1904-07-15

Mr. O. E. TALBOT.: I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Marcil, of Bonaventure :
That Bill (No. 120) respecting the Montreal Terminal Railway 'Company be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for further consideration.
He said :	In respectfully asking the
House permission to refer this Bill back to the Railway Committee, I hope I will be allowed to give a few words of explanation. AVhen this Bill was printed the name of Mr. Demers, of Iberville, was by error put on the back of it. I was asked by the promoters of the Bill to take charge of it. When I left Ottawa for camp, it was agreed and understood that this Bill would not come up in the Railway Committee before Thursday, July 14. I returned from camp on Monday, was called down to Montreal by telegram on Tuesday, and much to my surprise when I returned Wednesday afternoon I was toid that the Bill had been thrown out on Wednesday morning by the Hailway Committee. I was not present in the Railway Cornmit-216J
tee, but I have heard that strong objection had been taken to the Bill on account of the further and extensive powers asked by the company, and that if the promoters had been satisfied with asking an extension of time to enable them to go on with their work and carry out the powers already granted them by parliament there would have been no objection. I have had an opportunity of seeing several members who voted against the Bill in the committee, and they have told me that they are now prepared to support any motion for further consideration, provided clauses 1, 2 and 3 are dropped, and that the only clause submitted for consideration will be that referring to the extension of time. I have every (reason to believe that if the House is good enough to grant this motion, it will meet with general approval.


Mr. T. C. CASGRAIN.: I took part in the discussion of this Bill in the Railway Committee, and I may say that I have since met several of the gentlemen who are interested both for and against the Bill. I believe that an understanding has been arrived at by which this Bill is to be referred back to the Railway Committee with the distinct understanding that the only clause to be taken into consideration is the fourth clause, extending the time for carrying on the work.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That is the understanding.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: That is the agreement between the parties?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill referred back to the committee.

Mr. W. S. CALVERT.: In the absence of the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. R. F. Sutherland) I beg to move :
That Bill (No. 155) for the relief of Annie Christman he placed on the orders of the day for second reading on Monday next.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: I beg to move :
That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the 22nd report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, all rules respecting private Bills be suspended in reference to Bill No. 150 to amend the Act passed during the present session to incorporate the ThorOld and Lake Erie Railway Company ; and that the said Bill be placed on the order paper this day among private Bills" for consideration in Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to know from the government when we shall have all government legislation and all government estimates before the House ? I brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister three of four weeks ago, and I was fihen informed that a statement would be made. I believe that statement was made some time afterwards, but I am not quite sure it has been actually adhered to, and possibly there are other government measures which were not contemplated at that time, although I do not think any should be brought down which were not then announced. However, no doubt the Prime Minister is able to make a complete and accurate statement to us now. It is certainly time that all government measures were brought before the House ; it is certainly time all railway subsidies, if any, were brought before the House ; and it is certainly time that government estimates, whether for the ensuing year or the present year, were before the House-that is, if we propose to finish the session at any reasonable date. It is for that reason that I now bring the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: When my hon. friend called my attention to this matter some time ago, I stated that it was not the intention of the government to bring any more legislation this session, except perhaps a few matters of purely departmental character. I may say to my hon. friend that it is not contemplated by the government to introduce any more legislation of any kind whatever, except what is to-day on the order paper, with this exception: that as I have already stated, it is the intention of the government to bring some legislation with regai d to the acquisition of the Canada Eastern Railway. That has not yet been given notice of, but everything else contemplated by the government has been given notice of. The Bills which are contemplated to be introduced have all been given notice of and stand on the order paper for first reading, which I expect will be given them either on Monday or Tuesday. With regard to railway subsidies, as at present advised and I think I can safely say, it is not the intention of the government to bring any railway subsidies this year ; perhaps some legislation may be introduced with regard to existing subsidies, but no new subsidies at all. With regard to the estimates, my hon friend is quite right in saying that it is time we should have them, and I hope to have them probably on Tuesday next without committing myself absolutely ; certainly Tuesday or the day after.


Mr. SPROULE.: The order paper instead of growing smaller appears to be growing larger. There are five Bills to be introduced Mr. WRIGHT.
by the government and five resolutions, which mean five Bills more to be founded upon them. One of the most important Bills of the whole session will be, I have no doubt, the Canada Eastern Railway Bill. In my judgment a Bill of that importance should net be brought into the House at the tail end of the session, because it makes it utterly impossible for members of parliament to institute such inquiry as they ought to, in order to enable them to deal with it intelligently. They have not time to do it because it is rushed through in a few days. This is too important a measure to be allowed to pass this House in this way, and I respectfully submit fihat if it is the intention of the government to deal with that question it should have been brought down at an earlier date. It is an injustice to the House and to the country as well, that we are called upon to deal with a Bill of that importance, at a time it is utterly impossible to do so with the care that we ought to exercise in the interests of all.



NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.

Mr. C. E. ICAULBACH.: 1 desire to bring to the notice of the government a matter in connection with Newfoundland. It is rumoured that the British and Newfoundland governments have reached an agreement regarding the Fisheries Regulations, under the provisions of the Anglo-French Colonial Treaty, and that a compromise has been made by Newfoundland. Will the government kindly inform the House if it has any knowledge of such an agreement, and if so, as to what is the nature of it. My disposition is to ascertain to what extent it will affect the fishermen of the maritime provinces visiting Newfoundland in the prosecution of their industry.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend that I am not aware that we have received any communication on this subject, but I shall make further inquiries. If we have received any communication I see no reason why it should not be brought down.



WITHDRAWAL OF MILITIA AT SYDNEY.

Mr. E. F. CLARKE.: Might I ask the Prime Minister if he can give to the House any information as to the causes which led to the withdrawal of the militia forces from Sydney and the substitution of the regular military forces of Canada in their place ? Would he also inform the House if there has been any concerted action by the government and the naval authorities in sending a man of war from Halifax to Sydney ? Reports to this effect have appeared in the newspapers during the past week.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the reports are not exactly accurate, but I would

not venture to make any statement now. I shall ask the Minister of Militia and give the information later on.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: Might I inquire whether I correctly understood the Prime Minister in regard to the legislation of this session ? Am I to understand that everything that will he introduced in the way of legislation now appears upon the order paper either in the form of notice of motion or under the item of introduction of Bills, and, further, that so far as railway subsidies or aid to railways is concerned, the only measure proposed is one for the purpose of continuing subsidies which have already been granted in the past ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) that it is not the purpose of the government to grant any new subsidies this year.


