at its back were doing work of this kind, it would not charge all this to capital account.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We might of course do as the Canadian Pacific Railway do, issue
debenture bonds, come to parliament and get power to do that.


Edward Cochrane: Do they do that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, they came last year.


Edward Cochrane: It is no use of the hon. minister saying they do certain things unless they do them. I quite understand that the Grand Trunk when they want to double track their line would issue bonds, but if I understand rightly, on the Intercolonial thev build bridges out of capital over the same

rivers or ravines thaljt bridges are now built over. It appears to me that when revenue account bas benefited by the use of these bridges in the past, it should bear the cost of their renewal.


Mr. HAGGART.: The minister said the large expenditure was on the extension of sidings and the strengthening of bridges in order to accommodate heavier and longer trains. How much has been expended up to date and how much more is estimated to be required to put the road into the requisite condition '!


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have asked for votes to carry out all that is cofttemplated at present. Whether there shall arise in the future conditions which will necessitate future expenditures we at present do not know. The sidings for which we are providing it is thought will be sufficient for some time to come. It may be that there will be such a growth of business in connection with the construction of the new transcontinental line as to warrant the Intercolonial being placed in a very much better condition even than it is. We expect to get a large traffic over the Intercolonial in connection with the construction of that line.


John Graham Haggart: The minister must have had an estimate of the amount required for the purpose of improving the gradients, strengthening the bridges and lengthening the sidings, in order to accomplish the object in view.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given that in respect to the bridges.


John Graham Haggart: Then, I understand that all that is required to accomplish that is being voted this year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, exclusive of the Oxford and New Glasgow and Cape Breton railways. I stated that after the appropriation of $385,000 was exhausted, the amount necessary to strengthen the bridges was estimated at $280,000.


John Graham Haggart: I know, notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister of Finance last year that the amount voted then would virtually finish the work. But what I want to get at is this. The minister must have had an estimate from the department as to the total amount required for repairs, easing of gradients, extensions of sidings, strengthening of bridges, and all other work necessary to the object in view. What is the total amount, exclusive of the New Glasgow and Cape Breton roads ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand that we shall not require under present conditions to strengthen the bridges on the Oxford and New Glasgow and Cape Breton sections. We have not gone into that, and have no estimate of the cost, because at present Mr: COCHRANE.
the larger engines are not required there. There has been no estimate made as to the improvement of the curves and gradients of the road, but I have given the information with respect to the bridges, and all other information, I am sure, that would enable my hon. friend to form his own judgment.


John Graham Haggart: Then I am to understand that for the gradients and curvatures and strengthening of the bridges, except on the New Glasgow and Cape Breton sections -concerning which he has no estimate at present as he is not using heavy engines on those sections and there is no necessity for an estimate-we have the whole amount required to be voted this year on capital account, which he requires for strengthening the bridges. That of course does not include the $280,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not want to be misunderstood. There has been no total estimate of the amount required, but there are two or three items under consideration now and the finality will be reached with respect to them very shortly. These items have to do with lengthening some curves that may be necessary on the main line of the Intercolonial, especially on the Drummond County portion.


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister tell us where they are ? Surely he can get from his engineers an estimate of the probable cost. I do not want a close estimate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Until the department has determined what shall be done, I could not very well bring it now to the notice of the committee. At St. Cyril and Carmel and St. Leonard Junction, there are three very unfortunate curves.


John Graham Haggart: On what road is that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the Drummond end of the Intercolonial.


John Graham Haggart: Why, we were told that was a perfect road when we purchased it.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Is the bridge at Folleigh river to be strengthened, and to what extent ? The people believe it to be dangerous.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was doubled up about two years ago.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: What do you mean by doubling up ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Putting in double girders. That would be two girders on each side.


Mr. LOGAN.: Last evening while I happened to be in room 16 for a few moments, I find that in my absence the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) made reference to a certain member as having had an agent removed from office because he had refused to interfere with the progress of the trains. On being asked to give the name, he de-

dined to do so on the ground that he had no desire to do the gentleman in question, who was a good respectable member of this House, an injury, and he went on to say :
I will tell the minister the name-privately, and it I do him any injury by this statement,
X am man enough to stand up in the House and say it is not true'.
I beg to thank the hon. gentleman for those words. I took the first opportunity of asking him to whom he referred, and on ascertaining that he referred to myself, I gave the rumour then, as I do now, my most unqualified denial. There has been no agent in the county of Cumberland removed or interfered with by me because he refused to interfere with the progress of the trains, and I cannot understand how the rumour could have arisen. There have been only two agents in that county removed, and they were removed for cause, after a most thorough investigation, and that was away back in 1896. -Since then I cannot remember of any agent toeing removed. I am certain that none has toeen at my request or because he refused to interfere with the progress of the trains.


Richard Blain: What are the names of those who were removed ?


Hance James Logan: Jos. McKeown, of Oxford Junction, and Jos. Clarke, of Pugwash.


Mr. SPROULE.: The member for East Grey never referred to any such rumour at all.


Hance James Logan: I meant to say the member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). This is only another case of how a man may use one word for another and say 4 foreigner ' instead of 4 stranger.'


Mr. INGRAM.: I am glad the hon. gentleman has made this statement for he it is to whom the rumour referred. I said last night that I would be very glad if he denied it, and as he has done so I am glad to hear his denial. I have nothing to withdraw because I simply stated a rumour, and now that that rumour has been contradicted, I am very much pleased to learn that the charge was not true.


Hance James Logan: It is absolutely untrue and I beg to thank the hon. gentleman for withdrawing the statement.


Richard Blain: How much will it take to complete the strengthening of the bridges which it is contemplated to strengthen or double up ?
, Mr. EMMERSON. I have repeated that about ten times, but do not object to repeating it again. $188,000 is the estimate for this year. I have given the names of the bridges and the amounts required for each. This is of course exclusive of the Cape Breton line and the New Oxford and New Glasgow short line.


Richard Blain: There is just the difficulty. When this question of strengthening bridges was up a year ago, the item was $165,000, as will be seen on reference to page 8269 of 4 Hansard.' The hon. member for South Lanark asked for the details and the hon. Minister of Finance replied :
I understand the hon. gentleman wished to have a statement in detail as to the bridges to be strengthened. Of this sum $77,000 is a revote standing over from last- year.
Then Mr. Haggart asked :
What is the total amount expended up to date and the probable amount required to finish this work of strengthening ?
Now, there is a perfectly honest question asked by my hon. friend from Lanark and to that question the Finance Minister replies :
My deputy informs me that he thinks this will finish the work of strengthening these bridges.
There was a straight statement from the Minister of Finance, who was acting Minister of Railways. And now my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) comes forward and says a still larger amount will be required. And the committee are asking, year after year, when the hon. gentleman names a certain number of bridges to be improved, that he shall set opposite each name the amount he intends to spend, so that we may know where the money goes. I would be glad if the minister would make a definite statement of how much it will cost to complete the strengthening and doubling up of these bridges. I further wish to draw his attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance differs from him as to what doubling up bridges is. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) says it it is putting two girders together. But the Minister of Finance says :
Doubling up, of course, means the ta'king of two bridges and putting them together.
It is not for me to say which of these is the proper definition. However, I cannot understand how it is possible for the hon. minister to bring down a statement of the total amount required to strengthen a number of bridges unless the department has given him specifically the amount required for each bridge. I cannot understand how, without these details, the.hon. gentleman can make up a sum total.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It seems to me that my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has this same complaint with regard to every item-that he cannot understand. Now, it seems to me this item was quite clear.


Richard Blain: Well, if the minister will explain I will make a desperate effort to understand it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If I can find my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) actuated by a desire to

understand I shall be well satisfied. There is a statement in ' Hansard ' of last year, made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) as acting Minister of Railways, referring to certain bridges, concerning which he says that the deputy informs him that he thinks the amount then a^ked for will finish the work of strengthening these bridges ;- not all the bridges on the Intercolonial but only those that then required strengthening. If it was supposed that the hon. gentleman referred to all the bridges, there must certainly have been some misunderstanding, as shown by the fact that $385,000 is asked for the same purpose this year.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) speaks in another place of this completing the work of strengthening.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Not for the work in the future, and not for all the bridges on the Intercolonial, but only for a certain number. There was a list of bridges to be improved then, just as there is a list to be improved now. However, it is hardly worth while for us to have these post mortem examinations of what was understood in the committee last year. I have made a statement as to the bridges for which expenditures are required now, and the question is whether that statement is satisfactory.


Haughton Lennox: Surely the hon. minister, m speaking of post mortem examinations, does not mean to suggest that we are not to look back and see what promises were made last year. The committee's investigation and the statepients of the minister become merely idle if we are not to look back and see how the statements of last year have been lived up to. The hon. minister has taken a very wide departure

-Air. EAIMERSON. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) allow me to explain ? What I said was that there must have been a misunderstanding if it was supposed that the minister last year in referring to an item of $87,000 said that'this would complete all the bridges on the Intercolonial He could not have had that in mind, because $38o,000 is asked for this year.


John Graham Haggart: If the hon. minister (Air. Emmerson) will look further on in the debate he will see that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) spoke of all the bridges.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: That is, all the bridges m the list.


John Graham Haggart: All that required repair.


Richard Blain: Alay I have the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals while I read a part of the debate of last year ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The list 1 have read only refers to the bridges which it is expected to deal with during the present
season and the money has not been expended yet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Air. FOWLER.: Is there any estimate as to the probable cost ?


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


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


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


John Graham Haggart: And $165,000.
If there is a misunderstanding-I am sure there is not on this side of the House-the responsibility rests either with the hon. gentleman (Air. Emmerson) or his predecessor. The hon. gentleman says he has been making this matter quite plain, but I regret to say it does not seem very plain to me. I would like it very much 'if he would make a statement of the amount spent in strengthening bridges, and also what it will cost to compete the work of strengthening the bridges on the Intercolonial.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: I have given that.


Richard Blain: Then, what is the amount ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: There is $385,000 this year for the bridges I have named, and the amount required hereafter for strengthening the bridges I have named about $280,000.


Richard Blain: We understand that this will double up or strengthen every bridge that it is necessary to double up or strengthen on the Intercolonial ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: This $280,000 together with the $385,000 voted this year. I have given the names of the bridges, and have stated that these are all that require to be strengthened according to the judgment of the engineers of the department.


Richard Blain: For how long ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: That will mean that every bridge on the Intercolonial requiring to be strengthened will be strengthened. How7 long they will last, when strengthened,
I cannot say. When this work is done, we shall have improved all the bridges except on the Cape Breton Railway and on the line between Oxford and New Glasgow.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman's statement, then is that $665,000 will meet this proposed expenditure. Will he state to us how he has arrived at that in view of the fact that he has made the statement that he has not set down the specific amount required for each bridge ?
Air. EMiAIERSON. I read off the expenditure for each bridge included in the $385,000. with the expenditure on 25 small bridges where the girders are to be doubled up, totalling $46,000. My hon. friend remembers my making that statement, and therefore, without giving the detailed items with respect to these 25 bridges the engineers give a total of $46,000, and these 25

bridges can be doubled up for that sum of money.


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister give us the total estimate of his engineer for strengthening this work, from beginning to end.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


John Graham Haggart: The minister should realize how necessary it is to have accurate information. A while ago I was particular to inquire from the Minister of Finance, not only in reference to this, but the total amount required for strengthening the bridges altogether, according to his engineer's estimate. Here is the statement he made to me in last year's ' Hansard,' at page 8279 :


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


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have not the figures to the close of the fiscal year. Heaving out the bridges at Miramichi and at Restigouche, the amount is $461,680.


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


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


John Graham Haggart: You do not know what the amount is ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE I have not the estimates at hand.


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


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: For strengthening the bridges.


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


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was an estimate made by the general manager, and the recollection of my deputy is that it was about a million and a quarter dollars.
He was only $500,000 astray.


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


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The estimate is substantially correct-over a million dollars, including the large bridges as well as the process of doubling up. It *would he subject to some deception if bridges were sold off the road, but that has not yet
been done, most of them being used in doubling up.
So you see that last year we had this estimate as a million and a quarter, and to-day it amounts to $1,700,000. While I am on my feet-to what account are these bridges credited ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I notice that on page 8279 of ' Hansard ' the Finance Minister in giving the total of about a million dollars excluded the Restigouche and the Miramichi bridges. Later on, exclusive of these bridges, the amount appears to have been stated at a million and a quarter dollars. Now either these bridges were excluded, or the minister meant to say a million and three quarters as a total estimate. One can well understand how an error of that kind would occur, because the estimate given by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) shows that he had in his mind over a million dollars exclusive of the Restigouche and the Miramichi bridges. There is no objection taken to the statement of a million dollars by the Minister of Finance, that sum being exclusive of the Miramichi and Restigouche. Then if you add those, the total would be upwards of a million and three quarters. The error must have occurred in some way like that, because these figures I am sure would not have been deliberately stated erroneously, it would be folly for a minister to make such a statement. The facts are all there.


John Graham Haggart: It does seem to be folly. But if the minister will look further on in the discussion he will find that the minister fully understood the facts. How was it then that the minister stated last year that the total expenditure would be only about $600,000 ? Three years ago it was $600,000. last year it was $1,250,000, and now' it *amounts to $1,750,000. That is the kind of information we get from the Department of the' Minister of Railways. Something is wrong. The minister should have accurate information in reference to the cost of these improvements, and it is impossible, with such mistakes and blunders as have been made from year to year by the minister, to ascertain the cost of these w'orks. The engineering department that would furnish information that certain repairs required for the purpose of bringing up the standard of this road in the form of strengthening the bridges would only cost $600,000, then comes to the minister next year and says that it will cost $1,250,000 and then this year informs the minister that $1,750,000 will be required, ought not to be kept a day in the employ of any institution, government or anything else.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Evidently the reference to the $650,000 is to the Restigouche and Miramichi bridges. My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart), at page 8276 of ' Hansard,' gives the whole case away. He says :

The expenditure for the purpose of strengthening and renewing the bridges on the Intercolonial Railway within the last few years has been over $1,000,000, besides an expenditure for repairs on the different bridges of nearly $700,000.
Now, there is $1,700,000, and he must have got his information from my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. That $1,700,000 conforms to the statement made hy the general manager last year, that the total expenditure is $1,750,000. Surely we are malt ing a mountain out of a molehill in endeavouring to show there is some discrepancy in the statement. When this committee is considering these questions, and when interjections are being made by hon. members, the reporters cannot always get the exact figures, and no minister is able to go over the report and correct his proof. The figure as it appears must go on record as it is stated, or as it is understood to be stated, and it is very possible for hon. members to misunderstand. Somebody will say a million and three-quarters across the floor and it will be understood as a million and a quarter. These things will occur, but that there was no misunderstanding in this case is clearly proved by the fact that my hon friend from South Lanark, at page 8276 ot ' Hansard,' last year referred to $1,700,000 as being expended and required to be expended for repairs on the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. minister not know the distinction between his statement and the statement I made ? I was speaking of the $1,000,000 which was required for strengthening and renewing bridges.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is the same thing.


John Graham Haggart: Besides that there was expended for repairs $700,000. That $700,000 does not come into consideration at all. They are two distinct and separate, items. We were dealing with the question of the strengthening and renewal of bridges on the Intercolonial Railway. The question of repairs does not come into it at all.


Richard Blain: I wish to draw the hon. minister's attention to the statement made bv his predecessor {Mr. Blair). At page 3809 of ' Hansard,' 1902, appears the following .
Strengthening bridges, $175,000.


Samuel Barker: Will the minister explain what this Is for ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The extreme pressure under which the bridge companies were working last year made it impossible for them to supply what we - required within the fiscal year, and so $75,000 of this has to be revoted. We started out with the idea that by spending $100,000 a year, we would in five or six years sufficiently strengthen our bridges to bear the heavy locomotives.
What would the hon. minister think from that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Samuel Barker: Is this taking the place of old work ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. The bridges that were built on the Intercolonial Railway were nearly all built after one pattern, and if they were not called upon to carry heavier trains than prior to 1898, they would last for many years to come. We have 'been obliged to increase their carrying capacity, and what we do is to take one span out and add it to the existing span of another bridge, then replacing ithe one which we have removed by a new span.


Mr. MONK.: Is the work -progressing from Montreal to Halifax or from Halifax to Montreal ?
Then passing on :


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there an estimate of what the total cost of this work will be ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have only expended $225,000 out of the $600,000 which it was originally estimated we would require.


John Graham Haggart: Exactly. That was what was stated.
Mr. BiLA'IN. That seems to be plain. That shows the lack of information afforded by the hon. gentleman and his predecessor to the committee from year to year. I think that if the hon. gentleman would state the number of bridges on the Intercolonial Railway, and if his engineer would bring in a report showing that so much money would be required to repair and strengthen each of these bridges and that the total sum would be a certain amount, the committee would readily understand it; but. as my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has pointed out, his estimate was $600,000 in plain Anglo-Saxon words. That was the total amount required to strengthen these bridges, and now it has been brought up to the enormous sum *f $1,750,000. Surely the hon. gentleman see3 that there is something misleading in that. It cannot be the fault of members of the opposition, because they are not in possession of the information required. It must be the fault of the department. I have no censure to pass upon any official of tii; department. I know nothing about it, but I cannot understand it, and I do not think any hon. member of this House can understand how it is possible for my hon. friend now to - state the total amount required until he makes an estimate of how much is required for each bridge along the Intercolonial Railway.


Andrew B. Ingram: The total now is $i,759,-000. That will include the $385,000 that the hon. gentleman is asking for now. Am I correct in that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: And the $280,000 which is contemplated later on.


Andrew B. Ingram: That includes the $280,000 ? ,


Henry Robert Emmerson: That includes the $385,000 which is dow being voted, and, as I

understand it, the $280,000 which I gave as necessary for the year 1894-5.


Andrew B. Ingram: So that we have it now that the total cost is actually to be $1,759,000, which includes the item which you or somebody else expect to ask for next year of $280,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Andrew B. Ingram: That is to be the total actual cost of strengthening the bridges on the Intercolonial Railway 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Exclusive of the Oxford and New Glasgow and Cape Breton railways.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman fell us what the bridges on these two railways will cost in addition to the figures he has already given ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In respect to these two railways I have stated that we have no estimate for them. The strengthening of the bridges on these lines does not seem to be necessary, and it has not been estimated. The larger classes of engine will not probably for a long time to come be used on those lines. We have not had an estimate made, because the bridges are quite strong enough for the present traffic and rolling stock.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock. Additional sidings along line. $118,000.


John Graham Haggart: I wish this item to stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to discuss the whole matter later on.


John Graham Haggart: I want an opportunity on Monday.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On Monday, unfortunately, I shall be obliged to be absent.


John Graham Haggart: All I want is an item left for the purpose of discussing the whole matter.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: There is an item of $70,000 lower down which will stand.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend the minister might give us the particulars as to the expenditure of this $63,500 last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The amounts expended up to May 31st were :
Iona siding	$2,402	52Belledune	535	17Clark's Brook	2,272	92Cedar Hall	967	41Chatham Junction	4,170	28Between Beaver Brook	and	Bartibogue	4,667	51Between Red Pine and	Bar-	tibogue	4,627	59St. Moise	845	40Jacquet River	59	to
Between 'Assametquaghan and
Mill Stream	$5,700	08Ste. Anne	
1,086	57Milford	
778	31Windsor Junction	
661	42Pomquette	
67	10Campbellton	
533	91Engineering, &c	
100	80


Haughton Lennox: Did the minister mention Mill Stream ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Then at Campbellton it is contemplated to spend $10,000 on that 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: $533.91 of additional expenditure. The arrangement is to pay $8,000 for the Richard land, and $2,700 for the Duncan land. We will require a supplemental vote to complete the whole expenditure. Expropriation proceedings were commenced to acquire these lands, but instead of taking the matter to the Exchequer Court we put two valuators on the property and an arrangement was made with the parties by which we agreed to pay them so much.


Haughton Lennox: Expenditure seems to have been made at all of the places where the minister said it was intended to expend additional money on sidings.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. Of course this does not include them all, because this was only the expenditure up to May 31st ; some of the others may have been attended to in June.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose the minister has no idea of the amount of the capital revenue and expenditure for June ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Richard Blain: I would like to have some information about the Cleveland patent cylinder which has been applied to some of the Intercolonial locomotives and which has been in operation there for some two or three years. I understand that this is a device to decrease the consumption of fuel. Perhaps at the same time the minister could tell us whether the Chapman ball-bearings are to be applied to any other cars.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My impression is that they have not used the Chapman ball-bearing's. I think there was some talk of it but the matter has not come under my observation since I have been in the department. Several engines have the Cleveland cylinder. There is quite a difference of opinion among experts as to the value of that cylinder. Some engineers are very strongly in favour of it and others are opposed to it. I know of two or three engines myself Which have that appliance and from what I could gather they have been quite success-



G287 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
ful, but the Cleveland patent is not now being used on any additional engines.
Seymour Eugene Gourley: in making these sidings does the minister keep in view the doubletracking of the Intercolonial Railway from Moncton to Halifax ? There is a strong and growing feeling in Nova Scotia, in favour of having the Intercolonial Railway doubletracked within a year from Moncton to Halifax. I have received a letter to-day from a lumberman complaining that he is being charged large demurrage at Halifax owing to the great press of business on the Intercolonial Railway. He does not blame the minister, but simply the fact that the business is greater than the railway, with its present equipment, can handle. It is felt m Nova Scotia that the Intercolonial Railway must be double tracked both for safety and to properly handle the business ol the country. The lumbering industry in that province, has grown to enormous proportions, and will undoubtedly increase, owing to the fact that the forests in Nova Scotia reproduce themselves every ten or twelve years. I am instructed bv'the lumbermen of my county to ask two things, that the Intercolonial Railway shall be double-tracked and that far more sidings .shall be constructed.
At Brookfield, which is growing into i large community, which is eight miles near er to Halifax than Truro, people are kepi foi days loading their lumber, because the short sidings will not permit more than one hrm to load at a time. The result is, thaf e whole profit of the winter's transaction? is eaten up by the delays. These are crying evils in Nova Scotia which I am sure" the good people of Ontario know nothing about. In Ontario they have been provided with railway facilities in every direction, and they deserve them ; they have been bold enough to ask for them. We in Nova Scotia have been timidly standing on the brink, not daring to ask what we are entitled to. while our friends in Ontario have been bold in asking for and getting everything that is good in Canada. I want to say with regard to the lumbermen, that though they are divided in politics, they are all united m this, that they want longer sidings. I am bound to say that a great deal has been accomplished in the last two or three years m that direction, but a great deal more re-mams to be done. I want the manager of the Intercolonial to be impressed with the * f"at t^le ^es*re of the whole country is that the government should assist the business interests of the country by giving them increased railway facilities. I will support the government in double tracking the Tntertol^ial at once from Moncton to Halifax, and in providing miles of sidings instead of the short sidings which we have now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: There seems to be a difference amongst the leaders on that side of the House.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Not a bit of difference. We represent the progressive side of politics. There is no need of discussing that, because it was settled years ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You will have to square that with the hon. member for South Lanark.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I do not wish to have any party bickering on this matter. This is for the development of the country. While hon. gentlemen opposite have opposed all development in the past, they can make amends for their past by doing better in the future. I have it also in charge from the great lumber interests of Colchester county to ask the hon. minister to take steps at once to have the lumber ears equipped with some kind of stake. There is the Miller stake, which is well known in various parts of the country. It is an excellent patent, and can be applied to any car at a cost of about $2.50 ; and when the car is not used for lumber it can be used for any other purpose. At present the Intercolonial Railway hires to a lumberman a car at a high rate ; but before he can use it, he has to spend $2 or $3 in staking it. One of two things should prevail-either a very low rate for lumber, or the cars should be equipped for the purpose for which the lumbermen hire them. Mr. Alfred Dickie, of the firm of Alfred Dickie & Co., is determined to have fair-play ; there is also a lumbermen's association formed in Nova Scotia, and if you do not do something for them, the good Liberals will no longer vote for you. Mr. Dickie's firm is a most enterprising firm. He started twenty years ago with scarcely a dollar, and to-day is worth $1,000,000 or $1,500,000. His only drawback is that he is a Liberal ; but I am bound to say that if you do not stake these cars for him, he will not be a Liberal much longer.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: How did the late government treat Alfred Dickie ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I do not think the late government did right. I am told that they did not equip the Intercolonial Railway thoroughly because in front of them sat an opposition, that was reviling the Intercolonial, from morning till night, until the government supporters were absolutely frightened to do justice to the railway ; and Sir Richard Cartwright was one of the chiefest sinners. Today we have this difficulty, that numbers of gentlemen from the province of Ontario believe that we have plenty of railways in Nova Scotia, while we have none at all. We have just a skeleton system of railways. When I place the map of Nova Scotia beside that of Ontario, the members from On-

tario feel ashamed to see that we have no railways in Nova Scotia. Sir Richard Cartwright and the Hon. Edward Blake went through the province of Ontario reviling the Conservative party and Sir Charles Tupper for building railways in Nova Scotia. I can admire the clear, incisive, strong language of the hon. member for South Oxford, even when he advocates errors. If he ever undertook to advocate the truth, he would be supreme and masterly. That hon. gentleman, assisted by the Hon. Edward Blake, a man infinitely inferior to himself intellectually but still a man of some parts, went through Ontario trying to convince the people that Sir Charles Tupper had built many railways in the province of Nova Scotia, whereas as a matter of fact, we have no railways, and to-day we want 2,000 miles of railway before we can be said to be properly civilized; because the railway, to-day, is the great civilizer of the world. Now, I ask the Minister of Railways if he is prepared to adopt the Miller stake or some other stake to help the lumber trade of Nova Scotia ? The lumbermen have to split up a lot of their marketable deals in order to stake the trains at a cost of from $1.50 to $3 a car. It is a shame for the government, or for any other common carrier, to hold out that they supply cars for the carriage of lumber, when they are not fittted for the purpose, and the person who hires them has afterwards to equip them at his own expense. The lumber business is a great and splendid industry, which is going to be permanent in this country. Some people, a few years ago, thought that our forests would soon be destroyed ; but we find that after the trees have been cut down to eight inches, the forest will recover in twelve years. The maritime provinces have been regarded as inferior in financial standing since our shipbuilding has gone to pieces ; yet I can assure you that the great fishing industry, for which my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbacli) has done so much, and the great lumber industry, are only beginning to develop in the maritime provinces that immense wealth which we hope in a few years will put us in such a position that we shall not ask for government favours, because we shall be able to provide everything we want at our own expense. .


Henry Robert Emmerson: That matter has already been looked into.


John William Bell: A day or two ago I asked about the proposed extension of the railway yards at New Glasgow. I understood the hon. minister to say-t'hough perhaps not very definitely-that some provision was to be made for that in this year's estimates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That matter is having attention.


John William Bell: Will there be any provision made for it in the estimates this year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not in a position to make a definite promise.


John William Bell: The impression I got was that there was to be some provision in this year's estimates.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: Not in the regular estimates. I was going to suggest that we pass resolution 89 and leave 92 for consideration.


John Graham Haggart: Yes. I think that would be convenient, and on that item it is understood we can continue the discussion on tlie general subject of the Intercolonial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Very well.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister has said that the department have been looking into the question of the Miller stake. Perhaps he could tell us what prospect there is of that or some other stake being adopted.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: I am waiting a report from the mechanical department as to the value of that plan, and P cannot say more at present. \Vo are anxious to have the cars equipped with modern equipment and appliances, but every change is not an advantage, and this may not prove to be one.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Truro would not ask that it be adopted if it is of no advantage.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: I am sure he would not if he did not think it would be an advantage.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I am not wedded to any particular stake, but the lumbermen are anxious that a stake of some kind should be provided.


Air CLARKE.: The hon. member for Colchester wanted some information as to the possibility of getting the Intercolonial double-tracked from Aloncton to Halifax. I am afraid the hon. minister is trying to sidetrack that question.


Air EAIAIERSON.: Parliament has made provision for double-tracking a portion of the road between Windsor Junction and Halifax and the work is under construction.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Only thirteen miles.
Air. ElMAIERSON. Everything must have the first thirteen miles.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: Are we to understand that the policy of the government is to extend that double track up to Aloncton ?


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: I could not answer that question. I can only call attention to the fact that contracts have been entered into for double-tracking a portion of the Intercolonial. The future will have to develop itself.
National Transcontinental Railway, surveys and other expenses, $500,000.


Air.   EAIAIERSON@: This is simply a revote.


Mr. CLARKE.: We want elaborate particulars. We want to know what has been done, what the policy Is, how many parties are to be sent out, and whether they are to he composed of aliens or British subjects ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By the way these estimates are got up, it is impossible to tell when there is a revote or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have had occasion to complain of that already. That mistake has occurred in a number of instances. It is not the fault of the department, because it appears in the original here.


Haughton Lennox: We have revotes marked down at three-quarters of a million, but as e matter of fact they are more than one and a half million.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to the minister's contention that it is not the fault of the department-


Henry Robert Emmerson: If it is any satisfaction to the hon. gentleman, I will take the blame.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The department ought to have some person to read the proofs after the items are printed.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: That would be the duty of the Department of Finance.


Mr. WILSON.: How could any other
department check the items, unless it had the original documents ? It seems to me that it is the business of each department to see that its own estimates are properly printed. It is rather curious that any department should allow its estimates to go to the Printing Bureau and then see no more of them until they are presented to the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If this item is going to take up time in its discussion, I would suggest that we pass on to some other item.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask if the hon. minister will have the evidence taken by Judge Winchester up to the present time printed and distributed ? Some of it is most extraordinary in its character, and we are entitled before voting this $500,000, to get the fullest information as to the discoveries which Judge Winchester has made. We desire to know also what surveys have been completed and the facts concerning them ?


Haughton Lennox: Last session the Minister of Finance told us that, with the money then voted, and as soon as the session was over, surveying parties would be put in the field and the work of those already in the field under instructions from the Grand Trunk Pacific, so far as it was valuable, would be taken over, they would be settled and we would have whatever information they had collected. We want to know not only what surveys have been made by these Mr EMMERSON.
parties, but how the people have been settled with and what they have been paid, if anything. We would like to know also if surveying parties have been put in the field as promised last session by the Minister of Finance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In the meantime, the item should stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the matter is to be gone into at length, it is better to let the item stand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And, of course, the hon-gentleman will have the information we ask for before he brings the item up again. That is only reasonable.


Robert Laird Borden: Before we leave this item, I would call the attention of the government to some evidence given by Mr. Charles M. Hays before Judge Winchester. The report is as follows :


Mr.   C@: Hays, second vice-president and general manager of the Grand Trunk Railway system, examined by Mr. Mowat, testified that on June 16, 1903, he wrote to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, informing him that the Grand Trunk Pacific had nine surveying parties in the field, and of nine locating engineers, four were Canadians, three Americans, one was a German arid one an Englishman.
I do not know whether there is any mistake in the date-16th June, 1903. I have not observed that that letter has been brought down. Further he says :
When witness, in reply to a communication from Hon. Mr. Fielding, Minister of Finance, wrote that of the thirteen engineers employed on the work, but three were Americans, the other being British subjects, he relied upon Mr. Stephens for the information.
Possibly that letter may have been brought down. I have sent for a copy of the correspondence, which I have not yet had an opportunity of examining very carefully. There is no date given, and one would have to look over the entire correspondence to see if this letter is included. But if these letters or any others relating to the matter have not been brought down, I think they should be brought down a once.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) give me the dates S


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and I will also give the reference to the report. The date given by Mr. Hays for the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister is 16th June, 1963. The date of the letter to Mr. Fielding is not given. The report from which I quote is that contained in the Montreal 1 Gazette ' of July 5th.	[DOT]


Mr. BOYD.: There is another matter in connection with these surveys. I would like, as far as possible, to have -what information the government may have in re-

gard to the grades and curvatures on the surveys that have already been made. The House will remember that last session a gentleman very close to the government made the statement to the House that the surveys between Winnipeg and Lake Nipigon had shown that they were able to get grades and curvatures such as they stated would be essential tor the road as they propose to build it-grades of some twenty feet to the mile and curvatures of some three or four degrees. I would be glad if the minister would prepare to tell us some-j thing in regard to that matter, because it ig very important to the people of the district from which I come.
Railways and canals-chargeable to capital -canals-Cornwall canal, enlargement, $26,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to continue certain work that was commenced in 1902. Of this amount $8,450 is a revote. The amounts to be expended, are as follows:-Repairs and enlargement of regulating weir at old lock 17, $15,500-


John Graham Haggart: Is that at the head of the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At the lower end of the canal. Protection to north bank, $3,000; Sheik's Island dam, final estimate, $8,000, total, $26,500. The total expenditure on this work up to the 1st May, 1904, was $7,016,.328.33.


Robert Laird Borden: It is upon this item that we propose to have the discussion of the so-called Davis contract and the report of the Auditor General. I was informed by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) privately on Wednesday last that he did not desire us to take up this matter in the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Em-merson) is prepared to go on, of course it does not make any difference to us.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If this is the particular item on which the discussion is to take place and the discussion has been arranged for. It was understood on this side that the discussion would take place next Wednesday.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, I suppose it would be better to let the item stand.
Mr. EMMBRSOp. Yes, if this is the item to which that .matter relates.


Robert Laird Borden: It is. But there is no objection to going into the item so far as other matters are concerned, so long as we have an understanding that the other discussion will not be closed out.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand that the arrangement was made that the discussion of that subject will take place next Wednesday.


Robert Laird Borden: That is as I understood it, but I wanted to let the hon. minister know that we were ready to go on if the arrangement is varied.
iMr. HAGGART. I understood the hon. minister (Mr. Emmerson) to say that on Wednesday next we would take up the Intercolonial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is for Wednesday afternoon, but this other question will come up on Wednesday morning.


John Graham Haggart: You cannot get through in a morning.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We will try. Perhaps we can, if the hon. gentlemen do- not make very long speeches.


John Graham Haggart: There may he half a dozen who will want to make long speeches.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then we will have to adjourn the debate.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps you had better make no arrangement about the Intercolonial. If you are going to take the M. P. Davis matter up on Wednesday for lighting the Cornwall canal, that will likely take most of the day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said Wednesday, because I expect to be away on Tuesday evening.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Justice is here, perhaps he could take up the Davis matter now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. Some hon. gentlemen on the other side came to me yesterday and wanted a day fixed after Tuesday. The Minister of Justice says he is ready to go on, but some hon. gentlemen opposite who wanted to go away, asked that the matter be not taken up during their absence.


Robert Laird Borden: That is all right. Galops canal-enlargement, $204,300.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Will the minister kindly explain the item ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This estimate is made up as follows : Under contract: the Iroquois section, $6,300 ; Cornwall section, $88,000 ; Upper entrance, $100,000 ; Iroquois section at Presqu'Ue, $10,000. The above amounts will complete the three sections. For construction purposes, the canal was divided into four sections.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there any new work going on now or is this work merely to settle up the whole matter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a little work going one, but this is the final estimate for that section.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood last year that the work was all completed, and that only the final estimates remained to be

made up. Since that time there has been no appearance of much work going on. What are they doing now ?
Mi-. EMMERSON. There is very little work going on, and there is but little work to be done. This amount is to meet the final estimates. The engineers are preparing the final estimates, and this is to pay the contractors.


John Dowsley Reid: How many employees are there now on the engineering staff ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Four or five.


John Dowsley Reid: The work was done a year ago, and the minister says there is no work going on now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are engaged in making up the final estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know the number of men that are employed on the engineering staff. They have been doing nothing for the last year, but merely drawing their pay.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend wants that information, I will send over to the department and get it.


John Dowsley Reid: Exactly, and we will know who the men are, because, as I understand, they are there, and there is nothing whatever for them to do. Moreover, during the whole of the winter months these men are kept on the pay-list, while in years gone by, when winter came on and work closed on these contracts, all these men that were employed at that work were let go. But since the hon. gentleman has been carrying on this work these men have been kept on during the whole winter, not only during the whole winter but since the work has been completed. I would like to know how much longer they are going to be kept there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: During the winter months, as I understand from the deputy, they were all off excepting the engineers, and subsequently two men were employed doing certain work with the engineers.


John Dowsley Reid: Then they were off during the winter. I find in the Auditor General's Report, one man, Wm. Matthews, timber inspector, 12 months, $960.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman is referring to 1903 is he not ?


John Dowsley Reid: I know this man was on part of this last winter at all events.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said a part of the winter.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know the names of the men that are on now, and in the meantime we could let the item stand till we get that information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will get the information, but I do not think that we should let the item stand.


John Dowsley Reid: 


John Dowsley Reid: It has been understood that the work has been completed for over a year. You have the staff there permanently' the whole year round. The inspector of masonry is now on the work drawing bis salary' notwithstanding the fact that the work has been done for two years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The amount expended on the Cardinal section since the 1st of July last year and up to the first of May of the present year is $19,060.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman could give the names of the men who are employed, I would be able to judge what it is costing to keep these men there when there is no work going on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman states there is no work going on. The deputy tells me there has been work going on. The work has been continued. There is still some work to do and in so far as the engineers are concerned they are still at work in connection with the final estimate.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no question about the engineers being employed as yet. There should be work for them to do in getting up the final estimate, but the masonry has been done for two years and I understand the inspector of masonry Mr. Connley, who is down in the Auditor General's Report for his pay for 12 months up to the 1st July last year is still on. After the work has been completed why is it this inspector is being kept on ? A few days after I brought this matter up last year they let these men go, but a meeting was held and it was decided to put them all on again after the House had risen. They were immediately put on and they are still on. I would like to know what they are doing ?