Robert Laird Borden: Or aid ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Or aid. The legislation which is already on the order paper or announced is all that is contemplated except perhaps a Bill of which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will give the particulars.


Mr. FIELDING.: My right hon. friend the Prime Minister informs me that he omitted to mention a possible amendment to the Banking Act. It is a matter of a technical character arising out of the fact that one of our banks is operating in the West Indies. The Bill is a purely formal one and if it is introduced I am sure it will not be a matter of contention.



DELAY AT PRINTING BUREAU.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA.: Might I call the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to the delay in the work at the Printing Bureau. The lists for my county were brought down in the month of December. and I was promised by the King's Printer that I would receive them at the end of January. We are now nearly at the end of July and I have not heard of them yet. Some time ago I called at the Bureau to inquire and saw Mr. Smith who has charge of the printing. Mr. Smith seems to be an efficient officer but he explained to me that it was impossible during the session to look after the lists with the facilities at their disposal. If we are to have six or eight month sessions and if during that time the printing of the lists will be delayed, a great deal of inconvenience will be caused, and it seems to me that if the government cannot have the work done at the Printing Bureau they should see that the lists are printed outside.


Wilfrid Laurier: It has, I think, been found that it is preferable that the lists should be printed at the Printing
Bureau. I am sorry to say that the capacity of the Bureau is not adequate to the requirements of the business. I think that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) has the intention to ask parliament for an appropriation for extending the space available at the Bureau, and with the increased space it may be possible to give satisfaction to my hon. friend who is not by any means the only complainant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Wait until the new building is up and you will get them all right.



TEMISCOUATA RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 144) to amend the Act of the present session respecting the Temiscouata Railway Company-Mr.	Fitzpatrick-was
read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that Bill was to be sent to the Railway Committee.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: It is a Bill simply to correct an error caused by an omission by the clerk of the Ralway Committee.
Mi-. SPROULE. It establishes a precedent for doing the same thing with other Bills that might go further.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is perfectly immaterial to me but it seems to me that it would be an unnecessary waste of time for the House or the committee to discuss the Bill.
On section 1,


Mr. TISDALE.: What is the nature of the amendment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the original Bill I introduced, provision was made that this company might dispose of the railway to a certain number of companies, and among the companies named in the original Bill was the Canadian Northern Railway. There were a great many others. When the Bill came before the Railway Committee and was reported to the House, the name Canadian Northern Railway was omitted by clerical error, and it is proposed now to insert it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I draw attention to the rule of the House, which provides :
Every private Bill, when read a second time, is referred to the standing committee charged with the consideration of such Bill.
I do not know whether the committee charged with the responsibility of looking into the question has passed on it or not. Does the minister say it did ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At any rate, it is not intended to allow the committee to get such information as is necessary to enable it to determine whether it is right or not to re-

commend the privilege asked for. That is one objection. The other is that we are departing from the rule we invariably follow, and when we break a rule our custom is to cite that action as a precedent. We should be jealous of our rules ; and if in this instance the delay would trot imperil the passing of the measure, it seems to me we ought to follow the rule.


Wilfrid Laurier: No one will dispute the correctness of the views which have been stated by my hon. friend, but I would ask him if there is any occasion to apply the rule on the present occasion. The Minister of Justice has told us that this Bill is simply to correct a clerical error by supplying the omission of words which were in the Bill when passed by the Railway Committee, but which afterwards were left out by an error of the clerk. This was brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice by the clerk himself. Nobody disputes this statement. If the statement of fact were disputed, the advice of my hon. friend should prevail ; but as it is not, I cannot see why we should refer the Bill to the Railway Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the allegation of fact be correct, I do not see that there should be any objection, but the Minister of Justice says he has no personal knowledge, and I personally am in the same position.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are members of the Railway Committee on both sides of the House. The statement has been made openly and no one has challenged it, so that we may accept it as true beyond doubt.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not make the statement of my personal knowledge, but on information given me by the clerk ot the Railway Committee, who asked me to introduce this Bill. I have read a letter from him to that effect, which I read to the House when I introduced it. That letter will be found on page 5577 of ' Hansard.'


Robert Laird Borden: That should remove any objection.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



NATURALIZATION AND ALIENS ACTS -AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FITZPATRICK moved second reading of Bill (No. 147) to amend the Acts relating to Naturalization and Aliens. He said : As I explained on the first reading, this is intended to meet a difficulty in the province of Quebec. Under the law application must be made to the circuit court of the district. This court sits at the chief place in the district and in addition at other places. The clerks .in the circuit court, in order, I suppose, to avoid unnecessary labour, contend that applications for naturalization must Mr. SPROULE.
be made at the chief place or shire town, and cannot be made at other places where the court sits. Since introducing this Bill, it has attracted attention in the province of Manitoba, and I have a letter from the exchief justice of that province, Judge Killam, in which he suggests an amendment of a similar nature applicable to that province. Let me read his letter :
Winnipeg, 9th July, 1904.
Dear Sir,-Observing that you have introduced a Bill to amend the Naturalization Act, I desire again to call your attention to some points which I mentioned to you some time ago, when I was Chief Justice of Manitoba.
By section 11 of the Act, Revised Statutes Canada, chapter 113, the naturalization certificate is to he presented (in Manitoba) to the Court of Queen's (now King's) Bench during its sitting in the eounty in which the alien resides, or to the court of assize, &e., or to the county court of such county.
There are now no courts of assize and ' nisi prius ' in the province. There are sittings of the Court of King's Bench for commercial and jury trials twice each year in each judicial district (which, under the interpretation clause is the * county ').
There are weekly sittings of the Court of King's Bench at Winnipeg for non-jury trials, also weekly sittings for motions and legal arguments. These have always been considered sittings within the Naturalization Act and many naturalization certificates have been brought up and read at these.
At times, at trial sittings, many parties are present as witnesses. But often at these, and usually at the other sittings there are only a few lawyers.
The reading of such certificates at these sittings gives no publicity and is often a great nuisance to the judge, the officials and those having business before the court.
I would suggest that all such certificates be presented in the county courts. This affords a far better chance of securing publicity among the neighbours of the alien, the sole object of such reading.
Chief Justice Killman sends me a draft-clause which he suggests as a substitute for that relating to Manitoba, which is as follows :
Said section 11 is further amended by striking out line 20 to 26 both inclusive and substituting the following :-' In Manitoba to the county court having jurisdiction where the alien resides or if there be no county court having jurisdiction there, then to some other county court in the province.
This amendment I will move when the Bill reaches committee.
Thomas Chase Casgrain: If I understand the object of this amendment of the law with regard to Quebec, then, taking the example given by the hon. minister (Mr. Fitzpatrick) the alien may be naturalized on applying to the circuit court in any town in which the circuit court sits, and is not obliged to apply at the sitting in the chef lieu, or chief town of the district. I think