Haughton Lennox: You are asking for $204,300. Does that complete the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes', that completes the three sections.


Haughton Lennox: These are not the same sections for which this $25,000 was voted last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, these are the same sections.


Haughton Lennox: In 1903-4 we had in the estimates $253,000. That was for a specific section. In the same column this year we are asked for $204,300. I would assume that $204,300 is for the same work that we voted the $253,000 for last year ? Is that right ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The $204,300 is to cover three sections, the Iroquois, Cardinal and upper entrance and some new work on the Iroquois section consisting of cribwork at Presqu'Ile. That $253,000 voted last year was very largely for the upper entrance.


Haughton Lennox: As far as I can make out the $253,000 voted last year was to complete

the whole work. Now we are asked for $204,300 for the Galops canal enlargement. Last year the vote was :
Galops canal-enlargement, $125,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to pay the final estimate of Messrs. Larkin & Sangster on their contract for the Iroquois section. The work is completed.


John Dowsley Reid: How much has been voted this session for this canal ?	.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was in the main estimates for the Galops canal an item of $128,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Does that include the Iroquois canal ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. That item we have now is for the Iroquois canal.


John Dowsley Reid: There have been items voted for the Cardinal section. Does this finish the whole work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I am advised that the estimates1 of the current year are expected to cover the whole expense.
I am not very familiar with the matter but it appears to me that that covers the whole work we are discussing now.


John Dowsley Reid: When I asked that question last year the minister then in charge informed the committee that the work was completed, that that was the final estimate and that the item of $128,000 was for the whole work on the Cardinal section. Notwithstanding that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says that there is $88,000 in this estimate which is now before the committee for this same work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In settling up the final estimate it was found that this $88,000 is necessary to meet the cost of construction.
Mr. .1. D. REID. But, the hon. minister will see the question of last year. I will read it again.


John Dowsley Reid: There have been items voted for the Cardinal section. Does this finish the whole work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I am advised that the estimates of the current year are expected to cover the whole expense.
So ' that you will see that that was the final estimate. That was the amount that was put into the estimates prepared by the department and which was intended to wind up the whole work. Now the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals brings down an estimate for $88,000 and makes the saine statement that this is expected to complete the work. This is a part I cannot understand and one in regard to which I would like to have a little further information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was estimated last year that the sum asked for would pay the whole cost, hut the work exceeded the estimate and it has been determined by the final estimate that $S8.000 more will be required.


John Dowsley Reid: But the work was all completed then.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was not finally settled. It is of course carried out upon schedule rates. There was a difference as to the quantities and it turns out that $88,000 is still required to settle up what was finally determined as the amount.


John Dowsley Reid: The estimates are made up monthly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The progress estimates are but the final settlement of the matter is not.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the minister says that a mistake of $88,000 was made by the engineers in preparing the estimate last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I did not state that. I stated that they found they still required the $88,000. At that time they were not in a position to definitely settle upon the amount and since that they have engaged in the work of making up these final estimates and have reached that view with respect to them.


Haughton Lennox: The minister does not seem to realize the situation. Surely when there is a mistake of $88,000 there is at least the duty upon the minister and the department to inform parliament of the state of things at the earliest possible moment and too explicitly call the attention of parliament to the mistake. That is not the attitude the minister has taken and he would have allowed this item to go through without giving any information. We should have all the information that was before the department last year and ail the information that was collected since then in reference to this matter in order that we may have an opportunity of criticising this carefully to see that there has been no unlawful leakage and no improper diversion of money. We have had it stated by a member who knows the situation that there does appear to have been a substantial leakage by the engagement of men who should not have -been engaged and the retention of men whose services should not have been retained. He should allow this item to stand in order that he may bring a full statement in writing of the basis upon which the estimate was made last year, and the data collected since then showing how it is and where it is that this discrepancy of $88,000 has arisen.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be very difficult to get the evidence of the gentleman who made the estimate. These estimates are furnished in this way. The resident engineer, the superintending engineer, sends in to the department his estimate. That gentleman was Mr, Rubidge.


John Dowsley Reid: It was not Mr. Rubidge who made up the estimate ; it was the engineer in charge of the work at Cardinal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was the superintending engineer of ail these works and it was he who sent to the department as his own estimate the progress estimates of the contractors at the different points.


John Dowsley Reid: Thesq estimates have been prepared for some time; they have been before this House for some months. The minister knows well of course that the late Mr. Rubidge only died about two weeks ago and up to within a week before his death he was as active as he ever was. He therefore sent in his estimate and you have ail the papers of Mr. Rubidge in connection with this.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have all his estimates ; we have the estimate wherein it was shown that $128,000 or whatever was asked last year was sufficient to complete the work. We also have the further estimate from Mr. Rubidge which appears in these estimates stating that it would require $8S,000 more. That was received before March last because at that time these estimates were made out.


John Dowsley Reid: The work is practically done ; there is no doubt about that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can neither deny nor confirm that statement, but the deputy of the department tells me that the work is not done. The trimming up work of the canal is not yet done.


John Dowsley Reid: The trimming up work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a very important feature.


John Dowsley Reid: When does the minister expect the work will be finally completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The deputy is hurrying up the officials in every possible way, urging them to have the work completed. The department is doing their very best in that direction and are anxious to have the final estimates as to the work.


John Dowsley Reid: It was reported to me a few days ago that there had been another slide of the stone work with which the banks of the canal are faced. What is the position in relation to that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing of that kind has been reported to the department.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not been there for the last few days. Last year there were three large slides. I would ask the minister if this damage has been repaired and I would also ask if the government did it at their expensive or were the contractors compelled to do that at their own expense ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The contractors did it; they are supposed to do it at their own expense.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there anything in this $88,000 for that or will they be paid for that ?


John Dowsley Reid: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, the deputy says that is not included in this.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister tell us when he got the final estimate for this work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the final estimate.	_


John Graham Haggart: I mean of the contractors work for the completion of this canal. Have they not the final estimates yet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of the Iroquois section they have not.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood that the final estimate was included in this $88,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We have not the final estimate but the deputy says that this amount will certainly cover the item.


John Dowsley Reid: The whole work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is what the deputy assures me.


John Dowsley Reid: Then you are giving me the same answer as l received last year which was :
Yes, I am advised the estimates of the current year are expected to cover the whole expenditure.
And this is the same answer this year. What will the answer be next year ? What is the total amount that has been expended on this up to date.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total expended on section 1, that is from Iroquois to Pres-qu'Isle, up to the 30th of June, 1902, was $1,277,770 ; from the 30th June, 1902 to the 30th of June, 1903, $12,418.20; total expended up to the 30th of June, 1903, $1,290,188.20 ; total expended up to the 1st of May, 1904, $1,366,856.40. Larkin & Sang-ster are the contractors. On section No. 2, from Presqu'Isle to Gates Point, known as the Cardinal section, on which William Davis & Sons had the contract, the total amount expended to May 1st was $4,108,920. On section 3, from Gates Point to Upper Entrance, known as the Upper Entrance section, on which the contractors are Murray & Cleveland, the total expenditure .to the 1st of May was $1,866,998.15. Section 4, outside Upper Entrance, W. A. Allan, contractor, was completed some years ago. The total expenditure to the 1st of May, 1904, was $5,439,238.24.


John Graham Haggart: Was the payment to Mr. Allan on account of the Galops canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He had section 4 ot the Galops canal.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the minister done anything about arranging to have the bridge at Cardinal swung by some other means than hand power ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That matter is receiving the attention of the department now.


John Dowsley Reid: It was receiving it a year ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I had the papers under consideration this morning, and some instructions were given with a view to having that work done at once, so that the bridge will be swung by electric power.


John Dowsley Reid: If you put on electric power, will the same staff he kept on, or will the number he decreased ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think we shall probably not require more than one man in the day and one at night.


John Graham Haggart: This work was finished a couple of years ago. How is it you have not a final estimate, but that you are keeping on a staff of engineers* who have nothing to do but prepare a final estimate ? It is a most extraordinary state of affairs.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The real fact is that such details are required by the Auditor General with respect to the matter that it is impossible to get all these gathered. I presume the late superintending engineer was in the confidence of my hon. friend, and he would not say that he was purposely delaying the work. He was in his lifetime urged to have the work completed, and the department is very anxious indeed to have it completed ; but it has seemed to be impossible to get it done.


John Graham Haggart: Then I am to understand from the hon. gentleman that the staff of the Galops canal is kept on for two years after the work is done for the purpose of furnishing details to the Auditor General ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman must not understand that, because that is not what I said.


John Graham Haggart: Those were the exact words the hon. gentleman used.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Excuse me, I did not. My hon. friend said the work was completed two years ago. I stated, on the authority of the deputy minister, that the work is not yet finally completed.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister knows that the contractors have left, they have taken their dredges and tugs away, sold their steam shovels, and taken all their plant.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps the hon. gentleman is speaking from personal knowledge.


John Dowsley Reid: I know that their plant is all gone. When the minister says the work is not yet completed, I cannot understand what these people are working at. For instance, why do you require an in-201
spector of masonry, drawing $1,200 a year, when there is not a solitary mason working on the premises ? Surely there must be something wrong in this.
Mr. EMMERSON, My hon. friend must surely be labouring under some mistake. I understand he is speaking of the Iroquois section ?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the Cardinal section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is some work going on there, the engineer states. There are five men employed, namely, two chain-men, the engineer, the assistant engineer, and the masonry inspector ; but on the Iroquois section there are only the clerks, the engineer and the assistant clerk.


John Dowsley Reid: I am speaking particularly of the Cardinal section. Will the hon. gentleman tell me why chainmen are required there when there is no engineer to do the work other than make up the final estimates ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: But there is some work on the Cardinal section which the deputy says is going on. My hon. friend says it is not, and of course I could not act as arbitrator between the two.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there any masonry going on ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My deputy says that work must be going on or the services of the men would not be required.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there anything going on in the winter time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We employ by the year. It is often cheaper to do that than employ a man only a few months. We want a man to commence as inspector and continue the work, and do not want to be changing every month.


Mr.   J.@: ' D. REID. If there is any work going on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I shall go down there myself and make sure.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish the hon. minister would. I am quite satisfied that there are two or three men there who have nothing to do but draw their pay. I would like to know the names of the men of whom the hon. minister has a list, who are employed on the Cardinal section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are C. I}. Sargent, F. B. Patterson, M. L. O'Connell, E. Cook and A. Cameron.


John Dowsley Reid: The last two are the chainmen and the inspector of masonry, who certainly have nothing to do.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister said a while ago that the contracts were not finished. Will he be kind enough to inform me what amount he has paid to either of the



contractors, W. Davis & Co. or Larkin, to the end of July, 1904.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was expended Dorn the 30th of June 1903 to the 1st of May, 1904, $170,000, of which $19,000 was spent on the Cardinal section up to the 1st of May, 1904.


John Graham Haggart: To whom was that paid 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: To W. Davis & Son.


John Graham Haggart: Was that for work dons during the year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Richard Blain: I would like to draw the minister's attention to what was said two years ago by the then Minister of Railways with respect to this work. When the item for the Galops canal enlargement $293,000, of which $55,000 was a revote, was up, the then Minister of Railways said :
I do not propose to ask parliament tor any money beyond this, part of which is needed to pay the drawbacks. There is an amount of drawbacks which we have to pay out of that $50,000. I do not propose to ask parliament for any more money.
Then he said :
There is nothing in the estimate inserted with any intention of continuing the expenditure on this work. I have concluded not to go on with the work any further.
It must have been a surprise to the minister himself, in view of this statement, to find that large amounts have been expended since then, and the committee will expect that the hon. gentleman will now be able to say when the work will be completed and how much more money will have to be voted for its completion.


Haughton Lennox: I think that the hon. minister hardly understood what I referred to a little while ago. I do not want this item to stand over if that possibly can be avoided, but I hope he will see the justice of placing before the committee later on the estimates upon which the amount of $250,000 last year was based and the supplementary estimates that have since come in. Although the minister says that there is some work still being done, neither he nor his deputy can tell the committee actually what is being done, and the conclusion is irresistible that whether there may be something in the nature of trimming still going on, the contractors are not any longer engaged on the work and that substantially the work was completed more than a year ago. I would call the minister's attention to the undesirability of having this kind of thing prevail. In one aspect of the case it occurs very frequently, and that is, whenever a delay occurs, from whatever cause, it seems to me, looking over the public accounts, the public treasury Mr. HAGGART.
lias to bear the interest for the time of the delay. And if it takes nearly two years to complete these final estimates, the result will be that the contractors will be paid not only the amount of the original estimates, but, probably interest as well. That is not fair to the country. I ask the minister particularly to say that he will, at all events, place the papers before the committee at some future time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman, if I understand him, asks for the reports from the chief engineer with respect to these payments


Haughton Lennox: Yes, on which they base their estimates. I ask that these be laid on the table. Am I to undestand that that will be done ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, we will furnish that.


John Graham Haggart: The minister stated that $19,000 had been paid to W. Davis on the contract for the year ending 30th June, 1904. Was any portion of that paid for the three slides that took place on their work, or was it independent of that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is on their contract, not on the slides.


John Graham Haggart: I understand thar the hon. minister is assured by his department that none of the money paid was paid on the slides that occurred on his work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is what the deputy informs me^that it is simply paid on the work done under contract.


John Graham Haggart: That is not an exact answer. I want to know whether any of the money was paid on the slide, and was that included in the contract-was that considered part of the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have told my hon. friend distinctly that nothing was paid on the slides ; it was paid on account of the work under the contract, and the slides did not form part of the contract.


John Graham Haggart: I understand the minister now distinctly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is the strangest kind of work in connection with this whole matter. I have listened to explanations of ministers for three years in succession. Practically the minister said three years ago : Give me so much money and we will finish the work, we will discharge the hands and the expenditure will stop. And when we came back two years ago he asked an additional amount. What for? To-finish the same work which he had declared the other vote would finish. And still the same men are kept on the work, though, apparently, they have nothing to do except draw their salaries. The minister tells us : My engineer tells me this ; or: My engineer tells me that. The only conclusion that one

can come to is either that the minister, the engineer, and all the rest of them, are in league to take the money from the country, or else that they do not know what they are doing. Though we have been assured so often that the work would be paid for and completed, here again we have $204,300 asked for the same purpose, of which $88,000 is for the contract. What work is being done ? Who is the contractor ? Is the work going on now ? Has there been a* new contract since last year ? These are things we ought to know. We are voting money belonging to the people, and we ought to have information that will be reliable, that we may judge when we reach finality in this affair.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Campbell).: Carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not carried by any means. We want information from the minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is the same old contract, anyhow. The work has been done under the original contract by the contractors, whose names I have given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was the contract given ?	.
, Mr. EMMERSON. In 1897.


Archibald Campbell: Carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not carried, Mr. Chairman ; and you need not be in such a hurry. It will not be carried until we get the information we ask for.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) need not lose his temper.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not losing my temper over the minister, but over the chairman calling ' carried ' even when the minister is on his feet and speaking.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hope the hon. gentleman will not allow himself to be disturbed even by you, Mr. Chairman. We do so much better when we are all amiable and good-natured.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is too much of a farce to be good-natured over.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now I am sorry 1 spoke; I am afraid I make my hon. friend angry. I am anxious to give all the information possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I ask the hon. minister if he will be good enough to give us the information we ask for : Who is the contractor ? Has any new contract been let since last year ? What is the nature of the work being done ? When is it expected that it will be finished ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Wm. Davis & Sons have the contract for the Cardinal section of this work. Of course, there are several sections.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are speaking of the Cardinal section.
2014	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The contract was entered into in 1897. There has been no new contract, and all payments from 1897 down to the present time in connection with the work were paid under that contract; and the Auditor General, in his approval of the payments, calculated with regard to the original contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What work is being done at the present time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed that the trimming up work is being done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the hon. minister mean by ' trimming up ' ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a technical term with which I am not familiar.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman will become familiar with it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I suppose I shall. My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) seems disposed to trim me, and I suppose I shall have to get used to it. The chief engineer and deputy minister tell me that the work now being done on the Cardinal section is the final work, that of trimming up the canal-in other words, putting on the finishing touches.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman has the engineer at his side, cannot he ask him what ' trimming up ' means ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It means trimming up the slopes and giving the canal the finishing touches.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say that was done a year ago. The work was nicely levelled off and sodded, and the sides of the bank are covered with stonework. The minister says now that $88,000 is not sufficient, and that there will be more money asked for next year because the final estimates have not been made up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think I said that. I said this work is practically completed except some finishing work, which is rot a serious matter. But the final estimate has not been made up. After consulting with my deputy, I am getting new light. One of these reports which I will bring down will sffiow that in addition to this $88,000, the judgment of the late engineer was that we would require $30,000 more to pay final estimates.
Mr. .1. D. REID. Then I must tell the people there that in addition to this $88,000. at least $30,000 will be required before this
matter is finally settled up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With sorrow I admit it


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was this contract let on schedule prices, or was it a lump sum?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Schedule prices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then are there any extras being allowed on this contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose this is an extra. How many years will it be before we may expect these extras will be completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is always a question as to what is extras. By the term extras, I do not understand those items that are within the bounds of the contract. A man does certain work, and more than was contemplated, but which is provided for under the contract. While it adds to the first estimate of the work, it is not essentially an extra.


Haughton Lennox: Are the contractors doing this trimming ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, Davis and Sons, on the Cardinal section.


John Dowsley Reid: There is another matter I wish to bring up. The effect of placing the canal where the government placed it was virtually to make an island of the village of Cardinal. A bridge had to be put across to allow the people to get into the village, and the effect on the whole, was to injure the property of a great many people in the village on account of the main roatl being cut off. One of these gentlemen was the Rev. George McArthur, whose property was seriously damaged. This gentleman appealed to the government to pay him damages, or to appoint valuators to examine his property and award him some damages. The government refused to send their valuator, and he then employed counsel and asked permission to go before the Exchequer Court. The government granted him that privilege. The case came before the Exchequer Court, and I think it was tried by *Mr. Justice Burbidge, who awarded Mr. McArthur $1,200 damages. The government refused to pay, and appealed to the Supreme Court, and I am told by Mr. McArthur's solicitor that the Supreme Court decided against Mr. McArthur, merely on a technical point, but on account of the injury that was done him they believed that morally his case was good. Still they had to decide against him merely on this technical point, and so this gentleman finds himself without redress. The Supreme Court felt that he was entitled to some redress because they decided that the government should pay all the costs that he had incurred up to and including the Supreme Court. 1 do not know whether the government have decided to pay the costs. At the same time, there are some other persons whose property has been seriously injured in consequence of the canal being placed where it is. I think the government should settle this claim with the Rev. Mr. McArthur and also with others who may apper before the Exchequer Court. J now appeal to the government to settle this claim and give others a chance to appear Mr. SPROULE.
before the Exchequer Court, who consider that they have been injured. Therefore I would like to ask the hon. minister what bis opinion is in so far as this case in concerned ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I had the circumstances of this case brought recently to my notice. While it excites my sympathy and personal inclination I do not see any reason or any justification for my recommending that the reverend gentleman should be paid. His case does excite my political sympathy, because he is a supporter of a party with which I have been for a lifetime allied, and I would liked to have seen him paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are not as liberal with him as you are with many others.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, if my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) were in a situation like that I would like to see him paid and that.desire would be intensified if his politics were right. The facts of this case, however, are that in the construction of the canal that gentleman and some others were put to some inconvenience. Their lands were not taken from them, their property was not invaded but they were put to some inconvenience, a very remote injury, too remote in the judgment of the Supreme Court to warrant them in having a legal claim. I am afraid my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), who is a very watch dog of the treasury, would become indignant, if not cross, if we were to pay any claims of that kind. If you pay one you open the door for all similar claims. Any one who thinks he has been injured or put to an inconvenience by a great public work would have a similar claim. The construction of the canal in that place must have been an advantage to the people of that section.


John Dowsley Reid: It was a great disadvantage to place the canal where they did in so far as the inhabitants of that village were concerned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But they would rather have it there than not have the canal.


John Dowsley Reid: No, they had the canal' before. It ran around the front end of the village where it did not injure the village at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It would be a greater advantage to them to have it larger.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, but it has injured this gentleman's property.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has not injured his property. It may be a little inconvenient for him and he may have to drive around a little farther. We are all subject to some inconvenience in respect to public utilities. There is hardly a man in Canada but can figure up to some degree an inconvenience that he could value in dollars and cents, but

it is more or less remote. In this case it was very remote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. minister what the judge of the Exchequer Court thought pf it when he gave judgment in favour of this gentleman.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Other judges seemed to think the judgment of the Exchequer Court was not correct. It is one man against many.
Mr. SPROU'LE. There is another question I would like to ask my hon. friend. He says the reverend gentleman has his sympathy. I would like to know how long he considers he can live on sympathy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If you will let me have your's for a little while I will tell you how long I can live on it.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the hon. minister if he will agree to this ? The clergyman whose property has heen injured or who has gone through with this case is certainly not in a position financially to appeal it. His property has been very seriously injured. He could not get to-day one-half for it what he could have obtained had the canal been left where it was originally and as his property is encumbered he is not able to appeal the case. The first court decided that he was right, the next that he was wrong. There is yet one final court of appeal and that is the Privy Council in England or parliament here. If parliament will settle the case by giving him a grant, of course that will end it. But if they intend to refuse, now that the Supreme Court have recommended the government to pay the expenses so far, will the government agree to allow this appeal to go to the Privy Council and pay the expenses that may be connected with it ? In case the decision is not in favour of the Reverend Geo. McArthur I am sure he will be satisfied that he probably is not entitled to anything and will abide by the consequences as of course he will be obliged to do.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have enough difficulty in connection with my own department without invading the jurisdiction of another. When the case went to the Supreme Court it was placed under the control of the Department of Justice. I would not wish to interfere as to that and could not answer my hon. friend's question.


John Dowsley Reid: We have the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) here. It is really a very great hardship for this gentleman and the amount of expense incurred by the appeal would be very small. I ask the Prime Minister as a favour to this particular gentleman that he will give him this right to have this case
go to the Privy Council and that the government shall assume the expense in connection with it. I venture to say there is not one hon. gentleman on this side of the House who will object to the cost that may be incurred in taking that case to the Privy Council, and I believe that every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House will take the same view of it. I will not ask that this shall be a precedent in connection with any other claims which shall be brought up. In case there are other claims tried the claimants will have to assume the responsibility of going to the Privy Council themselves, but in this case I ask the right hon. Prime Minister to grant the request.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not giving an opinion in regard to this case but if we are not to adopt the judgment I would rather give it to the reverend clergyman than to the lawyers. It would be less expensive, I am sure.


John Dowsley Reid: The right hon. Prime Minister has power to grant that request. If the Prime Minister will stand up and say he will allow it to go he will only be doing justice to tnis gentleman.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will ask my colleague the Minister of Justice to look at the claim. Perhaps there may be a moral foundation to the claim, but apparently there is no legal foundation.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. Minister of Justice is here and understands the case thoroughly. I think he can explain anything necessary in connection with it so that this matter can be settled now and this claim can be allowed to go to the Supreme Court.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The hon. Minister of Justice ought to take the view of the Prime Minister that he is entitled to benefit of clergy.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: My hon. friend (Mr. Gourley), although a lawyer, is not aware that benefit of clergy was abolished centuries ago. This case is one of harship undoubtedly but I cannot understand on what principle the government should settle with this reverend gentleman unless we are disposed to settle a multitude of other cases which arise under similar circumstances. This gentleman's property with the property of about twenty others was affected as the result of the construction of this canal, I think it was the right of access to these properties that was injured as a result of the construction of this work. He acted for himself and others.


John Dowsley Reid: For himself only.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not sure about that. I have not the facts quite clear in my mind but I think that others were con-

nected with the suit. However, that is not important. A man I think named Kief was also connected with this case. It was decided that if the suppliants succeeded in this case the government would pay all parties interested, and if they failed the result in this case would apply "to all. The claim was made against the Railways and Canals Department, it was referred to my department, and I thought it my duty to advise that there was no legal claim. It occurred to me that the case was not one in which there was property damage within the meaning of the Act, and I had to advise the department that I did not think they could entertain the ciaim. Then the matter came up by way of petition of right. The reverend gentleman applied for a petition of right to have his position settled by judgment of the court. I immediately acquiesced in that and a petition of right was granted. The judgment of the Exchequer Court was in his favour. The judge of the Exchequer Court held that the man's property had been injuriously affected and its value decreased and that as a result the government should pay for the damage. He fixed the amount at $1,200. I remained still of the opinion-being perhaps obdurate in this matter-that the judgment of the Exchequer Court was wrong and I advised an appeal to the Supreme Court. When the case came before the Supreme Court they concurred in my view, namely, that while the right of access had been interfered with, the man's property had not been injuriously affected so as to give him a claim for damages. I have no recollection of having seen any recommendation in the judgment that we should pay the costs of the appeal to the Supreme Court. If my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) is satisfied from his own personal knowledge that this recommendation is contained in the judgment I shall have it looked up and certainly such a recommendation as that should receive and would receive the sympathetic consideration of the government. If they recommend that in this case the suppliant should have his costs paid, I do not think the government would hesitate a moment to adopt such a suggestion. My hon. friend says that, the Supreme Court having decided that this gentleman is not entitled to consideration, in the way of remuneration for the damage he has suffered, that we should appeal that question to the Privy Council. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that we cannot take the appeal.


John Dowsley Reid: He will take it if you pay the costs.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If he takes the appeal we will give him every possible facility. He cannot appeal except on application for leave. If he applies for leave I shall agree that leave be granted, but when he comes and asks us that we should assume the burden of taking an appeal and as-Mr. FITZPATRICK.
sume all the costs the question arises what principle we are to lay down. The hon. gentleman says that he will not consider it a precedent but while he does not and will not, other gentlemen in the same position may do so, and may come to us and say : Treat us in the same way ; appeal to the Privy Council at your expense and for our benefit. I do not see what answer we could make in such a case, nor do I see how the government could justify any suggestion to take the case to the Privy Council by way of paying the costs. There is no principle at stake ; it is one of those cases that come before the court every day, a question of whether the damage to a man's property is such as would entitle him to recover damages. I do not see why we should distinguish between this minister's case and other cases. I can understand my hon. friend's sympathy for his constituent, [DOT] and I quite appreciate his desire to secure relief for him. He says that this case is one of hardship. I admit that it is a hard case but so far as I am concerned I can only apply the law. I could not pay damages in such a case nor could I advise the government to do so. My hon. friend says that there is a recommendation in the judgment as to costs. I repeat that if there is such a recommendation as to costs I shall consider it and have it complied with. Of course I have not looked at the judgment recently.


John Dowsley Reid: At the time the judgment was given I just noticed a paragraph that appeared in the newspaper, probably three or four lines, in the way they generally report these cases, and I should judge from the wording of that paragraph that the judgment contained some recommendation that the government should pay the costs. I am only speaking of what I saw in the newspaper.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course I am now speaking only from -my impression. It is some weeks since I read the judgment. My impression was that the court held that the suppliant would not be obliged to pay the costs of the Crown on the appeal, that each party would have to pay his own costs.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not sure, but, on rendering it, I came to the conclusion that the court suggested that the government should pay the costs. The minister has just stated that on this case several others depended, and that others were pushing this case through. I may say to the minister that there was no one connected with this gentleman at all ; he has paid his own costs and I do not think there is a single solitary person who has put up one dollar for him. He has had to pay all his costs in connection with the case so far, but is unable to proceed as he has not the means to do so, and therefore he has to suffer this hardship. I venture to say that I can

.say for the whole village-and at all events I would do so before I would ask the government to allow the ease to go to appeal- that they would pledge themselves that they would not regard this as a precedent. But of course if judgment were given in favour of the reverend gentleman, then they could have their own cases tried and if necessary could take them to the Privy Council. Of course there is no question that there are quite a few others who would be in a similar position, and there is no doubt that there would be others who would have to be paid if the government settled this one claim. This gentleman, in the eyes of the public in the locality, is entitled to damages, and in view of the fact that he got judgment from the court that is supposed to settle these cases and that it was only on a technical point that the Supreme Court decided against him, I feel now that the least the government could do would be to make a grant of a few hundred dollars in order that justice might be done this gentleman and others. There is no question about it in my own opinion- and I believe in the opinion of the public in that locality,-that this gentleman has been most unfairly dealt with in so far as his property is concerned. That is the reason that I make this appeal, which I suppose is the last appeal X can make. I have appealed to the Minister of Railways, and the Minister of Justice. I appeal to the Prime Minister, and I am very sorry they cannot grant that request and allow this reverend gentleman to get the amount to which he is entitled. I believe the least they could do would be to pay him the $1,200 to which he is entitled, without making it a precedent. The government could buy his property for a few hundred dollars more than the damages, and could use it for some of the lockmen or for some other purpose. There is a way of getting over it I am sure. It would be as easy to get over that as to get over the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. I think it would not be much trouble and I am now making this last appeal to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Justice and to the Minister of Railways to see if they cannot find some means of doing something by which he will get the justice to which I believe he is entitled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suggest that they take for this purpose a portion of the money they are paying out for trimmings, that do not require to be done. I would ask the minister if he can tell us how much of this money which we are voting is to be used for paying what is already earned, by work having been done and how much is yet to be earned and the kind of work that is to be done to earn it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is practically all earned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that be so then the work must be completed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have explained to my hon. friend that we are just doing the finishing up work. When I say it is practically all earned I do not mean to say that every dollar is earned.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that it will take about $15,000 more to complete this ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About $30,000, according to the last report we have from the engineer, who 'has died since. That was made out about three weeks ago.
1 Mr. SPROiJLE. Then I suppose the whole staff of engineers will be kept on until that is spent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As soon as the work is through, the staff will be reduced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest that as soon as the elections come on this man should put in his claim, provided the others do the same.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. Minister of Justice remember if t'he Supreme Court were unanimous in that case?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not remember. I will look into the case, because it is important to know whether there was such a recommendation as has been suggested by my hon. friend.
North channel-forming channel and dam, $150,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This amount is to continue and complete the forming of a channel above the Galops canal. This channel is 2* miles long, 300 feet wide and 10 feet deep. It is also for the building of a dam between Galops and Adams Islands. By building this dam a dangerous bar is removed, making the navigation more safe. To complete the work under contract, including the dam, requires $150,000. The total amount expended on t'he work to the 1st of May, 1904, is $1,314,000.42.


John Graham Haggart: What was the estimated cost of it, and what will be the total amount expended when it is completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total cost will be $1,464,000.


John Graham Haggart: What was the estimated cost of the channel and the dam separately by the department when the first vote was taken ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The original estimate of making a 2o0 foot channel was three quarters of a million dollars. The estimated cost of the dam was in the vicinity of $60,000. But the channel was increased to 300 feet in width, and therefore the cost has been very largely increased.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that after the contract was let ?



C315 COMMON'S

Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, but the work was at schedule prices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who had the contract ?


Mr. EMMERSON M. A.@: Cleveland.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You spent last year $85,-
000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was paid to the contractors on account of the contract.


John Dowsley Reid: If the dam is now completed, what has it cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not finally completed.


John Dowsley Reid: How much has been spent on the dam ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the information as to the dam separately. The deputy thinks the estimate has been exceeded.


John Dowsley Reid: And yet the work is not finished. I think this item should not pass until we get that information. I am not objecting to the building of this dam. It was built last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are 300 feet of it in whic*h the cribs have not yet been sunk. The progress estimates as they are received are in one amount for both the channel and the dam.


John Graham Haggart: You do not separate the estimates between the channel and the dam'.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, because it is all one contract.


John Graham Haggart: They are a mile apart.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They might be two miles apart. They are all one contract a! schedule prices, and the progress estimates are sent in on the work without regard to whether it is the dam or the channel.


John Graham Haggart: If it is on progress estimates and the minister took an amouni last year to complete the whole, why is he coming now and asking for $150,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to complete the work under the contract.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. minister tell us that this dam is part of the original contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Surely not. It was not contemplated then.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am bound by the information which I get from my officials.


John Dowsley Reid: This contract was lei some seven or eight years ago. Are we to understand that at that time this dam was contemplated and made part of this contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes; there has been no other contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


John Graham Haggart: This is done on American soil. Have you got the consent of the Americans to the building of it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say to the hon. minister that so far as this dam is concerned, I never heard of it and it was not talked of nor contemplated when this contract was let.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It might have been contemplated without the hon. gentleman hearing of it.


John Dowsley Reid: In the contract there is nothing specified aboult bulilding a dam.
If there was to be a dam, would it not be specified in the contract? The contract is very plain, and it only provides for dredging and some piering at the west end of the channel. I know the contractor well, and you could not get a better one. I am not finding fault with this contractor or his work. The only question I have asked is how much has been spent on this dam. The minister tells us that the prices allowed the contractor are just the same as on the other dredging work. I suppose that means tne cribwork is so much per foot and the dredging or filling in so much per yard, the same as tlie original contract.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, under the original contract.


John Dowsley Reid: I mean that for the work done at the head of the channel, the same prices are paid as across this dam ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is what my deputy tells me.


John Dowsley Reid: And the two are not kept separate ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; the vote is asked for the channel and the dam. It was that way last year.


John Dowsley Reid: This was all done last fall. The Auditor General's Report could not show whether they were separate or not. because all this work has been done since July 1st of last year as far as this dam is concerned. That is why we are entitled to some information now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My deputy tells me that he could get the information by figuring it out.


John Dowsley Reid: When we are on the supplementaries, will the minister be in a [DOT] position to state how much has been paid on the dam so far and. how much he expects it will cost to complete ? I may say that I believe this dam across the island has had the effect of turning the water back and throwing it around the head of the island, by which I believe it will do some good in so far as the entrance into the head of the canal is concerned. It has increased the water so that boats can enter the head of

the canal more easily. X know it was a difficult work, and the contractor has done it well. Still I think we are entitled to know exactly what it cost.


John Graham Haggart: Have there been any complaints from overflow from this dam ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: None.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister did not answer my question. Last year there was a vote of $60,000. He says that the dam and the north channel were both included in the contract. $60,000 was voted last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was $100,000.


John Graham Haggart: Any way, it was to finish the work. How is it that $100,000 more is asked this year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nearly $150,000 more. There must be some mistake if such a statement was made.


John Graham Haggart: Here it is in ' Hansard ' :
To complete the north channel (revote), $20,000.
You say that thjit was part and parcel of the whole contract, that the dam was made a portion of it. Then the discussion went on :


John Dowsley Reid: Does that complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. I wish to amend that item by adding the words ' and dam between Galops and Adam's island.'


John Dowsley Reid: Will this complete the Cleveland work on the north channel ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, that is the report of the engineers.


John Dowsley Reid: And the dam, too ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, we are so advised.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is pretty explicit.


John Graham Haggart: What has the department to say ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will have to take
back what was said last year.


John Graham Haggart: Does the hon. minister not see that if we cannot secure exact information about these things it is a perfect farce our asking for information ?


John Dowsley Reid: The Finance Minister was acting Minister of Railways last year. Let me read again the question asked him :
To complete north channel (revote),


John Dowsley Reid: Does that complete the work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes. I wish to amend that item by adding the words 1 and dam between Galops and Adam's island.'


John Dowsley Reid: Will this complete the Cleveland work on the north channel ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, that is the report of the engineers.


John Dowsley Reid: And the dam, too T


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, we are so advised.
Yet now we are asked to vote another $150,000, and the Minister of Railways says that the work on the dam is not half through, and that the work on the channel is likely to continue for some time yet. What has the Minister of Finance to say regarding that statement which he made last year ?


Mr. FIELDING.: I can only say that at that time, as the information the hon. gentleman has read shows, I stated that we were so advised by the engineer, and I am quite sure that I had the engineer's opinion to that effect or I would not have made the statement. I am told by the Minister of Railways that Mr. Rubidge did make such a recommendation at that time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: He's dead.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, we cannot extend the lives even of worthy men for ever. 1 take it for granted that the minister to-day is asking for this sum on the report of the engineer.	-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. minister bring down that report ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will.


John Dowsley Reid: Only $20,000 was asked a year ago to complete this work, and now $150,000 is asked to complete it. Perhaps we could get an estimate of what it will really take to complete the work.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a growing time.


Richard Blain: Has the minister had a special engineer's report on this work-any engineer other than one in his own department?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it was under the control of Mr. Rubidge, who was the superintending engineer-


John Graham Haggart: That is no answer to give to the committee. The department is answerable for the expenditure so long as they retain the parties on whose advice they act.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly-no one man denies that. But I was asked whether any special engineer was asked to make a report on the matter, and I am endeavouring to enlighten my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) on that particular point. I was endeavouring to say that there was no special engineer, that the only engineer who made a report was Mr. Rubidge, the chief superintending engineer.


Richard Blain: I would draw the hon. minister's attention to this statement at page 4034 of ' Hansard ' of 1902. This was in the discussion on the item ' North channel, forming dam $56,250. ' My hon. friend from

Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) made the statement that this was useless expenditure.


John Graham Haggart: So it is-altogether.


Richard Blain: And my hon. friend the former Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Haggart) repeats that statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand my hon. friend from Grenville 'to have changed his opinion with respect to it and to say now that it is a work of value.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not changed my mind on anything. I am under the impression that my hon friend (Mr. Blain) is refer-ii'ing to a matter that comes up on the next item relating to Galops Rapids. So far as this channel is concerned. I believe it is absolutely necessary and that it is a good work. Mr. M. A. Cleveland, who has been working on it, I believe is a first-class contractor and .has done his work well. I do not believe there is a better contractor on the canal than Mr. Cleveland. But I recall the fact that, last year, when the question was asked if the $20,000 then voted would finish up the work, we were told that it would, let. this year the minister comes down'and asks for $150,000, and this we are asked to vote without any explanation whatever, except a statement by the Minister of Railways and Canals which virtually means that there will be more money required. That is the position we are in to-day. The minuter cannot tell us whether this ends the contract, or whetuer the work will finish this year, next year or five years hence. Personally, I feel that we have not received the information that would justify even a lot of school boys in approving this expenditure. much less the House of Commons of Canada which has the interest of the whole people in its charge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. ,T. D. Reid) says that this is an excellent work and that the contractor has done good work. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) says that the expenditure upon it is a waste of money.