that is all right. But I would call the attention of the hon. minister to the second clause which makes the law retroactive, from and including 13th August, 1903. I .suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) will give us some explanation and reasons for the introduction of this retroactive .clause.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not the statute here, and cannot refer to Jt, but the object of this second section is to give effect to any naturalization certificates which may have been issued in the interval by some of the circuit courts sitting outside the chef lieu.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: To explain my own position, I may say that I have never entertained any doubt that these petitions could be presented at the circuit court sitting anywhere in the district. But the difficulty is that the clerks of the court, over whom we have no jurisdiction, to save themselves the labour of these certificates, for which they get no remuneration, insist on the
work being done at the headquarters of the court.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: If the House will bear with me, I would call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that retroactive legislation is objectionable in principle. I suppose I can get the assurance of my hon. friend (Mr. Fitzpatrick) that it does not interfere with any action of law pending before the court.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot give that because I do not know. We might protect that point by amending the clause to provide that it shall not interfere with any question now in litigation. But I cannot say that there is no litigation.


Robert Laird Borden: This, of course, is objectionable on the face of it-


Charles Fitzpatrick: I quite agree.


Robert Laird Borden: And possibly it would be better to add some clause such as the minister suggests. I do not know that I quite gather how this particular date of 13th August, 1903, was arrived at.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: This was the day on which the Act of last session was assented to. Of course, I am not contending that the present law ought to be changed. I simply pointed out that where it was printed in the old Act ' circuit ' in ' which the alien residesf it v*rcis printed in tiie A.ct of lB.st year ' district.' The petitions I referred to, presented last year to the judge of the circuit court under this law, he would not receive, because he said they ought to be presented at the chef lieu.


Robert Laird Borden: The answer is perfectly satisfactory. The date is that on which the Act of last session became law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read a second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
2. The circuit courts in and for territorial divisions of districts aud counties in the province of Quebec are hereby declared to have had jurisdiction under the Naturalization Act, as so amended, on and since the thirteenth day of August, 1903, as if the said section 11 had been enacted by chapter 38 of the statutes of 1903 in the form of that section as amended by this Act.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It has been moved to amend section 2 by inserting ' Provided this clause shall not affect any pending action or proceeding.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	.
Charles Fitzpatrick: I move to add the following as clause 3:
Said section 11 is further amended by striking out the lines from 20 to 26, both inclusive, and substituting the following :-
In Manitoba, to the county court having jurisdiction where the alien resides, or if

there be no county court having jurisdiction there then to some other county court in the province.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) has suggested to me that t*he latter part of the clause might be modified with advantage to the effect that the other county court referred to should be the nearest county court.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I agree to that.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not exactly the language, but the idea may be there.


Charles Fitzpatrick: He means the adjoining district ?


Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What he wants is to go into the courts of the nearest district to the place where the man resides. I wish to amend this suggested amendment in such a way as to provide that if there is no county court within the district where the alien resides, then the application is to be made to the nearest county court within the place where he resides ; and for the purpose of preparing the proper amendment I would move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.	'



REVISED STATUTES-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 154) to amend chapter 61 of the statutes of 1903, respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada-Mr. Fitzpatrick-was lead the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
Charles Fitzpatrick: Section 4 of the present statute reads as follows:
The Governor in Council, after such deposit of the said last mentioned roll, may by proclamation declare.
There is only one roll, therefore the use of the words ' last mentioned ' Is unnecessary.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think that this is a proper amendment. I have not specially examined the statute of last year, but I may say to the hon. Minister of Justice that under a somewhat similar statute in the province of Nova Scotia a very curious condition has arisen. Perhaps he may have heard something of it. It seems that a roll in exact conformity with the report of the commissioners with certain additions and corrections taken from the statutes of the same year was prepared ? In the margin of that some person had pencilled a word. It had been in the former statute, but it had been omitted from that statute by subsequent legislation. The statute of the province providing for the roll was to the effect that after the roll was prepared by the commissioners and after it was printed it


Charles Fitzpatrick: should toe signed by the Governor and the provincial secretary and that it should be regarded as the original roll. When it was printed it was printed with the inclusion of this pencilled word in the margin and the result was that very important litigation arose which was recently determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the litigation another point arose which is worthy of consideration at the present time; that is to say whether or not the printed roll so provided for by the statute and signed by the government and provincial secretary would have the same force and effect as the roll of parliament, or whether it could be controverted by evidence which could not be introduced to controvert. If the roll of parliament as finally signed and verified by the officers of parliament and the Governor himself could be shown by the most indisputable evidence to differ in any respect from the legislation' as it had passed the committees of this House or had pased the third reading of this House and the Senate, you could not controvert it by any evidence of that kind because it imputes absolute verity. I would think that, taking every precaution to make sure that the roll shall be absolutely correct, it is desirable in this statute, if it has not already been done, to make it absolutely clear that the roll so signed by the proper authorities named in this statute shall impute the same verity and shall be as binding and conclusive as the roll of parliament itself would be.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not quite sure whether these amendments have been suggested as a result of the difficulty which occurred in the province of Nova Scotia to which my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has referred, but I may say that these amendments have been prepared as a result of a report made to me by three gentlemen who went over this roll and who were appointed a sub-committee by the commission for that purpose. These gentlemen were Mr. Newcombe, Mr. Roscoe, and Mr. Sirois. These three careful and painstaking gentlemen having examined the roll have suggested these amendments.


Mr. GOURLEY.: How far have they got with the revision ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I had expected to be called upon to make a statement when I brought down my estimates in connection with the item which I will have to submit to the House. Then I will be able to give all the details to my hon. friend, but I may say that the work is very far advanced and that I think early within the next year the whole matter will be disposed of.
On section 3,


Robert Laird Borden: What is the effect of that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In one section they called it 'the last roll' and in the other ' the amended roll.'
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Welland canal-electric lighting and power plant, $100,000.
['I think the clause was somewhat hastily drawn, and it was thought well after by the Senate Committee and after consultation with the Railway Department it was thought well to make this amendment.\nMotion agreed to and amendments concurred in.']
Mr. INGRAM.: I notice that under the contract the government takes 500 horsepower and it may be extended to 700.