John Dowsley Reid: He is referring to the Galops Rapids.


John Graham Haggart: No, I am referring to the north channel. I stated it before in the House, and I feel justified in repeating it, for the work came under my observation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, which is right- my hon. friend from South Lanark or my hon. friend from Grenville ? How can 1 tell ?


John Dowsley Reid: I may say that the hon. member for South Lanark will explain that. From the head of the canal at Cardinal to Prescott, according to the old channel where the boats have run for the last thirty or forty years there were spots in it where there was only eight or nine feet of water, and


Richard Blain: the question was whether it was better to make a new channel where it is now or dredge the old channel to the necessary depth. My opinion of the matter as expressed, was that the work as now done when completed was a work of actual necessity, or else the old channel had to be dredged. There may be difference of opinion as to which was the best route to take. I am not discussing that point and I do not know whether I could form an opinion upon it. But deeper water was necessary in order to accommodate the boats drawing 16 or 17 feet of water coming from Montreal. And, [that depth having been secured I say the work is a good work so far as the interest of navigation is concerned.


Richard Blain: I suppose I too must keep myself right in this matter. I made the statement a moment ago that my hon. friend from Grenville condemned the expenditure, and I suppose I must give the evidence. At page 4034 of 'Hansard' of 1902. in the course of the discussion on the item ' North Channel, forming dank $56,250 ; the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) said : '
It is simply throwing til is away. Better throw the money into the canal than throw a dam across there.
I understand the hon. gentleman now to say that he was directing attention to another matter, and so I will not debate that.
Mr. EMMERSoN. It is a difference between the hon. gentlemen themselves and I am quite willing to let them settle it.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend "(Mr. J. D. Reid) has explained that Ms remarks referred to something else, and of course, I accept bis statement, as the minister is bound also to do. A little while ago I asked if any engineer outside of the department had made a report on this work and his answer was in the negative. I wish to draw his attention to what his predecessor, Hon. Mr. Blair says. Speaking in answer to a question as to the expenditure, he said :
I will tell the hon. gentleman what I will do. I will undertake that the money will not be expended until I have the subject thoroughly investigated, and until 'I have had the opinion ot other engineers. Not being an engineer myself, I cannot form a judgment upon a question of this kind. I can, however, probably decide not to spend, and I will not do so until I ascertain from independent engineers that it would be a proper expenditure to make.
There is a clear and distinct statement by Mr. Blair when he was asking for this vote of $56,250. It was questioned by this side of the House, and the minister pledged his word to the committee that not one cent of increased expenditure would be made until he had consulted another and outside independent engineer. The committee accepted his word and let the item go through. The

money was expended, and now my hon. friend comes forward and asks us for $150,000. He also makes the further statement that that sum will not complete the work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I stated that I -was advised that this $150,000 will complete the work.


Richard Blain: The dam as well as the channel V


Henry Robert Emmerson: Both.


John Graham Haggart: The minister stated that a short while ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that it would take $30,000 to complete the previous work.


Richard Blain: Upon that statement in 1902 by the minister who had charge of the department, the money was voted and expended. Now coming to last year, in addition to what the member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) has read, on the same item ' North channel-forming channel and dam,' the Minister of Finance said that the total cost of that work when completed would be $1,354,410 including the dam. Now we have already expended $110,000 more than that. Then the Minister of Finance went on to say that there was a further appropriation of $18,000, and that these two items would complete the work. These are the promises that we get. This thing is of a daily and hourly occurrence in this House. The government come forward with an estimate, the minister stands behind the engineer and pledges his word that the sum asked for will complete the work. I do not think any member on this side of the House would expect that an engineer could make an exact estimate of what a work of that kind would cost, I do not think that is possible. But [DOT]when the government come forward and state that an estimate is based upon an engineer's opinion, one whose duty it is to make a report upon that work, and then, year after year, they come before this committee and ask for increased amounts with the statement that the sum previously voted will not complete the work, then 1 say that the committee have a right to complain of the government. The difficulty rests somewhere with the government. On this side of the House we have nothing to do with the officers of the government ; the people and the opposition have no one to hold responsible except the ministers. It is time the ministers became more careful in the statements they make. It is the wish of the opposition to deal fairly with the government. I must say that we expect the Minister of the Department of Railways, who is new in his department, to do better than his predecessor. I am sorry to see, however, that he is not starting in very well. I would ask him to be more careful in the statements and promises he makes to the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: In addition to what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has read from the statements of the minister in 1902,
I will read what I said in 1903 :
Before the committee rises, I wish to say that I shall have some remarks to make on items No. 91 and No. 92, referring to the forming of a dam in the north channel on the Galops rapids. The minister is aware that I took exception to the building of the dam, because it was part and parcel of that new channel. In discussing the matter with the marine men since, they state that they believe that the building of -that dam will overcome the great damage that has been done to the water-way by the deepening of that channel, thus causing the lowering of the water above the island. They think that this wrong which I claim has been done for a great many years, would be really overcome by the building of this dam. I do not intend now to object to the building of that dam. I believe it will probably raise the water again to its normal level as it was previous to this work being done.
That shows that I did make these remarks in 1902. and in 1903 I corrected them. So there is no dispute.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 146) respecting the Northern Bank.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 40) respecting the Canada South-era. Railway Company.-Mr. Ingram.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 143) respecting the New Brunswick Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Gibson.
On section 3,
John Graham Haggart: Might I ask the Chairman of the Railway Committee (Mr. Hyman) whether this confirms any powers granted in the charter of the New Brunswick legislature which are inconsistent with the ordinary Acts which we grant to railway companies?


Mr. HYMAN.: By this clause we do not confirm any of the powers. As the clause now reads it is :
The Railway Act, 1903, shall hereafter apply to the works instead of the New Brunswick Railway Act and1 to the exclusion of any provisions of the Acts mentioned in the preamble inconsistent with the Railway Act, 1903 ; but'nothing herein shall affect or invalidate any action heretofore 'taken by the company pursuant to powers contained in the Acts mentioned in the 'preamble.

It simply confirms anything they may have done under the local Acts, but it makes the Railway Act of 1903 take precedence for the future.


John Graham Haggart: Does this clause give to this corporation the ordinary powers granted under the Railway Act ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I so understand, Mr. Chairman.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
['Before the committee rises I would ask the minister if he would kindly leave one item on the Trent Valley canal for discussion until Wednesday. I am obliged to be absent on Monday and Tuesday.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Peter Macdonald: At six o'clock we were discussing item 95, $150,000 for the north channel.


John Graham Haggart: As was stated in the House when this item was under discussion there was an item of $20,000 in the supple-mentaries last year in addition to $80,000 in the main estimates, making $100,000 in all. The Minister of Finance stated that this $20,000 would complete the whole work on that north channel. He justified himself by having an estimate from the chief engineer on that particular work. This chief engineer subsequently sent a report to the department in which he stated that it would require $150,000 additional. As I understand from the minister now this $150,000 is intended to complete the whole of that north channel and that dam, and the report of the department is to that effect. The department obtained a certificate from the chief engineer or the engineer who was directly in charge of that work-and this was communicated to this House by the minister in charge of the estimates-that this would complete the work ; the engineer subsequently gave a certificate that it would require $150,000 more. The minister made some criticism of my statement that the north channel was an entirely useless one and compared it with the statement of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid). When that item was first brought up it was brought before me as Minister of Railways and I refused absolutely to support the contention of the engineer as to the necessity of that work. I say that it is an absolutely useless expenditure of money. My contention at the time was that by deepening what is called Pier Island shoal you could have got a proper entrance into the Galops canal, for one half of the amount that is being expended now for an entrance. The objection taken by the minister at that time was that we would have to use the American channel. The American channel from the Pier Island shoal up to Prescott has a depth of thirty feet. Past Pier Island shoal, there was no necessity of deepening the river at all. He said you would be getting into American waters. My answer Mr. HYMAN.
was that under the Treaty of Washington, we have as much right to utilize and navigate the American portion of the St. Lawrence as the Americans have themselves, and they have an equal right to utilize and navigate our portion. My contention was that there was no need at all of the expenditure, [DOT] which is in the neighbourhood of $1,400,000 ; and now it is proposed to expend $150,000 more, a total expenditure of about $1,600,000 to do what I contend could have been accomplished by an expenditure at the utmost of $100,000. From that time to the present I have never changed my opinion that this expenditure for the purpose of building the north channel is entirely useless. It was contended that perhaps the water passing over the Galops rapids would prevent barges or ships coming down from making the entrance to the Galops canals. But you must remember that you have erected a dam between two islands, where I suggested that the shoal should be deepened, and the canal, which did away altogether with that danger. But what I want to draw the minister's particular attention to is the former part of my statement. After having a certificate from the engineer in charge of the work that $20,000 would complete it, he receives a subsequent one that it will require $150,000 more. Have the officers of the department communicated with the engineer in charge of the work and got from him a reason for his change of opinion ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The late engineer, Mr. Rubidge, in his lifetime was asked that question by the department. His explanation was not in writing, and my attention was not called to it. I cannot give any personal explanation ; but I will take the earliest opportunity to examine the situation and learn exactly where the difliculty lies and where the fault is if there has been fault. That is the only thing that I can do at this time, and I shall endeavour to get that information from sources that will not be considered as in any way prejudiced.


John Graham Haggart: I do not say the minister ought to have done it, but the department ought to have done it. The department had a report from Mr. Rubidge that $20,000 would finish the work and it put that statement in the mouth of the minister in charge of the department at that time. Then a subsequent report came in that $150,000 more would be required. The minister's attention ought to have been called to that. The department ought to have got the information without the minister inquiring into the matter at all.


John Dowsley Reid: When the hon. member for South Lanark was Minister of Railways and Canals, if my memory serves me rightly, the government of that day were asking for tenders for enlarging the Cardinal canal and also for a channel from the head of the

canal to Prescott. The intention of the minister was to have the rock excavated at Pier Island shoal and at the same time to run the canal through the village of Cardinal much further south than where it is and where it would not have injured the village and would have been a straight canal. The intention was to run the canal straight from what is known as the upper lock almost to Iroquois. If that had been done, the canal would have been straight, and it would have cost only about one-half of what it has cost as located. But just at that time the government changed, and the Hon. Mr. Blair became Minister of Railways and Canals. Without ever appearing on the scene he changed the route of the canal and located it where it now is. I was informed at the time that the late Mr. Rubidge strongly urged the southern route. If the minister asks the deputy minister, I believe he will agree with me that the canal where it passes through the village of Cardinal, and where it was intended to be made straight, is about as crooked as the old original canal. If the minister visits it he will see that the canal there has a large curve ; but it has been made much wider and deeper, so that boats can navigate it more easily than they could the old canal. But, as the hon. member for South Lanark states, west of the canal there was only a small shoal to be removed to make a channel twenty or thirty feet in depth from the head of the canal to Prescott, and the work could have been done for perhaps $100,000 or $150,000.
But, of course, in doing this the vessel would have had to go some 500 or 600 feet in American waters. None of the excavating work, however, would have had to be done in American waters. That canal had been used for forty years, and a vessel could have entered it easily, because it could have got around this island half a mile above the entrance and have plenty of opportunity to go into the canal. But for the same reason, this route was changed and was made to cur. right through the island. They had to remove half the island. The water was only five or six feet deep in most of the channel, and as this, channel had to be dredged, there is no question but that it could not be done without an enormous expenditure, as has been proved by the expenditure from that time to this. Of course, either one route or the other had to be made. The government were compelled to either remove the shoal near the island or do what they have done now. What has been done makes a splendid channel, but in doing this the govern ment have squandered at least a million dollars, which it would not have been necessary to spend had they gone through the old channel and allowed the vessels to navigate its waters as they had been doing for so many years. Therefore, the ex-Minister of Railways is perfectly right in what he says regarding this expenditure. Another matter I wish to mention is this. These canals are
now completed. At any rate, they are all in working order. Take the Cardinal canal. In that there is one lock less, and as it is just new and complete, it should be operated for much less than during the Conservative regime or up to the time the present government took power in 1896. Well, what do we find ? I find that previous to the year 1896 it cost to manage those canals as follows:	Take the Williamsburg canal,
it cost for the permanent staff, $9,567.09 ; and for the actual repairs to keep it in working order, $7,123.97. That included Farran's Point, Morrisburg and Cardinal canals. In 1903. although the canals were new, just handed over by the contractor and in splendid working order, and when it might be supposed that they could not require repairs to anything like the amount they did in 1896, I find that the expenditure of the staff increased from $9,567 in 1895 to $15,246.91. And for the repairs to those canals it cost $7,123.97 to keep them in repair in 1895, and in 1903 it cost $20,092.79. From the first day the Liberals came into office the expenditure on those canals has increased, so that there is not one year which does not show an increase over the previous year. Take the Cornwall -canal, in 1896 it "cost $15,114.56 for what is known as the staff, but last year it cost $70,129.29, or an increase from $15,000 per annum to $70,000. Of course, in that latter amount is included lighting, $48,000, which I am not going to discuss now, because that will come up on a special item later, but in the year 1895 that was also included in the $15,400. Compare that with last year, and you will find that, leaving the lighting out of last year's expenditure, the cost of operating the canal was $22,129.29, as compared with $15,400 in 1895, and that latter amount included the lighting. The repairs on these new canals cost $19,235 last year, while in 1895 they only cost $13,053.53. Then take the Lnchine canal, which, in 1895, was an old canal. In that year the staff cost $56,185.44, whereas in 1903 it cost $69,534.56. And for the repairs on this old canal, in 1895 it cost $24,924 89, whereas in 1903, on the new canal, the repairs cost $53,054.20, or more #ian double. Take the Sault Ste. Marie canal. In 1895 that canal cost $3,432.03 for staff. Tt is only a short canal with one lock, yet in 1903 it cost for the staff to manage that lock $16,017.22. And for the repairs on that little piece of canal it cost in 1903 $10,855.70, so that in 1903 it took $27,000 to run one lock on the Sault canal, while in 1895 the extravagant Conservative government managed to run it for $3,432. Take the Welland canal. In 1895 the staff of that canal cost $89,065.27, while in 1903 it cost $90,290.65. And the repairs on the whole length of the Welland canal in 1895 cost $40,270.94, as compared with $72,004.59 in 1903. You can take every canal throughout this Dominion and you will find that the cost of management and repairs has increased almost two-

fold under the present government. Take the canal that I know well, the one in my own county ; X cannot see any necessity for employing more men to keep it in repair at present than under the late government. Why, on the contrary, there should be only one-half of the repairs required to-day, and yet the minister, if he will take up his paylist, will find that he has three times as many employees looking after the repairs, and if the Auditor General's Report were ready we would find that there are men employed on that canal the whole year who, I believe, did not work one day.
And I see item after item charged to these canals representing expenditure for which I can see no justification whatever. Take this Cardinal canal from Iroquois to the head of the rapids, it had only been 'handed over by the contractor and not a dollar (had to be spent, so far as X can see for repairs. There should have been no charge for repairs for three years, because the contractors had full charge of the banks and were emptying upon them the material that they excavated. I cannot see why there should be such a great expense in managing this canal as in former years. If you go over the expenditure on these canals for thirty years, whether the Liberals were in power or whether the Conservatives were in power, you will find that it remained about the same year after year-only a few hundred dollars difference either way. But on this canal it is increasing year by year the same on the Weland canal, the same on the Lachine canal, the same on the Cornwall canal and the Soulanges and Beauharnois canals as well. Is this increase to go on every year ? Every time the Liberal committee meets in Iroquois or Cardinal and sends a recommendation for two more men or four more men to be put on the canal, or for certain supplies to be bought from certain men, must the minister load this expenditure upon the country regardless of the public interest ? These men are put there and they cannot be dismissed, and the government will take no action in the matter. We had an example this afternoon when the minister admitted to me that he had men employed on the engineering staff that, to my knowledge, tiave had nothing to do but draw their salaries. Then there is the coj-lector of canal tolls at Cardinal. Not a dollar of canal tolls was collected last year, yet the collector was paid for a full twelve months $1,000. Not only that, but he was paid $1 per day for driving from the village up to the locks to his office, where he had not anything to do. And in addition to that, he was paid office rent down at .his own house. In addition to that, he was paid for fuel. And, in addition to all. he was paid 20 cents an hour for extra work on Sundays, though the canal was closed from twelve o'clock on Saturday night to twelve o'clock Mr. J D. REID.
on Sunday night. The Auditor General's Report shows this, and it seems all the more noteworthy because the collectors on the other canals have not received anything for extra work. Will the minister explain why this extravagance exists, why these officials are kept, why horse-hire is paid, and rent and fuel and all these other things? And, so far as this collector of whom I have spoken is concerned, he has just one thing to do in connection with his position and that is to go to the post office at tfhe end of the month and get his cheque.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have heard my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid) deliver this speech more than once. It seems to grow in intensity as the figures increase year by year. I fancy that after a while, he will begin to think there really is something in it. He forgets, of course, that, in the days of progress in Canada, when trade is, figuratively speaking, doubling year by year, necessarily the canals get a share of the increased traffic, and this, of course, involves additional expense in operation. These canals have been enlarged. He refers to a section of the Cornwall canal and says that the expense is nearly double what it was. I am informed that, in the meantime the number of locks has been doubled, and, of course, that involves greater expense.
i Mr. J. D. REID. I would like to know who gave that information to the hon. minister. I do not think any officer of the department will say that the number of locks Isas been increased.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed by the deputy minister that the number has been doubled.


John Dowsley Reid: On what canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the Cornwall canal, the one to which my hon. friend refers, Turning to the records, I find that, at page 12 of the report of the Department of Railways and Canals of last year, that the cost of staff on the Cornwall canal for 1895, was $15,414.56, and for repairs, $13,000 odd, while, for 1902-that is previous to the lighting, which is another question-the cost for staff was only $17,896.58, a very small increase over 1895, while for repairs only $15,000, again a very small increase, especially when you take into consideration the enlargement of the canal.


John Dowsley Reid: Compare the Williamsburg canal. The Cornwall canal happens to be one of the smallest increased.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am taking one that the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) started with.