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Yes, if we require it.
I do not think the original arrangement with the Lincoln Company was by tender, but tenders have been called for all the materials required.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What materials do you require ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They only supply the power under that contract, but we have to install the plant ; and everything is included in this vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the price per horse-power ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Mr. BLAIN.: This contract is for the supply of horse-power only 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Richard Blain: Last session the government explained that the supplies for the electric plant would be obtained by tender.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has been done. Mr. BLAIN. Who were the tenderers ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Canadian General Electric Company, the Packard Electric Company, the Canadian Westinghouse Company ; there were quite a number. All the materials were not purchased from the one concern. Some prices were lower on some articles than on others, and I selected from the tenders the articles that were quoted at the lowest prices.


Richard Blain: What will the total construction of the electric plant, when complete, cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The estimate given by 'Mr. Parke, the electrical expert, of the lighting and the power plant is $250,000. It will not be exceeded I understand.


Richard Blain: When will it be completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It should have been completed this month, but these companies have failed to come to time.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is the government under any obligation to the contractors for power,
in case the plant is not constructed by a certain time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, when we are ready to take the horse-power we will pay for it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What horse-power do you require for moving the gates, &c., in contradistinction to the power used in generating the electricity for the lights ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We require hardly 400 horse-power for the lights alone and the balance of the 500 will be required for the gates and bridges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many lights have you ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About 500 lights of 2,000 candle-power requiring about three-quarters of a horse-power to a light.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What length is the canal that you are lighting ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Twenty-seven miles is the length of the canal and we are lighting it throughout.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does this complete the expense on the Welland canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, this completes the improvements. We have to take out the centre piers of the bridges that cross the canal. In the interests of navigation that becomes necessary. We are not doing that all at one time, but year by year as it becomes necessary we will do so. There is one in contemplation now at St. Catharines known as the Niagara street bridge. The centre pier will have to be removed and the present bridge replaced by a larger and heavier structure.


Mr. GERMAN.: I would like to call the attention of the minister to the question suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) as to Whether this will complete the expenditure in regard to the lighting on the Welland canal. I have been endeavouring to impress on the minister and I would like to impress on parliament this one fact that the proper thing for the government to do is to put in their own electrical plant and not to make any contract with any company. That is the cheapest way to do it ; there is water going to waste on the Welland canal in very large quantities. The government can install its own electrical plant, light the Welland canal and open and operate lock gates and bridges very much more cheaply in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of experts, than they are doing it under the contract which they have entered into now, although the contract which has been entered into is an exceedingly reasonable one so far as the prices are concerned. In view of what the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) has just stated. I beg to suggest that the proper thing to be done is for the government to install its own electrical

plant and use its own water-power for lighting the canal and operating the locks and bridges.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was the feature of it which attracted my attention. If we have power going to waste, why should we pay for power from_an outside corporation? The power we are paying for is water-power. I understand that the government put in their own plant but pay the company for power. What power is it if not water-power that they are paying for ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I suppose that the hon. gentleman from Welland is aware that this contract is for ten years. Is it not a fact that power is becoming cheaper from time to time in this district, and does not my hon. friend think that it is rather an unwise move to enter into a ten year contract for power of this kind when the price of power is being reduced very rapidly ? The plan advocated by the hon. gentleman (Mr. German), namely that the government operate the whole thing, might be very much cheaper he says and for that reason I think that entering into a ten year contract is not a good move. I think we could do better.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why enter into a contract with an outside company for power, if we have water going to waste which contains all the power we require ? Why not use the water going to waste on the Welland canal, install a plant there, operate the locks and bridges and canal and light it as well, in that way.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That might be done very rapidly but it would involve a large expenditure of money in order to utilize that power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How could it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not something lying there to be availed of at any moment. For the utilization of that water-power a mechanical arrangement is required and the expense is considerable ; I do not know how much. However, be that as it may, it stands in this position that a contract was entered into and we are now under contract to take so much power from the Lincoln Company, and we have to furnish a certain equipment along the line of the Welland canal in order to utilize the power that we thus secure from that company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you use your own power you would have to do no more than you are doing to-day. If you have the water penned up and the requisite pressure it simply requires a wheel to bring it into operation. Ail you would require then to connect that with your machinery is a water wheel. Every one knows that that is not a very expensive item. Then you have the power, and if I understand correctly you are installing your own dynamos and other Mr. GERMAN.
plant. Since the government must do that, why should they pay $14 per horse-power when they have so much power going to waste ? All they need do is to install the plant and utilize that power. You would then have your own power and would not be bound by any contract and could take advantage of every improvement to cheapen it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know as to the relative cost of furnishing the waterpower and purchasing it, but I am informed that the government, if they wanted to utilize the water-power along the Welland canal, would have to spend more than they are paying this company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you an engineer's report to that effect ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then that is just mere rumour.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is more that a rumour, it is a statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By whom ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: From the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That statement must be based on knowledge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: However, the contract is let, and that is only a statement with reference to the cost. It may or may not be correct. I certainly cannot vouch for it. But I can say that $14 per horse-power is certainly a very reasonable figure, as water-powers are leased in Canada to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may tell the hon. minister that I am interested in a contract for the supply of electric power, not only waterpower but the electric current as well, for $8 per horse-power, and we carry that five miles by wire.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Where is that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Right where I live. That is a very reasonable rate, and it show's that where water is plentiful power can be supplied very cheaply. The minister says the contract is let and of course there is a vested right, but I am arguing antecedent to the letting of the contract. I am contending that business prudence would have sug-gester the necessity of making ample inquiry and securing sufficient data to satisfy the minister that the power could not be furnished cheaper by using the water that is going to waste in the canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What is the date of the contract ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 5th of December is the date of the Order in Council.