John Dowsley Reid: No. I started with the Williamsburg.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But the hon. gentleman made reference to the Cornwall canal.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister states that there are more locks on the Cornwall .canal with the new canal than with the old canal in 1896. I challenge that statement.	[DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: The statement I made was that there were a great many more now than before the enlargement was made. The enlargement was only completed two or three years ago. My hon. friend has called attention to the Williamsburg canal and has shown that there is an increase. But taking into consideration the large increase of business, the enlargement of the canal and the increased cost of management, also taking into consideration that the present government pay living wages, whereas under the former regime people received starvation wages-I say that taking all these things into consideration, the additional work that is being done, the increased traffic that is attended to, we must expect an increase in the cost of operation. My hon. friend went on to speak about the locks in the canal. I was a little shocked at his contending that it would be in the interest of Canada to have a canal in American territory. If that proposition were to come from this side of the House it would be denounced as traitorous, as disloyal, and I am a little surprised at my hon. friend even making that suggestion. If it came from any other quarter he would be horrified, but in order to make a point against the government he now advocates that we should have a portion of this canal in American territory instead of having it all upon Canadian soil. Personally I know nothing of the locality, and am not in a position to form a judgment upon it, except from the facts recited by my hon. friend. From what I can gather from the member for South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) the differences between the hon. gentlemen have been adjusted.


John Graham Haggart: Did I state that a part of it was on American soil 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some of the boats going through there would have to go through American territory as I understand it. But I did not charge the hon. member for South Lanark with saying that.


John Dowsley Reid: I said a boat coming from the head of the canal would have to go through American waters. If the minister is so loyal, how is it that a vessel cannot go between Prescott and Kingston without going through American waters 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend should not be so impetuous. I am pointing out that evidently since recess the little differences that existed between my hon. friends have been amicably adjusted, and they seem to harmonize once more regarding the Cornwall canal.


John Graham Haggart: Remember Shakespeare's motto about brevity. For goodness' sake, be short.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am perhaps imitating my hon. friends.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A good dinner is supposed to lubricate business.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I should take occasion to inquire into the figures presented by my hon. friend and may have occasion to refer to them.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister says that he would be accused of disloyalty if he advocated the proposition of the ex-Minister of Railways. I drew the attention of this government year after year to the fact that if they went on with the work at the Galops Rapids, it would have to be all done in American territory. Notwithstanding that fact, they are now paying money for dredging that is all done in American territory. The next item that follows this asks for money to be spent in dredging a channel through American territory. Any boat that ever entered that channel must necessarily go through American territory, either going down or coming up the river. In this case his loyalty is not so great as it is in the other, where the expenditure has already been made. Now the minister says that the increased cost of operation is owing to the increase of business and the employment of a larger staff. I make this statement, that there are no more locks on the Cardinal canal or on the Williamsburg canal than there were in 1895. On the Farran's Point canal there was one lock in 1896, and there is only one to-day, the only difference is" that it has been enlarged.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are two locks on the Farran's Point canal, the old one and the new one.


John Dowsley Reid: The old one was taken away, no boat goes through that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then it is a question of veracity between my hon. friend and (lie superintendent of the canal and the deputy minister. I assume that my hon. friend is labouring under softie misapprehension.


John Dowsley Reid: That is news to me. I have gone up and down the canal very often. Then there were two locks on the Williamsburg canal in 1896 and there are two locks to-day. Is that right ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is right. You have struck it for once.


John Dowsley Reid: On the Cardinal canal there were three locks in 1896, and there are two now. Am I right in that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Three on the Galops.


John Dowsley Reid: When the Cardinal canal was built there was only one lock at Iroquois, one at Cardinal and one at the head of the



canal. The new lock at Iroquois was built much higher so that they could do away with the lock at Cardinal and there was this new lock built at the head of the canal. The level between Iroquois and the head of the canal is now the same and there Is one lock less. The old lock around by the other way has been abandoned, there is no reason why an official of any kind should be employed on that lock, so that when the hon. minister speaks of that as one lock, he refers to a lock at Which there is not one dollar expended and at which there is not an official. I would like to know where the other lock is on the Iroquois canal if there are three.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the chief engineer's report the mileage of the Galops canal Is given as 71 miles and the number of locks as three. That does not include this old lock to which my hon. friend refers. There is one at Iroquois, the large lock which is mentioned, and at the head, or the entrance, there are two locks.


Mr.  J. D.@: It El It. There are two locks together but the same crew manage them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That makes three locks.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, there are two together.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not a question as to the number of men. I was speaking as to the number of locks.


John Dowsley Reid: That is another lock on the outside. I did not get that far.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You were right before but you seem to have missed that one.


John Dowsley Reid: I said there were two locks at the head of the canal going west. There are only two there, one less than there was before. Then, there is another lock going down on the outside of the river. That makes three.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then there is the old lock.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: In the first place it is necessary to continue the collectors at these points in order that a record may be kept.


John Dowsley Reid: Of what ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The making of the canals free to the people for a period of years is an experiment so that it may be tested. In the meantime it is necessary to have a record and these men are employed. They have to give their time in the same way even though the government do not collect tolls. I think an answer to all that has been said by my hon. friend can be found in the report of the Department of Railways and Canals for 1903, part II, page 25. The hon. gentleman refers to the Sault Ste. Marie canal. I find that in 1895 there was a payment of $3,432.73 for staff. The canal had only been opened for a month or so during the year so that that is not for a year's operation. In 1896 it cost $10,074.70 for staff. In 1903 at the same place it cost $16,077.22 for staff. There is an increase of $2.30.


John Dowsley Reid: You have struck it right this time.
JUiLY 8, 1904


Henry Robert Emmerson: X strike It right every time when it comes to figures.


John Dowsley Reid: No, you do not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend knows that under the system in vogue along the canals the operators get an increased wage over that paid by the former government and they also get a free house or house rental allowed. These increased wages must necessarily be taken into consideration.


John Dowsley Reid: Did they not get house rent before ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed not.


John Dowsley Reid: They always got a government house on the other canals free before.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Only a very few.


John Dowsley Reid: On the Williamsburg canal they always have had government houses free of rent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed that some of them received that, but that it was not general. Since this government came into power it has been made general, and therefore the cost to the country has increased. The cost of material for repairs has been increased. Wherever lumber has to be used the expense is much greater. Generally labour for repairs is much more expensive now than it was, so that there is very little in what my hon. friend has said.


John Dowsley Reid: I know for a fact that prior to 1896 every lockmaster and lock labourer on the Williamsburg canal either had a free house or was allowed, I think, ?50 per annum to pay for a rented house. That was the case all along the Williamsburg canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said there were some instances, but that that system did not prevail on the canals generally. My hon. friend was making a charge as to the increased expense all along the canal system.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like the minister to make his statement definite, in order that I may make inquiries so that we can discuss it next session.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I shall have a complete list prepared.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman has stated that there has been an increased traffic on these canals. Would he give us a statement of the number of vessels that passed through during the season of navigation of 1903 and the season of 1896 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was rather assuming that the traffic would be greater in these years than before. I do not think that that argument is very material when I come to reflect on it, because the men have to be there, night and day* whether one vessel or twenty pass through the canal during the 202
twenty-four hours. It may be that while the number of boats has not increased, owing to the fact that larger boats are used, a great deal more freight is carried through the canals, as one boat now will carry as much as half a dozen would in years gone by. The canals have been deepened in many instances, and therefore can accommodate a larger class of boats ; but, after all, so far as the staff is concerned, the number of boats is not material.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like the minister to bring down with the other statement a list showing the number of boats passing through the canals in 1896 and 1903.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will get one for all of the seasons ; it would be an interesting record.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the government have arranged to open and close the gates on the Cornwall canal by electricity.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They propose to.
Mr. ,1. D. REID. Are they doing it now ? Yet the staff has been increased ; there are more men on the locks than in 1896, when they had to open the gates by hand power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think that is the case, but I will get the statistics for my own satisfaction. I think they are taking into consideration the question of the advisability of reducing the number of hands in view of the use of electrical power.


John Dowsley Reid: In 1896 on the Cornwall canal they had a lockmaster and four men on account of boats running both ways up and down. Now they have the electrical power, and, as I understand, one man is supposed to manage the whole affair, because there is nothing to do, and yet there are more men on each lock than there were in 1S96 when the men had to open the locks with a windlass. I understand that the number of employees has been increased.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I shall obtain that information.


John Dowsley Reid: It is apparent that the government have increased the cost of opening and shutting the gates in the Cornwall canal very materially since 1896. I would ask the minister when the supplementaries come up for discussion to bring down these statements for which we have asked, so that we can go into this matter again.
Galops rapids-to complete channel, $40,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a revote of $40,000, the unexpended portion of $75,000 which was appropriated last year. This is to complete the formation of the channel in the Galops rapids. A large amount of drilling and blasting has been done, but the material has not been excavated. The work is being done by the Gilbert Company. The channel is 3,000 feet long, 200 feet wide and



17 feet deep. The amount expended up to ttie 1st of May, 1904, was, $878,441.35. The estimated cost of completing the channel, including this $40,000, is $75,000, that is, assuming that an estimate made in February last that $35,000 of the $75,000 would be expended before the 30th of June, 1904, turns out to have been correct.


John Dowsley Reid: I have been in this House now some thirteen years, and each and every year the minister gets up and makes the same statement, that it will take some $40,000 or $50,000 to complete this channel, and that it will be completed within the next year, wrhen the fact is that this ijs just being carried on in the interest of the contractors. Does the minister know when this work was started ? It was started by the Mackenzie government in 1878, to make a new channel to allow large vessels to go through, and it is not ready yet. If we are to wait until these contractors will have it ready, the minister can make up his mind to wait-for another quarter of a century.
Mr. EMMERiaON. Was the contract entered into in 1878 1


John Dowsley Reid: I think that was the year in which it was started, and they have been working at it ever since with the exception of two or three years. I would like to ask the minister what arrangement has been made with the contractors for carrying on the work. The original contract specified that they were to be paid so mucfh per yard for excavating the rock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They get $8.40 per yard for excavating and removing the rock.


John Dowsley Reid: I thought the channel had been completed, and that they were simply removing the loose rock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are paid $8.40 a yard, which includes blasting, lifting and carrying away the rock.
Mr. .1. D. REID. If the hon. minister looks up the records lie will see that their original contract was to make that channel 14 feet deep. They were paid some $170,000 for going below grade in order to make it 14 feet deep. They have been paid in full for that; but during the past two or three years the government have claimed that owing to the swift water running down between the islands, the loose rock would be carried into this channel, and that it was this loose rock whidh this firm were dredging. But no loose rock can be carried in there, because the dam has been built above and there is still water at that point, so that there is nothing to wash down. If it was worth $8.40 a yard to blast and excavate the rock, why is it worth $8.40 a yard to take out the loose rock ? I doubt if there is any. Last year the government had a Mr. EMMERSON.	,
very nice deal with this firm to pay them $425 per day for the use of the dredge ; but if they are getting $8.40 a yard for removing loose rock, they are doing still better. I venture to say that the Minister of Railways and Canals dare not leave that contract open to competition. If he does, he will get that loose rock excavated for less than $2 a yard. What did the government pay for blasting and dredging rock under the contract of W. A. Allan ? $4.25 a yard. The dam has been placed across ttie islands, so that there is no current there now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The dam is not completed.
Mr, J. D. REID. It is completed. It was completed last year, so far as not allowing that water to go through is concerned. I walked across that dam last year from one side to the other, and I venture to say that the deputy minister will not say that there is any swift water there. Surely the minister will not offer that as an excuse for paying $8.40 a yard now. If these gentlemen were paid in full for blasting and dredging this out to 17 feet, why are they paid again for the same work ? Why is that necessary ? Their engineer certified to it and they got paid in cash for it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: When were they paid?


John Dowsley Reid: They were paid year after year for any work they did of this kind. ' The certificates of the department show it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: During all the years since 1878 ?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and I will tell you what happened. When the Cornwall canal enlargement came on, these same men took a contract on the canal and got a certificate from the engineers in charge that this channel was perfect, and the government took it off their hands and notified steamboat men that boats drawing 14 feet of water could go safely through, but it turned out that they had not dredged it all out. There were spots where there was only -ten feet of water, but they knew the channel would never be used for the reason that y-ars ago the ex-Minister of Railways decided to have this outside lock, of which we were speaking a few minutes ago, put right at the rapids, so that vessels could lock there and avoid these dangerous rapids. Therefore this dangerous canal was never used. Steamboat men and insurance men knew that this canal was useless ind that they could not use it, even if there were seventeen feet of water in it. But they offered, if the government would experiment by running a steamboat down the channel, drawing fourteen feet of water, ind drawing a tow, to run vessels down. But the government would not assume the responsibility. After my explaining the

matter in the House, I remember well when the steam barge * Niagara ' went down loaded with lumber, and was turned in the channel and went down backwards, and from that day to this there has never been a steamboat run down that channel except some small propeller drawing only a few feet of water. After I showed the House that there was only ten feet of water in the channel and demanded an investigation, the government appointed Mr. Kennedy, engineer of Montreal harbour, to investigate, and he proved that the statement I made in this House was exactly true. He proved that there was only ten feet of water in the channel and in quite a number of spots only nine feet and ten feet, although the contractors had been paid in full for dredging it out to fourteen feet. So we are today jmying these contractors for excavating in what is practically stall water $8.40 a yard, and we are paying them that price for blasting and excavating work which had already been paid for. Is it the present minister who made this agreement, because I cannot believe that any sane man would ever make such a contract, and surely there must be something wrong if he ever did make an agreement of that kind ? Did he really make that agreement himself ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The work had been going on under agreement before I took charge of the department. Of course I am not shirking any responsibility, but simply answering the question of my hon. friend. The wTork has been carried on under an agreement made and acted upon during the years he has spoken of.


John Graham Haggart: When was the agreement made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was a new agreement made in 1899 or about that time.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been made since last session. They were not at work last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They did not work last year, but that did not cancel the agreement.


John Dowsley Reid: That agreement of $S.40 per yard was completed, and they were working at $425 a day two years ago. Now they have got back to the old agreement of ?8.40 per yard.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The only time 8425 per day was paid was when they were surveying.


John Dowsley Reid: I can prove by the Auditor General's Report that they'were paid $42o per day for two or three seasons, and they did not get $425 per day when surveying. I can prove that if necessary. That is a statement reflecting on the ex-Minister of Railways, namely, that they got $425 per day when they were surveying. That is not the fact. They were paid something like 2021
$60 or $70 a day. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals knows that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is not the Kennedy matter, as I am informed by my deputy.


John Dowsley Reid: Do you mean to say that they received $425 per day for surveying ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: And for removing some loose materials.


John Dowsley Reid: Season after season they were paid $425 per day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The arrangement now is $8.40 per yard. That would be a reasonable price. I know that after competition very recently in Halifax, we awarded a contract at over $9 in that harbour.


John Dowsley Reid: What depth of water -about forty or fifty feet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About 25 feet.


John Dowsley Reid: And this is about ten or eleven feet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The price was $9 right in the harbour of Halifax where they could have no current and not very much tide, and whatever tide they would have would be an advantage.


John Dowsley Reid: There must have been an estimate made of the quantity of rock to be excavated before this was let at $8.40 per yard.


John Graham Haggart: There was no rock to be excavated. The work was done and paid for.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know what the estimate was based on. There must have been some estimate before this work was ready. What was there to be excavated and how many yards ?


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister states that this is for blasting and excavating. But long ago that contract was performed. The prism quantities were paid for, and the contractor was paid for taking out this excavation and an extra foot paid for besides. Sometimes he necessarily had to go two or three feet below the prism, but he was paid in full for all the quantities that were in the prism and cuttide of it. What is it he is excavating now that he is being paid for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the actual excavation to bring it to a proper depth. The work is carried on, as I am advised, under the strict supervision of the officers of the department. Measurements are accurately taken and the payments are made on those measurements at $8.40. It strikes me that $8.40 is reasonable enough. The whole trend of discussion on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite has been to demonstrate that this work has been unnecessary.


John Graham Haggart: It has nothing to do with the necessity of it, but it is a question of work actually done.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But that is the trend of the argument-that it is unnecessary. Here is a work that was determined upon away back about the seventies, or before that, for all I know, and, for year after year, under succeeding governments, it has been carried on to the stage where $75,000 will complete the excavation. It is a question whether it will be advisable to complete the work or whether you will throw away $S78,000, -which Canada has spent upon it, and not attempt to use the channel. It seems to me the part of wisdom to expend the sum I have named to complete the work and utilize the channel.


John Graham Haggart: The minister avoids the question I have put to him. Here is a contract entered into for the purpose of deepening the canal to 14 feet with a certain width. The government paid the full amount for that contract. It was extended to a further depth of one foot. The government paid the full amount for that. Has the depth or the width been increased, ana has a new contract been made ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is 300 feet wide.


John Graham Haggart: What was the original width ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was originally 200 feet wide.


John Graham Haggart: And it was made deeper. But has not that all been paid for according to the quantities long before this ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


John Graham Haggart: When was the new contract entered into ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As near as I can discover, it was in 1899 that it was determined to widen it, and the contract -was rene-wed with that view.	.


John Graham Haggart: Notwithstanding the statement of the hon. minister's predecessor in the House, that he would do nothing of the kind-that he would not enter into any new contracts and that he would see to it that expenditure ceased altogether on this work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend is assuming-


John Graham Haggart: No, I heard the statement, and I will quote it from ' Hansard.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question arose as to the 14-foot channel, and the minister said they had the depth and the width that was required. I read the item from the paper showing that some one disputed that, and he asserted most emphatically that the measurements had been carried out and all they were doing was sweeping the bottom of the channel so as to take away the pieces of Mr EMMERSON.
rock or other material that had been carried down by the current in the spring. He said that the width and depth had been gained, and he announced to the world that any vessel not drawing more than 14 feet could pass through that channel.


John Graham Haggart: The minister will find the passage at page 4301 of ' Hansard ' of 1902 :


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Somebody must have done it. Surely it was done under the instructions of the engineer.


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: No. I want to be understood expli-citely by the committee. I stated at the last meeting of the committee when this item was referred to, that the contractor was notified that we were not going to continue the work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This .vote last year was secured with a view to going on. It was a vote of $75,000. $35,000 of which was estimated to have been expended up to .Tune 30th. To complete the work, as I am informed, clean up the channel and remove all possible obstructions will cost the $40,000 which we are asking for now and $35,000 additional.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. minister confine himself to the question I asked ? When was the contract entered into for the purpose of widening this channel ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I am advised, the original contract was entered into years ago, and under that contract work has been done year by year, and when the work was not performed, of course, the contract was not in operation, but it was not cancelled. Then, when the work was authorized by a vote of parliament last session, the department went on under that original contract.


John Graham Haggart: Then there was no new contract ?	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


John Graham Haggart: Then the minister was misinformed ?