Andrew B. Ingram: 1st of July, I think. The only point in this discussion is whether it would be cheaper for the government to generate their own power. That I think

we must admit. You are furnishing everything outside the power, and since you have to go to so much expenditure in furnishing plant, why not complete your plant and furnish your own power ? You would then have control for all time to come instead of being in the hands of a company. I am strongly of the opinion of the hon. member for Welland that that would be the right step to take in view of the enormous waterpower in the neighbourhood.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Personally the matter has not come under my notice as to whether it would be advisable or not to utilize that water-power, but it does occur to me that it could not be utilized without the expenditure of a very considerable sum in addition to what we are spending. I did not even make personal inquiry to ascertain whether there is ample power along the canal, because there has been no occasion for me to do so. And I am therefore not in a position to give an opinion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much have you let in that canal to outsiders ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a great deal under lease, and the leases go over many years. Water-powers are being applied for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there not still power, over and above what is leased, sufficient to do all the lighting of the canal and operate the gates and bridges ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think there could be some leased, but I have not had occasion to make inquiry, for the simple reason that we entered into a contract in 1902.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an excuse for the minister that he was not responsible at the time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not relieving myself of responsibility, but am simply drawing attention to the fact that personally I have not felt called upon to make inquiry.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister is assuming responsibility for what his predecessors did, he is responsible for their mistakes and blunders as well as successes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are selling power, I am told, in many cases at a merely nominal figure. Look at the power we sold on the [DOT]Cornwall canal. I venture toi say that there is over 1,000 horse-power, probably 2,000, on that canal, and we are selling it at $1,000 a year. That would not amount to SI a horse-power, yet we are buying it back at $63 horse-power. Can that be called good management ? What is the essential cost of the development of power ? It must be developed by steam or water-power. All through the country the great requisite is water-power, because then you save the cost of fuel and machinery for the generation of steam. Wherever you have water pent up you can generate power very cheaply. And it is a permanent power. We nave that power there, and we could sell it, or we would use it to generate electrical energy. But we lease the right to others tor a nominal figure, and then we buy back at a considerable figure the power which they generate by using the opportunities that we have leased to them. I am not saying that the price paid by the government is exorbitant; frankly, I do not think it is. But we could produce that power for our own use if we provided the proper means. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) says that it would be very costly machinery. The hon. minister is mistaken. Where you have the water already stored up, all you need is a pen-stock and a wheel. This will produce the power, and you can use that power to run a dynamo, a saw-mill or any other machinery. I contend that it does not show good business management for the head of a department to allow power to go to waste, and, at the same time, buy power from outsiders. And, especially, this does not show good business management when a contract is made for ten years to pay a certain rate per horse-power. No matter what inventions may be made to develop power cheaply, we are'compelled to pay,the same price under the contract. And if we find fault we are told that contracts are sacred, and, even if we can get the service at a cheaper rate, we must continue to pay the price agreed upon. I contend that the department should have had one of its engineers ascertain what power is available ; and, if enough power was going to waste to work the locks and bridges and generate electricity to light the canal, that power should have been used, rather than take power from an outsider under such a contract as this. In this case there seems ample evidence that we could supply the power at a rate much less than that we are paying. To say that is to say that the minister is not doing his duty in not having the investigation made to learn the best means of utilizing that power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Lincoln Company, of course, sell their power. But they had to spend a very large sum of money in order to develop that power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. Minister should not insist that it requires a large expenditure to utilize this power, now that the water is pent up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The power has to be developed, and that means a permanent investment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does the hon. minister mean by ' developed ' ? The first requisite in the making of a water-power is a dam, and that is often a very expensive work. But in this case the dams are all

made. The water is now running in the sluice-ways. It is only necessary to put in a wheel to utilize the power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But it means putting up buildings and installing machinery. I understand it requires a very large expenditure to develop water-power, and the mere fact that you have the water does not mean that you have power-you must harness it.


Mr. COCHRANE.: But the main expense of harnessing is the making of a dam, and that work is already done. Common sense must tell the minister, as it tells me, that when a company is furnishing power to the government the company must receive interest on its investment, and that the government is paying that interest in the price it pays for the power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I admit that I am not an authority on these points. I am glad of suggestions from my hon. friends.


Edward Cochrane: Then if the minister is not an authority, why does he not


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am modest enough to admit that I am not an authority, but my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) perhaps is not modest enough to admit the same concerning himself.


Edward Cochrane: The difficulty is that the minister admits too much. Of course, we do not expect the minister now to know everything about his department. But he has a competent staff, and they are there for the purpose of giving him information. And I am very strongly of opinion that no minister should come down here and ask the House to vote money -without proper information. There is no excuse for ignorance. If he has not been in his office long enough to learn it himself, his staff will furnish it for him. Does not the company that furnishes this power get that power from the water in the canal ? If so, they must put in the necessary machinery to develop the power, and on their investment they must receive interest. I do not think it requires such an enormous amount of capital. In the section in which I live there are immense water-powers, but to utilize them is an expensive matter, because in every case you must first build a dam. But once the dam is made the putting in of the machinery is an insignificant thing. I believe, and I think the committee feel, that the minister should take steps to find if he could not utilize the power now going to waste and at the same time save money to the country. I am not finding fault with the amount he is paying if he must buy the power. But if we can use the power that we now own and so avoid paying to somebody else, it should be an advantage to have this power harnessed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems that there has been no calculation made as to whether we can get power more cheaply by utilizing the Mr. SPROULE.
water that is going to waste in the canai. I do not call that good business management ; in fact, I think it is bad business management. The minister should make the same inquiry that a wise business man would make in such a case ; and I think that that might have been done before now.


William Manley German: The contract price for this power is $14 per horse-power. At Niagara Falls, New York, manufacturing companies are paying from $25 to $30 per horsepower for electric power delivered on the spot. There are three companies carrying on operations to develop electric power on the Canadian side at Niagara Falls. It is said that when they have finished the work of development which is now going on, which, I think, will be this fall-one of them, the Canadian Niagara Power Company, by December, at any rate-you will not be able to get power from them for less than from $15 to $20 per horse-power. Under those circumstances, it can hardly be said that the price charged the government by the Lincoln Company is too high. I quite agree, however, and must again insist, that the proper thing for the government to do is to develop the power itself. .
I quite agree with the idea that power should be given to the government to develop this power itself. I had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the late Minister of Railways and suggested to him that the government should put in plant and develop power rather than give the contract to a company ; but he thought that at that particular time it was more advisable to enter into the contract for ten years. We know that this very company has been urging strenuously on the government that the contract should be extended ; as a matter of fact people interested in the company have spoken to me about it, asking me if I would use my influence, if I had any, with the department to obtain a further extension of this contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They would like it for a hundred years.


William Manley German: No doubt. The price of powter will be lower, but I doubt if it will be lower within the life of the contract. I think $14 per horse-power during the life of this contract is probably about as low a figure as you could get power for. I would not be in favour of extending the contract, and I think that if the government can see its way to put in plant of its own and utilize the water that is going to waste on the Welland canal to develop power which will operate all the locks and bridges and furnish light on the canal, it would be the best thing to do in the public interest. I have made that statement before, and I am prepared to stand by it, because I do not think it can be controverted. As far as price is concerned, I think the price that is being paid now is reasonable. The hon.

member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) asked how much power was being used by manufacturers on the Welland canal. I venture to say there is 100,000 horse-power, probably more than that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Going to waste.