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not a fact that for a couple of seasons after the contract had been taken off the hands of the government, after the work had been completed and the $8.40 a yard contract was finished, the government made another contract with these gentlemen to clear out this channel and paid them by the day ? Instead of paying them $8.40 per yard, they paid them $425 a dav, and in that way they paid them $70.000, $80,000 or $100,000 for work of this kind.	*


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would not like to say what was done. I can furnish a copy of" the contract. My hon. friend is asking me whether there was such a contract. I will get that information. I do not want to make statements that are not in accordance with the very letter of the contract. Therefore, instead of answering my hon.

friend, I will furnish a copy of the contract before the supplementaries are considered.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not believe that the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals would ever make that contract on his own responsibility. It may be all right for the minister to put it on the deputy minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not put it on the deputy. My hon. friend should not make that statement. I have no such thought in my mind. The deputy is not in a position to give me information definitely, and therefore I do not care to make any statements that are not in accord with the very letter of the contract.


John Dowsley Reid: This original contract for $8.40 a yard was not made by the deputy minister, it was made by the late Mr. Page.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No contract can be made by the minister without the authority of Council, and the deputy minister would have no power to make one.


John Dowsley Reid: I assume that. I do not believe the deputy minister would ever recommend either the $8.40 or the $425 arrangement. If he has done it, it was to satisfy the minister ; because in my opinion this matter is not continued from year to year unless there is some deal in the matter. It is very strange that this was allowed to stand for a couple of years, until last fall when an election was supposed to be coming on, and then this old contract springs up again, and is continued, and will be continued I suppose, until this country does something to stop it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I suppose my hon. friend's suspicions arise from his familiarity with the Conservative regime during all these years that his friends were in power.


John Dowsley Reid: This contract was originally let by the Mackenzie government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But it was continued by the succeeding government.


John Dowsley Reid: It was carried on through the Conservative regime because there had to be a channel cut through those rapids, or else some other means would have had to be adopted by which vessels could pass through. I have asked the minister what is the estimated quantity of excavation for this work under the contract, and what the total cost is to be, and unless we get that information, I shall ask the minister to allow this item to stand until we do get it. otherwise we will have to discuss the matter until he consents to produce it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Two years ago the minister said this contract was closed and that they would notify the contractor to that effect. I assume that was done. Now if that was all settled, how could it be opend
up again at the pleasure of one side or the other ? The contract was closed. Anything done after that must have been done by some new agreement.


John Graham Haggart: The minister says this is going on under a contract made in 1878, that this is an extension of the contract for the widening of the prism. But he must remember that the contract was virtually terminated by myself. A commissioner, Mr. Kennedy, was appointed for the purpose of finding out whether the contractor had performed the terms of the contract, and he found that the proper quantities had not been taken out. Then the contractor went on and took out the proper quantities. After that contract was finished, the contractor went on for a couple of seasons, not under the original contract at all, but was paid at so much a day for the work that was done. Then the minister comes in and says :
I will inquire whether the facts you state are correct or not. Finally he tells the House: I will tell the contractor that his contract is finished and that he will get no more money upon it. In face of that statement the contract is renewed, the old contract of 1878, without tenders, after its expiry. We do not know what the new contract is. The minister says it is an extension of the contract of 1878, but we do not know how the prism is enlarged, or its depth. We want the actual quantities. He comes here without any information and asks the House for a vote of money for a wholly useless undertalyng. The money that is spent upon this job is uselessly spent. The utility of it was done away with when I put a lock into the rapids for the purpose of enabling vessels to go in and pass the rapids. They use the lock entirely and yet this expenditure goes on from day to day. These men are paid the enormous sum of nearly $500 per day and then they get a contract at $8.60 per yard. Does the" hon. minister say upon the advice of the deputy minister that the contract is enlarged ? I understood him to say that the prism is being widened or deepened. If it is so let us get at the exact facts. How much is the prism widened or deepened and what is the new contract 1 We should know this before a dollar of the vote goes through.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The information which is asked for is such as I have stated. I did not anticipate it would be required. I have stated the price and the quantities I will give to my hon. friend again.


John Graham Haggart: Go on to another item if you cannot give us this information. We want this information before this item passes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think my hon. friends will be unreasonable.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is getting to be pretty much of a burlesque on parliament.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This contract was entered into many years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And closed many years ego.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Apparently it was not closed. It was not a contract of which time appeared to be the essence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman's predecessor said it was closed two years ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, as read by the hon. member who read it from the record of the House, the Minister of Railways and Canals of that day did not make that statement. I did not understand that to be the meaning.
Mr. SPROULE, Did he not make the statement that he would notify the contractor that the contract was closed, and that he would spend no more money on it ? Was not that the statement that was read here ? That is the statement, as I understood it.


John Graham Haggart: Here is the statement, and I will read it again for the hon. minister :
No, I want to be understood explicitly by the committee. I stated at the last meeting of the committee when this item was referred to, that the contractor was notified that we were not going to continue the work.


Andrew B. Ingram: What date is that ?


John Graham Haggart: May 6, 1902.
Mr. EMMERSON- It is estimated that there are about 9,000 cubic yards of material to be removed from there, and that under the contract under which they are operating we have paid out during the fiscal year ending 30th June the sum of $35,000.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. minister if that has been paid out on the basis of the old contract or of the new V


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated that the estimated payment up to June 30th is $35,000. The work has been going on during the month of June and parliament has provided the money for it. I do not want items to be forced through this committee. I want to furnish all possible information, but I think we should make some progress, and I think I can furnish my hon. friend with copies of the contract itself. When I can tell the committee what the contract is, what the arrangement is under which they are working and for which the department is liable, and for which purpose we are voting the money, it seems to me that I am meeting all the expectations that can be formed of a minister placed in a like situation. I have endeavoured to give that information fully. To me it seems to resolve itself down to this point, that it is a question whether the successive governments of this country, having paid out the sum of monev which they have for this work, shall halt when they are within $75,000 of the goal,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: or whether they shall throw entirely away all that has been expended because they feel that the expenditure of $75,000 was not expedient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we were at the goal two years ago ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed that we were not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There must have been some strange fabrication then or there must be now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I certainly think, from the statements given to me, that we have not reached the goal, and that it will be necessary to have this money expended in order to finish the work.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister made the statement that a certain amount of money was paid out during the last fiscal year. I asked him if it was paid out under the contract made with the Mackenzie government in 1878 or under the new contract at so many dollars per day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, it was paid out under precisely the same terms as contained in the contract entered into originally with the Mackenzie government.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that the original contract provided for the payment of so many' hundred dollars per day ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; it provided for the payment of $8.40 per cubic yard. Those are the terms upon which the money has been paid out during the last fiscal year.


Richard Blain: When the matter was up for discussion in 1902, and when Mr. Blair referred to the item, the statement was made in committee then that there was a new contract, and that the contract was for $425 per day. My hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) says that we paid for 29S days in that very year, not under the original contract, as my hon. friend has stated, but under the new contract at $425 per day. What I want to know is when the original contract ceased, when the new contract was entered into, and whether the money expended last year was paid under the new contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The money paid during the last fiscal year was paid according to the terms of the original contract entered into in 1878. That is that for the work performed of drilling, blasting and excavation, we paid at the price of $8.40 per cubic yard, and it is upon that basis that the work will be carried on during this year if the vote of $40,000 is provided.


John Graham Haggart: I will ask the hon. minister just to listen to this. He says that he continued the payment under the contract made in 1878. As my hon. friend has drawn attention to it, here are the payments on the

Galops canal, one In 1900-1, 298 days at $425 per day, or $126,654.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My statement had reference to the current year. I have been answering my hon. friend in respect to the year ending 30th June, 1904.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister says that he is doing this under the contract made in 1S78, and leads the House to believe that that contract is still continuing. The Minister of Railways stated in answer to Mr. Sproule :
He "was notified before the 1st of July, 1901; and he had no authority whatever, expressed or implied, for continuing the work after that date.
Then this question was asked by Mr. Sproule.
Why should the hon. gentleman now ask for a sum to pay him if he had no author-, ity ?
To which the minister replied :
I must he lacking in the faculty of explaining myself if the hon. gentleman has not understood me. I say that I am not asking for anything more than sufficient to pay the drawback that was due and retained in the department, as is usual in all contracts, for work prior to the 1st of July, 1901.
Then I said :
I understand what the hon. minister says perfectly well. Does he mean to say that the work done in 1901 amounted to $300,000? It was a daily contract, so much per day, and there could be no drawback in paying for anything before 1901, and there was a drawback for work done to the extent of $500,000 in 1902.
What I want to draw the attention of the minister to is the fact that the contract was virtually finished under my regime ;1 I ended the contract. The contractor was not re-employed under the contract of 1878, but he continued the work under an agreement with the department at so much per day. He received his payment per day for a couple of years. Then the minister assured the House that not one cent would be paid this man in 1901. If the contract continued while he was doing the day work surely it was finished when the notice was given by the department of the termination of the contract in 1901. The justification that the department now attempts to make for this payment was that it was under a contract of 1878 which has continued up to the present day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the ten per cent had been paid back on the completion of all transactions.


John Graham Haggart: The minister must see that he must give the fullest information to the House especially in reference to the
renewal or extension of the contract which he says he made under the contract of 1878. This money must have been expended for an extension of the prism either in width or depth, and he should tell us to what extent that has been made.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is it because my hon. friend wishes for a copy of that contract of 1878 that he desires this to stand ?


John Dowsley Reid: That was furnished seven or eight ye^rs ago. What I want is a copy of the agreement under which they are paid $425 per day.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do you wish a copy of the extension of 1899.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend objects to going on with this vote without a copy of this contract I think he is quite entitled to it and I am perfectly willing that the vote should stand. I shall bring down everything that is involved in this.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would ask why it is that after the statement made by Mr. Biair when Minister of Railways and Canals that all that was asked for in the estimates was

the drawback, there was no appropriation in the estimates for this work at all in 1902-3. If that be true -what is the reason that the department has again taken it up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I assume this was taken up last year. There was a vote last year with respect to it. The proposed vote this year is for $40,000. The reason I have *taken it up this year is that I think the work should be completed when it will only require $75,000 to do it. I am so advised by the chief engineer of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reidl. who seems to understand this canal pretty well, has stated that this is a useless expenditure. He has stated that the department took the work up again last fall because they thought the general election was coming on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was only joking when lie said that.


Andrew B. Ingram: I atn putting the different things together and sizing them up in my own way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You are taking it seriously.


Andrew B. Ingram: Very. It looks serious. In 1,002-3 there was no appropriation because there was no election in sight; but there was an election expected last fall, and an appropriation was put in for this useless work. There was no election last fall, but there is expected to be One this fall, and the idea is to expend $75,000 more on this useless work, all for political effect. That is the whole thing in a nutshell. This is a game of politics. You are spending the people's money for the sole purpose of getting votes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I suppose that has been done right along-that is the reason all this money was expended in 1878 to 1896, and from 1896 down to the present time-by a parity of reasoning.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that serious ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to carry the joke as far as it will go.
Item allowed to stand.
St. Lawrence rivers and canals-reducing shoals west of Cornwall canal, $25,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a revote. This amount Is to be expended in reducing Shoals or obstructions and doing some necessary excavation. The total expenditure in connection with that up to the 1st of May, 1904, was $457,686.69.


John Graham Haggart: How much will it take to finish the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is supposed to be about 37,000 cubic yards yet to be done, at an estimated cost of 70 cents.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


John Dowsley Reid: I have been asked by several marine men if it would not be possible to have what is called Mud Island iShoal at the foot of-Carlton Island, near Kingston, excavated. I think it is composed of mud or loose earth which could easily be removed. I know that one steamer, the 'John C. Howard,' worth $150,000, with a cargo worth $50,000, grounded on this shoal and suffered serious damage. All the large vessels when they go to Kingston have to cross this shoal from the main channel, which is on the American side. This is t'he first opportunity I have had of bringing the matter before the House. It is a very small matter and perhaps the minister could inquire into it and provide for it in the supplementary estimates. From what I have been informed, I judge that the work will not cost more than a couple of thousand dollars. The Americans are putting their channel in splendid shape, and I think the minister might very well provide for this small item, which is really imp ;rtant to make our channel safe.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will call the attention of the Public Works Department to the matter. The dredging or reduction of shoals in the Department of Railways, and Canals is incidental to the canal expenditure. All dredging not connected with the canals is under the supervision and control of the Department of Public Works. However, I will confer with that department on the subject.
Electric light power plant, Welland canal, $100,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost of this plant is $250,000. $100,000 was appropriated last year, and the total expenditure up to the 1st of May was $10,766.88. It was estimated that the balance would be paid before the 1st of July, but it will require $100,000 more. The Welland Canal will be illuminated this season by about 250 arc lights of 2,000 candle power, distributed between Port Dalhousie and Port Ool-borne, a distance of twenty-seven miles. At each of the twenty-five locks there will be electric arc lights, while along the banks of the canal there will be a light every 400 feet. In addition there will be special equipment of arc lights to the piers at the head and foot of the canal. It is expected that the new lighting system will be in operation by July 1st.


John Graham Haggart: Where is your plant located ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At Decew Falls.


John Graham Haggart: What do you pay for your horse-power ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The supply of electric energy will be obtained from the Lincoln Light and Power Company, of St. Catharines, the power being generated at

Decew Falls by the Hamilton Cataract Company. The price is $14 per horse-power.


John Graham Haggart: You do all the connections and put in all the motors and plant ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, tenders were asked for all that material.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How long has the contract to run ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Ten years, if 1 remember correctly ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The lighting ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The power.


John Graham Haggart: They do the lighting themselves. [DOT]


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Ten years from when?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is supposed to take effect the 1st of July this year, when we have the material all completed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How much do they get a year for it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $14 per horse-power. I am giving this information from memory and it will be subject to correction. We simply get the horse-power and all the rest is done by the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You can calculate what the cost will be.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 25 cents a light is the estimate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who looks after the repairing of the lights ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We will need a man to supervise-an electrical man-it may be possible that this can be done by the superintending engineer.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is that the intention ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The matter has been discussed. I thought possibly it might be advisable to employ an electrician to have sole charge. Then the other view occurred that possibly it could be in charge of the superintending engineer.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who is in charge now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The works are being put in under the supervision of Mr. Parks, electrician, of Toronto. He is the consulting expert. The construction is under the direction of the superintending engineer. Mr. Parks is the expert upon whose advice the work is being done.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Are there not several expert electricians living in St. Catharines, right where the work is being done ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As Mr. Parks is the regular electrician 'of the department all through this section of Canada, I did not think it was necessary to employ an outside man.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I suppose there are several officers assisting him ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who is it intended shall do the work after this plant is installed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have no one appointed and have no intention other than that somebody will be employed to attend to that work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then it is not intended that the workmen on the canal shall do it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If the workmen on the canal can do it and at the same time do their other duties, they will do it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the intention of the government ? Is it intended that they shall or shall not do it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The matter has not yet been determined.


John Graham Haggart: Do you intend to use the power for opening and shutting gates and moving bridges ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: What is the estimated horse-power that will be required for the whole ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the information. That was given last year, and the officer who has the matter in hand did not think it necessary to be here.


John Graham Haggart: You are sure you can do it for $250,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is Mr. Parks's estimate.


John Graham Haggart: You have only voted $200,000-$100,000 this year and $100,000 last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: An unprovided balance to complete-it will take $50,000.


John Graham Haggart: If it is to be finished by 1st of July, why does not the hon. gentleman take enough to pay for it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: When these estimates were made up the work had not proceeded far enough to warrant us in asking for an exact vote. A supplementary vote will be necessary.


John Graham Haggart: How many lights do you require ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At each of the twenty-five locks there will be six electric arc lights, and along the banks of the canal there will be a light for every 400 feet. In addition there will be a special equipment of arc lights for the head and foot of the canal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How does this expense compare with what the government have been paying for lighting by gas !


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will cost much more.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like a more definite statement. There has been very good lighting by gas lamps-four lamps at each lock, two at either end.


Henry Robert Emmerson: By gas it has cost $10,000, but those who patronized the canal were constantly complaining. The modern method of lighting canals is by electricity, and if we are to have an up to date system we must have the canals lighted in this way. The cost will be more-there is no use in pretending the contrary. But the demands of the trade must be recognized. Those having occasion to use the canal seemed to think that the government should light the canal in this modern fashion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the hon. minister has not yet told us what the difference is.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given $10,000 as the cost of lighting by gas. The cost of electricity will be not less than $15,000, as estimated by the officials.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Besides the capital expenditure ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman say that complaints have been made by the shipping interests that the locks have not been properly lighted ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The better lighting enables them to save time in the operation of the gates. While the lighting of the gates by gas was fairly good, it certainly did not meet the requirements of the traffic, and I am informed that the shipping interests almost unanimously demanded the electric light.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I live right there, and I never heard that the locks were not properly lighted, with the four gas lamps at each lock distributed so as to give the best light for opening and closing the gates, i have to come to Ottawa to hear the suggestion that there was any delay or trouble caused by the lighting. I can understand that it may be fashionable to have electric light and, as it is fashionable, it is easy to find some people to say that they want it. Here is a large expenditure of money for the installation of a system and a large annual expenditure to follow. And it replaces a system under which the local gas company, so far as I ever heard, has been giving a satisfactory service. I go along the canal and drive up and down every season, and I have never known one of these gas lamps to be out-wherever you see one you see the four.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was not lighted along the canal, but only at the locks."


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The locks are all along the canal.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: There may be quite a distance between them, and vessels had to travel long distances that-were not lighted. The fact that these people wanted these lights and were dissatisfied with the old ones is quite consistent with the fact that they did not stop off at St. Catharines and ask my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) to hear their complaints. He says he has to come to Ottawa to find this out. But, the shipping interests would naturally come to Ottawa and make their grievance known to the Department of Railways and Canals. And they were very insistent in their expression of opinion as to not merely the convenience but the necessity of having this light.	*


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where there are no locks ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They want a light almost as much where there are no locks as where there are. They have bridges all along the canal. The speed of a vessel along the canal is governed very much by the facility with which it can get through these bridges. With electric power for the bridges the vessel can make very much better time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that 550 lights is the total, distributing as he has described ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This season about 550 lights of 2,000 candle power, distributed between Port Dalhousie and Port Colborne, a distance of twenty-seven miles.


Andrew B. Ingram: The cost with gas is about $10,000, and the cost of electricity for 550 lights at 25 cents per light per night would be between $25,000 and $30,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That includes the power to swing the bridges and gates.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not finding fault with this system of lighting, but trying to get at the difference between the two systems. The minister will pay about $30,000 per annum for electric light, and, besides, lie is to pay $14 per horse-power to work the locks. And he has entered into a contract for ten years from 1st July. These statements, I understand, are correct. The hon. gentleman has entered into a ten years contract. I do not know whether the government have a right to cancel that contract. If they have put in such a provision it would be a step in the right direction, because it is well known that the cost per horse-power for electric energy, in view of the great improvement at Niagara Falls, is certain to be very materially reduced, and it would be unwise for the government to enter into a long contract for ten years without introducing a provision for cancelling the contract if they so desired. Is there such a provision in ' the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then the government has been very negligent. You cannot And a municipality in Ontario that will enter into a ten years contract for the supply of electric power in face of the wonderful development of electric energy and the rapid decrease of the cost of such development.