William Manley German: It is not wasted, it is in the canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is practically wasted as long as it is not used.
|Mr. GERMAN. We must have water there in order to have a canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would not the water run on just the same even though the power was not used ?


William Manley German: The hon. gentleman says it does not cost much to put in machinery. I can tell him that it costs an enormous sum of money to put in machinery. Go to the Westinghouse Company and ask them what is the cost of dynamos per horse-power necessary to light and operate the Welland canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought the minister said they put in the dynamos and the plant themselves.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was mistaken with respect to that, I had not the contract before me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As to the price of power, we paid that much for horse-power per annum already, before the contract.


William Manley German: It is $14 per horse-power per year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But that was not in use during the full year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: By the contract it is only paid proportionately, we do not have to pay for the whole year.


Richard Blain: Would the minister tell us about how much it will cost the government to supply the power for electric lighting and the horse-power, separately ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The estimated cost of installing the arc light system ?


Richard Blain: No, I am asking, when the $10,000 plant for both electric lighting and power is completed, what will be the total cost to the government of the power to be used for the gates, and the cost of the electric lighting separately.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I said to my hon. friend, the government expect to spend fully $250,000, and after expending that sum we will have a lighting plant and a power plant. Then we will be called upon to pay after that for the power generated by the Lincoln Company at the rate of $14 per horse-power.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Per annum ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At that rate per annum, in proportion to the length of time in each year that it is used.
iMr. BLAIN. The hon. gentleman has already told us that. What I am asking is, how much do the government expect it will cost to operate these two distinct plants when the work is done. The hon. gentleman has told us $14 per horse-power. 1 suppose the government will have some estimate made as to how much it will cost per year to supply the power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The cost will not exceed $7,000. We hope it will be within that sum.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the Orders of the Day were called, I asked the right hon. the Prime Minister if he could give the House ..any information with respect to the military situation at Sydney. There have been reports in the newspapers that the militia who had been sent on duty to that town have been withdrawn, and their places taken by the regular military force of the Dominion. It has also been stated that a warship has been sent round from Halifax. I would like to know from the Minister of [DOT] Militia what the facts are in connection with the trouble down there ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Gefence).: Under the provisions of the statute, three magistrates of Sydney, Cape Breton, one of them being the stipendiary magistrate of the town, made a request upon the district officer commanding at Halifax for assistance. The district officer at Halifax called out, in the first instance, the local militia,' which was not found to be adequate ; and later on he sent 200 men, I think, from the city of Halifax. As the difficulties continued, and appeared likely to continue for some time longer, and as these men were employed in Halifax in various ways and their absence was causing inconvenience, the district officer commanding asked headquarters to lend 100 men of the permanent force to go to Sydney and replace the active militia so that they might return to their homes and their work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many of the active militia were on duty ?


Frederick William Borden: About 200, I think. This was agreed to, upon condition that the money, necessary to pay the cost of transportation and all expenses, was deposited in the bank at Sydney to the credit of the Receiver General. Upon that being done, and the department being informed of the fact through the bank-and I may say the money was deposited by the three magistrates already mentioned-the troops were allowed to go. and are there now, under these conditions. With reference to the warship, I have no information at all. I was not aware

that a warship was there. I do know, however, that it is the custom of warships, British warships and others, to call occasionally at the port of Sydney. I presume this was merely one of the occasional calls.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am very glad to have the explanation of the minister in this matter. When the announcement was made that the regulars were being sent and that a warship was proceeding to Sydney, I feared the situation was more serious than it really is.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend from East Urey (Mr. Sproulej seemed to take exception to the purchase of power for lighting and operating the gates on the Welland canal, and he seemed to be of the opinion that the government might have utilized the powers which they have on the canal. It is well known that I was not personally cognizant of the transaction at the time, but I find on looking into the matter that the expert employed by the department at that time, in a report presented in November, 1902, sets forth his views. I will read this report to the committee. The expert is Mr. Roderick J. Parke, consulting electrical engineer of Toronto. The report is as follows :
Ottawa, Out., Nov. 2Sth, 1902.



The Hon.  A. G.@: Blair,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa.
Sir,-In accordance with your instructions I have examined and read the correspondence in the matter of the proposal by the Lincoln Electric Light and Power Company, Limited, of St. Catharines, Ont., to supply electrical power to the Dominion of Canada for the operation of electric arc lights along the canal and of electric motors at the various locks, bridges, shops, and so forth, on the canal, and I beg to submit my report herewith :-
The company propose to supply electrical power at the rate of fourteen dollars per horse-power for such amount of power as may be required to supply light for about 400 enclosed arc lamps of 2,000 candle power each, from the opening until the close of navigation, beginning May 1st, 1903, each year for ten years.
They further propose to supply power for about 100 lamps, all the year round for the water watch, presumably 2,000 candle power lamps for this service, and I further presume that the power required for the said 100 lamps is not to be added to the amount of power required for the total number of lamps (arc) in use during the season of navigation.
They further propose to supply any further power that may be called for in the future for operating lock gates and bridges and workshops at any time at the same rate per horse-power, namely, $14.


Frederick William Borden: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is there in that whole report, with the exception of one thing, that bears on the question of cost ? It says that because there is not sufficient power in one place this is a good plan and that the other plan would make it more costly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They would have to gather the power from all points and that would require a storage plant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It requires a plant at two points but that is all the report says. Would the hon. gentleman tell me what it costs per horse-power for supplying electrical power at the Soo where the government are supplying the power with their own plant ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not that information. My deputy tells me he cannot give it off-hand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has brought that report down and advanced it as an argument to show that the department in buying power from the company have done the wiser thing of the two.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Parke said it would cost less to take the power from the Lincoln Company at the rates offered than for the government to install its own power plant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The only reason he gave was because it would necessitate two plants.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is an expert, and I presume he would not make the statement without believing it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It should cost the government less than the company, because the company would have to pay interest on their capital and make a profit besides. It seems to me that where the government Uave wasted power at hand, it would cost less for them to utilize it than to rent power.
I suppose there was some friend of the government in this company urging for a contract, and I presume Mr. Parke was brought on to give some reason to justify the government in doing so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You should not be suspicious.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It appears to me that the government could have utilized the power to be obtained on the Welland canal just the same as they utilize it at the Soo, where they found it cheaper and better to supply their own power. The conditions at the two canals are similar.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed by the deputy minister that there was no company at the Soo at that time to supply power, and that the government was obliged to install a plant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know that they were prepared to supply power to others and why not to the government ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows of his own knowledge, but I have to take the statement of the deputy minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me it would have been the part of wisdom for the government to install their own power plant on the Welland canal where they have power to spare, as they did on the Soo canal. Owing to the deficiency of knowledge on the part of the minister he led us into the supposition that the government were installing all the plant on the Welland canal and that the company was selling only the actual power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I corrected that. 1 was under the impression in the first instance that that was so, but as soon as I found my mistake I corrected it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be well for the minister to read up his case before he comes to the House, and not waste time by giving wrong information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If you make a mistake it is just as well to correct it.