Archibald Campbell: $14 per horse-power is a very low price.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am not disputing that. But my hon. friend must remember that the development of electric power at this moment, especially in that neighbourhood, is going on very fast, and the cost is being rapidly reduced, and will he reduced much faster.


Archibald Campbell: I doubt if you could get it much lower.


Andrew B. Ingram: We must judge the future by the immediate past. Electric power companies of Niagara Falls to-day are going around among the different municipalities in western Ontario trying to get them to enter into a contract for a long period of time, because they know that the cost of. furnishing electrical power is certain to be rapidly reduced. It is only the transmission of this power for long distances that seems to be the great difficulty to overcome at this moment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I can confirm what my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has said in regard to the development of electrical energy at Niagara Falls, and I think the government has been negligent of its duty in failing to put in the contract such a clause as he has referred to. I am astonished to find that it has not been done. I understand that in the neighbourhood of St. Catharines, corporations and municipalities, in making their contracts with this very company, say to them : We won't give you this contract unless we have in it a clause by which we can terminate it. But it appears that the government have not asked the company to consent to such a clause being put in. You will not find any village or town or city, or any municipality in the Niagara district, who will make a contract for more than five years without such a clause in it. Everybody in the neighbourhood knows that electrical energy is going to get cheaper all the time, because the cost of the development of that energy is getting cheaper all the time. It is only in its infancy. It seems to me that the government have been remiss in their duty to the people in failing to put in such a clause providing for cancellation of the contract. I venture to say if the government had such a clause in this contract, in five years from now they would be able to get better terms, they would be able to get their electricity
33 per cent cheaper, perhaps 50 per cent cheaper, than they do now. The company would not have objected to putting such a clause in the contract if it had been insisted on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lancaster) seems to have changed his base. His first objection was to the use of electricity at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I never objected to using electricity if it was a good bargain.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But when the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) gives him another idea then he goes on to elaborate it. Now I venture to make this assertion, that you could not possibly get any electrical company in Canada to furnish this power as cheaply as we are getting it now unless you gave them a term of years. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen to get up and make such statements, they are very easily made. But, to seriously consider this as a business proposition ; I know something about these matters and I know that twenty-one years is more likely to be the term asked for before companies will go in and place themselves in a position to furnish power. The ten years we have arranged for is a reasonable period. The price charged is very moderate, and I venture to make the statement that there is not anywhere in Canada a more provident contract entered into in regard to electric light.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. minister allow- me to tell him that in the present time in the village of Flesherton there is a contract running at $8 per horse-power for five years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would be for a very small quantity.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then a larger quantity ought to be cheaper. I will say to the hon. minister that if he will look into this matter carefully in the next few days I will guarantee him that he will not repeat the statements he made before taking his seat. I am quite w-illing that the statement which I have made to the committee shall be compared with the minister's statement and jl will leave the people of the country to draw their own conclusions.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that this item is to put in the plant ? Is any of it for power, and do I understand the hon. minister to say that the plant will cost a total of about $200,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $250,000.	.


Richard Blain: The plant will cost $250,000 to light the whole Welland canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $250,000 will equip the whole Welland canal with electrical plant.



[Stage Direction]
I Mr. BLAIN. I want to draw the hon. minister's attention to the statement that was made when this matter was introduced into the House last year. I want the hon. gentleman's attention.
Henry Robert Emmerson: I am trying to give the hon. gentleman my attention. I do not wish to show any discourtesy to my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: This was introduced last year for the first time and the reference to it will be found at page 12,900 of ' Hansard ' as follows :
Welland canal, to provide electric light plant, $44,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is this being done bycontract and has the contract been let ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It will be done hut the work is not yet commenced. We propose to take in this item $55,000 but we have asked in the supplementary estimates a further sum of $45,000, making the estimated cost of the whole undertaking $100,000, which we believe will furnish a complete electric light plant for the whole canal. This estimate is made on the report of an electrL cal engineer. We expect the work will be done by contract.
Mr. EMMERbuN. Yes, that is all right; that is for the electric lighting part of it, but there is another part, the power to operate the gates and machinery all along the canal. There is $100,000 for electric lighting and $150,000 for all of the other.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman say how much the electric light plant Will cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: $250,000 will be required for the electric lighting and power plant. The power plant represents $150,000 and the electric lighting plant represents $100,000, the two representing $250,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: May I ask the hon. minister when he expects to complete this power and electric lighting plant ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was hoped to have it completed by the 1st of July this year, but on account of some delays on the part of the contractors and of disappointment in getting material from some of the manufacturers, delay has occurred. We are urging the work forward as fast as possible.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am afraid I have not understood the hon. gentleman. I understood the hon. gentleman entered into a contract for ten years at $14 per horse power. Wrill he again explain that ? If the lighting is to cost $100,000 and the government is to 'pay $150,000 for the power plant, where does this contract come in for ten years at $14 per horse-power ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the power we get to operate this electric lighting and power plant. We are getting the power from the Lincoln Electric Light Company. We Mr. EMMERSON.
provide all the machinery and plant and we simply take the power from them.


Andrew B. Ingram: Now, we have it perfectly plain. It is $100,000 for lighting, $150,000 for installing the power plant and you have entered into a contract for furnishing power at $14 per horse-power for ten years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated that the contract was to commence on the 1st July. What I meant was that it was to commence when we require the power.


Andrew B. Ingram: As soon as you have the plant finished ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, from the time we take the power.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister has given an explanation that seems to be satisfactory. He has made a distinction between the power for working the gates and the lighting.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That distinction was made in the remarks of last year. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance then explain-ted that he would require $100,000 for the electric lighting plant. This year we ask for electric lighting and power plant $200,000 and then there will be $50,000 which we will have to provide for in the supplementary estimates.


Richard Blain: That is a further explanation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I made that explanation some time ago.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has stated that last year the hon. Minister of Finance .made it quite plain that there would be an electric lighting plant and that the electric lighting plant would cost $100,000 which money was voted. Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us why he puts into this item the electric lighting plant ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why not put it in ?


Richard Blain: The hon. Minister of Finance last year said that to provide the electric light plant for the Welland canal there would be required $100,000. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals now says that that will complete the electric lighting plant. The $100,000 was voted. Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to tell us why he is now including in this item a sum of money for the electric light plant when it was stated that the $100,000 voted last year would equip the lighting [plant ? The item we have before us reads:
Welland electric lighting and power plant, $100,000.
If the hon. Minister of Finance was correct in his statement last year, and if the money voted last year was put into this

plant, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals should strike out the words ' electric lighting plant,' and say ' power plant, $150,000.' .


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; the sums merge together. They are interwoven. It is all connected with the Welland canal. Surely we are not going to split hairs at this time of the night.
Mr. BLA1N. We are not splitting hairs. It is my hon. friend who is splitting hairs.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not splitting hairs; i am only splitting up the electric lighting from the power.


Richard Blain: That statement was made last year, that this estimate was made on the report of an electrical engineer. Are we to understand that when the electrical engineer was instructed to examine the Welland canal preparatory to the installation of an electric lighting plant there was nothing considered about a power plant at all ? I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to give us the two reports of the electrical engineer, the one for the plant for the electric lighting of the canal and the other for the power plant ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think these reports wore furnished to the House last year when the matter was discussed, but I shall be very happy to furnish them again.


Mr BLAIN.: There will be no mistake about it? The minister will furnish the two reports to which I have referred ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think they are both included in one.


Richard Blain: And the estimates given by the electrical engineer for the separate works ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will give the whole thing.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister a fevv moments ago stated that the old system of lighting was insufficient. Has any accident ever occurred from defective lighting on the Welland canal during the long period it has been in operation ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not aware of any.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. minister says that complaints were made ; people mav complain against a thing that is Pt'!" fectly safe, but their complaints may not be well-founded.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Horse cars would have done us, I suppose ; we need not have had electric tramways. They got along at one time with tallow candles.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does my hon. friend seriously say that at one time there .vere horse cars running on the Welland canal ? The people of Canada want to have the expenditure of their money treated seriously. They do not want a burlesque in this House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not say anything about having horse cars on the Welland canal.


Richard Blain: We were talking about the Welland canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was endeavouring to illustrate to my hon. friend the fact that we could get along with gas.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have got a lot from the minister to-night.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was better to have tlio electric light, a.ucl the s<uue rule would apply on all the canals. They are using electric lights on canals everywhere.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The only reason which the hon. minister gives for incurring the large increase of expense necessitated by the use of electric lighting on the canal is that the demands of the shipping interests required that there should be electric light ; yet the minister confirms the information I had, that there never has been an accident upon the canal because of defective lighting. ^ Bearing that in mind, I would ask the minis- * ter if there is any other reason for placing this much larger burden on the people of Canada than the one which he gave ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What number of horsepower have you contracted for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot recall the number.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What portion of the year do you require to keep the electric lights going ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: During the season of navigation only, at the termini and at the bridges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What number of months is navigation usually open ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From about the 15th of April to about the middle of December,
I think.
Item allowed to stand.
Welland canal-to remove obstructions and make other improvements, $225,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a revote of $30,000 out of the vote last year of $217,000. The works include the : Deepening of the rock cut at Ramey's Bend : Total estimated cost. $100,000 ; voted for 1903-4, $75,000 ; required for 1904-5, $30,000 revote plus $25,000, in all $55,000. That will finish these works. There is also the removal of the centre piers of three bridges ; Allanburg bridge-estimated cost. $50,000 ; Marlatt s bridge, $50,000 ; bridge 11. the Grand Trunk Railway, Thorold, $70,000 ; in all, $170,000. The total expenditure for removing obstructions up to the 30th of June, 1903,wa* $94,122.98 ; expended from the 30th ot

June, 1903, to the 1st of May, 1901, $97,375.55 ; total amount expended up to the 1st of May, 1904, $191,498.53. The deepening of the rock cut at Ramey's Bend is made necessary by the fact that Lake Erie has been gradually lowering for some years.


John Graham Haggart: It is rising now, isn't it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is just now ; but it has been gradually lowering for some years.


John Graham Haggart: How much lower is it at the present time than the standard level on which the entrance to Port Colborne was based ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The rock cut is being deepened two feet, giving 17 feet of water at ordinary level of Lake Erie and 15 feet at low water. The work is being done by contract. The contractors are Waddell, Battle & Manley ; the rate per yard is $2.90. The lowest tender was accepted. The water level has dropped as low as 4 feet below what was known as low level.


John Graham Haggart: This excavation is still needed a couple of feet lower ?


Mr. HENDERSON.: Yes, and that is an extreme drop. The averag drop has not been so great. At any stage under these conditions there will be fourteen feet of navigation.


John Graham Haggart: With the present mitre sills in the locks, if the water is lower by 4 feet than was contemplated when the canal was built, then the deepening you propose to do is only 2 feet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The engineer says that with the rock cut deepened 2 feet there will be 17 feet at ordinary water and 15 feet at low water. Five old centre pier bridges have been removed in the past two years at Ilumberstone, the Junction, Welland, Quaker bridge and Port Robinson : the Allanburg and Marlatt's bridge are the only ones remaining on the summit level, to be removed by the departement. Bridge 11 is a bridge built by the department in 1880 for the Grand Trunk Railway, and is operated by the department. It is very badly located and interferes with navigation. more than any other bridge on the canal.


John Graham Haggart: Does that finish the removal of all the obstructions ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it does not. There is the Niagara street bridge in St. Catharines and several others that have to come under my notice. We are doinsr the work gradually. It is necessary to re move these centre piers in order to give more freedom to the boats.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose when you allow a railroad to build a bridge over a canal and you choose afterwards to have it altered. you do it at your own expense ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a case like that with the Grand Trunk Railway Company at present. We are calling upon them to do that work. We do it with respect to this bridge because the Grand Trunk was there before the canal, that is, the new canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In connection with these bridges, are they to be given by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the work now being done is being done by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
To deepen portions of summit level between Port Colborne and Thorold, $100,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount required, and the depth ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The deepening of this portion of the canal'is rendered necessary, in order to maintain 14 feet navigation, bv the gradual lowering of Lake Erie. Two feet is being excavated from the bottom of the canal, giving 17 feet of water at normal level of Lake Erie and 15 at low water. McGann & Finn are the contractors ; rate, 38| cents per cubic yard. The estimated cost is as follows :
Amount expended to 30th June, 1903.. .$125,330
Voted for 1903-1904	loo'ooo
Required for 1903-1904	 ioo'oOO
Unprovided balance to	complete	 124,670
Total	$450,000'


John Graham Haggart: So that that portion of tlie canal, Lake Erie level, is lower than the depth of water on the mitre sill ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it got filled in.


John Graham Haggart: If it was lower than that, you would have to lower the mitre sill also.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They did lower the mitre sill four feet the year before last.


Andrew B. Ingram: Was there not some talk of doing something at the Niagara river with a view of deepening the water at Buffalo, and would not that have the effect of lowering the water in the Welland canal ? The press of Buffalo is'agitating for some action with the view of preventing the lowering of Lake Erie.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Americans are
talking that way.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would not the deepening of the water at Buffalo have some effect in keeping the same depth of water we have now at the Welland canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not given the matter very much study, and the opinion I might express might not be of value to the committee.


John Graham Haggart: Y'ou deepen the mitre sill at the lake entrance four feet. Does

this improvement take effect on the reaches at the entrance below the mitre sill ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are not a foot lower than the mitre sill. That was lowered.


John Graham Haggart: When do the reaches get to the level of the mitre sill that was lowered ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: When they are two feet below the old mitre sill.


John Graham Haggart: Then the mitre sill of the lock coming into these reaches will be two feet lower than the reaches. What is the object of that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: When they had to water out, they put it down to that level.


John Graham Haggart: For the purposes of navigation there ought to be an average in the reaches of at least two feet more depth than the mitre sill of the lock. You have lowered the mitre sill of the lock four feet. I want to know what you have deepened the reaches. I understand you have deepened them two feet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Have you lowered the lock at the other end of the reach to the depth to which you have lowered it at the entrance ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is being lowered now.


John Graham Haggart: Then you contemplate to lower the whole of these reaches to at least one foot lower than the mitre sill of the lock at some time or other, and the new lock that is lowered you lower to the level of the mitre sill coming out at Lake Erie ?


John Dowsley Reid: SYhat is the policy of the government in so far as the deepening of the Welland canal is concerned ? There has been an agitation to have it deepened to 17 feet. At present the government have deepened the entrance at Port Colborne so that a vessel drawing 17 feet of water can come into the entrance of the Welland canal. A vessel, therefore, if the Welland canal had 17 feet navigation, could go through that canal and carry about 100,000 bushels ; but as the depth is only 14 feet, she can only load 60,000 or 65,000 bushels of grain. If you had the extra depth, the vessels could load at Duluth or Port Arthur and proceed to Kingston where they could lighten. The freight rates are higher, of course, on account of the smaller cargoes, and I would like to know if the government have formed any policy in so far as this is concerned ? The public are anxious to know this, more especially as the Americans are contemplating enlarging the- canal from Buffalo to New York. Another matter which I have brought to the attention of the government from year to year is this. Even
though they should undertake to deepen the Welland canal, ae 1 have suggested, it would take five or six years to complete that work, and during all that time we would not enjoy the advantage of the additional depth. ' in so far as getting trade through the St. Lawrence route instead of its going by Buffalo is concerned. I suggested that if the government would take over that small line of railway from Port Colborne to Port Dalhousie and operate it and lighten the vessels at Port Colborne and give them the grain again at Port Dalhousie, they could make it part of the canal system.
The expense of operating this railway would not be very large-not even as great as the interest on the money needed to enlarge the canal. And, by the adoption of my suggestion we would be able to immediately notify the trade that we were prepared virtually to give them the 17-t'oot navigation throughout the canal by lightering at Port Colborne and taking on again at Port Dalhousie. Of course, this was done years ago, and it is done now if the freights are sufficiently large for the vessel to be able to afford it. But, during the greater part of the season of navigation, freight from Port Arthur to Montreal is about three cents a bushel, and, as this railway charges from H cents to 2 cents for lightering, it does not pay the vessel to take that extra quantity of grain off, because they do not make anything out of it. I do not know whether the hon. minister has ever considered this idea. I have brought it up year after year. It may be he can give us some information as to whether there is a chance of the government taking it up, or he may tell us what the policy of the government is in deepening the canal. As the hon. minister knows even the smallest trifle will have its effect in deciding the routing of grain. Even one-sixteenth of a cent per bushel will decide the route. Taking off the canal tolls appeared a small concession, and yet the result was seen in the great increase in the quantity of grain that passed through the Welland and St. Lawrence canals. The suggestion that I make, if carried into effect, I believe, would double the tonnage coming by the St. Lawrence route.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Naturally, I have not had much opportunity to study these questions. But the whole question is under consideration in connection with the proposed improvemets at Port Colborne. Of course. I cannot give my hon. friend any idea of what the ultimate result will be.


Richard Blain: Have we at present a 14-foot navigation on the Welland canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, 14 feet on the mitre sills.


John Graham Haggart: One of the locks, by mistake, was put above the level and there is not the 14-foot navigation on the long

stretch from Lake Erie. The minister is deepening it to give the 14-foot depth.


Haughton Lennox: In connection with what the minister said about considering the question-no doubt this matter will be dealt with by the Transportation Commission. Can the minister tell us when we may expect a report from that Commission ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Commission is now visiting different points. They have made an interim report with respect to one section of the country, and it is expected that there will be one covering the Port Colborne section, as they recently went there and made a thorough investigation.


Haughton Lennox: Which section have they reported on ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have made an interim report with respect to the port of St. John. They started by going to St. John and Halifax.


Richard Blain: Was the lowering of the mitre still done by contract or by day labour ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: By day labour.


Richard Blain: What was the total cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Between $11,000 and

Welland canal-improvements at Port Colborne entrance, $300,000.


John Graham Haggart: This it an item on which there will be a discussion. We want a full explanation of the scheme.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then, I think we have gone as far as we can.


Haughton Lennox: Before the committee rises I would ask the minister if he would kindly leave one item on the Trent Valley canal for discussion until Wednesday. I am obliged to be absent on Monday and Tuesday.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the adjournment of the House.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister be good enough to tell us what business will be taken up on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not seen the Prime Minister, but I understood that the intention was to take up Bills on Monday. If there is any change I will see to it that notice is sent to the leader of the opposition. I think several ministers will be absent, and the Minister of Railways will be unable to continue on his estimates. So, the intention is to take up some Bills.


John Graham Haggart: Any Bill in particular.


John Graham Haggart: 


William Stevens Fielding: The most important is the Militia Bill.


John Graham Haggart: I see that that is to be dropped ?


William Stevens Fielding: Is that dropped ? My bon. friend (Mr. Haggart) may know, but I have not been informed to that effect.


John Graham Haggart: Then, the Militia Bill may come up ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it likely. All Bills on the Order Paper will be open.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 11th, 1904.