Richard Blain: Before one o'clock I asked the minister how much it would cost the government for the power for electric light, and how much for the power to operate the canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The estimate of the chief engineer was that the whole yearly cost of the power to be purchased would be about $15,000.


Richard Blain: How much for each separately ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As near as you can estimate it, it would be about $8,000 for lighting and about $7,000 for power.


Richard Blain: How does that compare with the present cost of lighting ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a contract for $10,000 and there would be something extra in addition to that. Of course the

difference in time in the operation of the locks should be taken into consideration ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do these 2,000 candle power lamps cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The arc lamps cost originally about $50 each with the transformer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I mean is : how much would each 2,000 candle power lamp cost per year according to the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a matter to be figured out on the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is valuable information because we know what each arc lamp costs in towns and cities and it is only by comparison that we can ascertain if the government is paying a fair price. The lamps on the Cornwall canal cost $108 a year, as nearly as I can figure out. These same lamps in towns throughout the country are supplied at from $50 to $75, the latter price applying where they run all night. I would like to know what they cost on the Welland canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sorry I cannot give the exact figures. But that will be seen from the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would think that an estimate would have been placed before the minister showing what would be the cost per lamp per annum. He has a long list of data there from the report of Mr. Parke, the electrical engineer, who says the price is reasonable. You can get such a statement as that for almost any contract the government wants to enter into.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the minister a question in reference to supplying material for this electric 'light plant. Mr. Parke, in his estimate, says that it will require 75.000 pounds of No. 6 bare copper at 16 cents per pound, a total of $12,000, to complete that work. The minister made the statement that he received tenders for the supply of these goods, and I would like him to state the price that was paid for this copper wire.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My memory does not carry that figure, but I have sent for the information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would also like to have a statement of what these lights cost per year each.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is in the contract. The cost for each light is dependent on the circumstances and conditions. The number in operation at one time will govern the cost for that particular night.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do not care for the circumstances and conditions ; we -want to know the cost of each light per year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some of them are not for the whole year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am asking the cost for the season of navigation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You have the contract before you. Is it necessary to allow the item to stand until I furnish the item as to cost of this wire ?


Richard Blain: I suppose the minister will furnish it some time later ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the cost of the lamps as well ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If I can get the information, I will do so. I will study out the contract.
Welland canal-Improvements at Port Col-borne entrance, $300,000 ($240,000 yet to be voted).


Henry Robert Emmerson: The amount asked for this year is $300,000. The amount appropriated last year was $300,000, of which only $200,000 was expended. The total expenditure on this work up to May 1st, 1904, was $669,007.13. The amount this year is asked to continue the work of improvement at the entrance to Port Colborne. It consists of dredging, rock excavation, cribwork, and a concrete superstructure, forming two slips at which vessels may lie, and sites for elevators. That is the work that is now going on. There will be necessary, before the completion of that work, foundation for an elevator, and also, I suppose, ultimately an elevator. The total estimated cost of the works which are covered by the vote of this year is estimated at $1,150,000. That is for the work that is on hand now. The value of the work done up to June 30th was, in round numbers, $699,366. The value of the work remaining to be done is $450,633, and they are asking of this $450,633, $300,000. That would leave $150,633 further to be voted.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: Is it estimated that that amount will complete the work at Port Colborne ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the work on hand. There will be in addition to that, of course, if the work is gone on with, an elevator and foundations.


Edward Cochrane: What does the minister mean to tell the committee wThen he says that $100,000 are required ?


Richard Blain: How much money lias been expended at Port Colborne and how has it been expended ? How much in elevators, ' how much in wharfs and dredging and so forth ? and how much do the government expect to expend to complete the works ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Surely my hon. friend ins not been paying attention or he would baie heard what I said.


Richard Blain: I heard what the hon. gentleman said. He said that $400,000 had been spent and they were asking $300,000 to complete the present works under construction.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated that the total amount expended up to the 1st of May, 1904, was $669,007.13, or bringing it down to the 30th of June, in round numbers, there was $700,000 expended. The estimated value of the work yet to be done is $450,663. We are asking $300,000 for this year to be expended in connection with that balance. This does not provide for elevators.


Mr. FOWLER.: Is this being done by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, Hogan & Mac-donnell are the contractors.


George William Fowler: What is the work they are doing ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Dredging, rock excavation, cribwork and concrete work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What has been accomplished by this expenditure of $700,000 ? What area of harbour has been built ? what fis the depth of water ? What will be the capacity of the harbour where this improvement is taking place ? I notice that you estimate for the works under construction an expenditure of nearly one and a quarter million. After these have been completed, what dockage capacity will you have ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There Will be two slips at which vessels can lie alongside the .elevator. At these points there will be 22 feet depth of water.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many vessels can lie alongside these docks ?	'


Henry Robert Emmerson: Eight vessels of the ordinary size. The docks will be 600 feet long and 200 wide and there will be two of them. At other points there will be 16 feet of water, and at the point where the elevators are to be situated there will be 22 feet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The docks will have 2,400 feet frontage ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, and 22 feet depth of water covering the area which will be fed by the elevators.


Mr.   CLARKR@: Will the depth be 22 feet for the whole distance of 2,400 feet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. All around that and the entrance will be 22 feet. There is also an area outside and beyond the dockage where there will be 22 feet.
Mr. FOWLER, I understand the hon. minister to say that parts would be only 16 feet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is at another point.
I will read the description :
The work now under construction provides for the formation of a wide channel leading from deep water up to the south end; of the west entrance pier of the canal, and the extension of this pier in a southerly and 217
westerly direction by the construction of two piers of cribwork with a concrete superstructure, each 600 feet long by 200 feet wide, connected across the north end by a pier 200 feet long. The water in this channel and around the piers will have a depth of 22 feet at low water level of Lake Erie, which is taken at 17 feet on the south mitre sill of the new guard lock. The present condition of works may be briefly described as follows The new docking on the west side of the canal basin is completed except 300 feet at the' crossing of the Port Colborne town water main, preparations are now in progress for the lowering of the water pipe and completion of this part of the docking this fall. On the east side of the canal basin the new docking north of the Grand Trank Railway elevator is finished, but the 900 lineal feet of docking on this side of the basin south of the' elevator, embraced in this contract, was ordered last November not to he built, so that nothing has been done at this point this season. The dredging of the canal basin, principally earth excavation, is practically completed, except cleaning up the bottom.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the estimate in the first place?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The first estimate was $900,000, hut there has been a deepening near the Grand Trunk elevator since which has added materially to the cost.


George William Fowler: WThat is the draft of vessels that come to this port ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About 181 or 19 feet of water.
| Mr. FOWLER. Is it expected that the same class will continue to be used or vessels of a larger draft?
i Mr. EMMERSON. It Is the same class as come through the Sault Ste. Marie canal.


George William Fowler: This dock will accommodate as large a class of vessels as go through the Sault Ste. Marie canal?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Richard Blain: Was any money expended last year on the elevators of Port Colborne ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not by the government.


Richard Blain: Or on elevator foundations ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In connection with the site for the elevators. I think that in making the cribwork they had in view the necessity for putting up elevators. They may have provided for possible elevator foundations, but no money was expended in placing those foundations.


Richard Blain: Are the foundations for the purpose of construction, by the government, of elevators ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It can be done by the government or by anybody.


Richard Blain: Is not that a little vague ? Last year the minister asked for $40,000 for foundations.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That has not been spent.


Richard Blain: Very well. Now, what I ask is whether it is the intention of the government to construct the foundations or to have them constructed by other parties. Surely the government have some plan. Or are we to understand that this expenditure at Port Colborne is made merely at haphazard ? Last year we' were told by the ministers that_a large proportion of outtrade was going by the way of Buffalo. That has been the complaint for years-that trade was going by Buffalo that should come down our own waterways. It seems to me that the government should have decided by this time whether they would construct elevators at Port Colborne or allow others to do so. If the government does not reach a decision, does that mean that we are to go on losing our trade ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Although $40,000 was appropriated for the foundations of elevators last year, there was a great diversity of opinion, as to the size of the elevators required, nor was there any final determination as to whether the government should build and operate the elevators themselves or give the rights to private parties. I cannot say that that question is finally determined yet. But, in any case, foundations must be provided, and, while the government is doing the rest of the work they can make those foundations.


George William Fowler: The reason for that, I suppose, is that, as you are building the dock you can make the foundation at the same time, and do it more cheaply ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, and have the work done.


George William Fowler: Has anything been done towards preparing the foundations ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No actual work, but the plans are being completed so that the contractor can proceed.


George William Fowler: Has anything been done with the docks ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, but not with that portion in which the work of foundation building will go on.


George William Fowler: Are not the elevators to be on the docks ? Would not the foundation of the elevators form part of the docks ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George William Fowler: Has not the building of the docks proceeded to the point where it is necessary to proceed with the foundation ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: Provision is made for the building of the foundation. The outside of the dock, the concrete portion is finished but, in the centre, where the foundations are to be, provision is made for the building of the foundaiton.


George William Fowler: What are the docks being built of ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is crib-work inside faced with concrete.


George William Fowler: The concrete has been finished, but not the crib-work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not all done.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention, if private parties are allowed to provide the elevators, to charge them for the foundation work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That will be taken into consideration in arranging for any rights to be granted.


Richard Blain: At what stage is the rock cutting between Humberstone and Port Colborne ? I understand that it is under contract. Has the contract been given to the same firm as the hon. gentleman mentioned ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The contractors are just beginning the work with a view to bringing that down to the depth of the Lake Erie water.


Richard Blain: How much has been expended on the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No appreciable amount -they are just beginning.
Sault Ste. Marie canal, construction, $170,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a work under contract with Messrs. Heckler Bros., of Sault Ste. Marie, for the dredging, and Mr. William Birmingham, of Ottawa, for the pier work. We are asking this year $170,000-last year $94,000 was appropriated for this work. The canal is cut through St. Mary's Island 14 miles in length. The canal proper has a depth of 22 feet of water in the prism and 21 feet 6 inches on the mitre sills. The dredging of the lower entrance to 21 feet 5 inches is completed. Of this amount of $170,000, $100,000 is to be expended in deepening the upper entrance to 21 feet 5 inches and widening it to give a safer passage for vessels. The sum of $70,000 is to be expended on the entrance pier at the upper end south side. This pier i-s to be extended S00 feet. The sub-structure is to be built of cribwork to the lowest known water line, the top, of concrete, will be constructed on the front and rear of crib-work and between the two walls filled in with stone. These works when improved will make a safer entrance. At present there is only 18 feet of water in the upper end.
6817	JULY


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are the government doing any work on the Canadian side, putting in plant ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Public Works are building a dock, not the Railway Department The channel is being deepened on the Canadian side, and the Public Works Department are building a dock at that point near the town of Sault Ste. Marie.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what shape is the canal now ? It is strange to see nearly all the vesssels going through the American eanal, and the Canadian canal so little used.


William Manley German: One reason why the Canadian boats and the great Canadian Pacific Railway Company which controls the boats going up there, and which is the great company in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite-the reason why they continually go through the American canal is because they get their supplies on the American side instead of getting them on the Canadian side, as they could if they liked. The government is now building a dock there with sufficient water for Canadian boats to land on the Canadian side, and for the Canadian Pacific Railway boats to land there. But they invariably go to the American side of the river to get their supplies. This matter came up in parliament last session, and the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) endeavoured to make an explanation, which however I do not think satisfied any one, as to why the Canadian Pacific Railway boats did not get their supplies on the Canadian side of the Soo as well as on the American side. But the reason why our Canadian boats go through the American Soo canal is because they get their supplies on the American side of the river.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was not the answer given when the matter was up before. It was said that for want of dredging the entrance to the canal they could not conveniently get through, therefore they were obliged to resort to the American side ; also because on the Canadian side there was no place to land passengers.


William Manley German: They can go through the Canadian canal just as well as through the American canal-with fair and proper navigation, I am free to add. They have got docks there and a sufficient depth of water to land passengers there if they desire to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where ?


William Manley German: On the Canadian side of the river.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no dock on the Canadian side except an old one that was badly broken down.


William Manley German: The government is building a dock now. But there was one before 217J
15, 1901	6818
l________________________________________
that they could use if they wanted to. Now there is the question of the coal supply, and that matter came up last session, as the Minister of Customs would remember if he were here. I took occasion to look into the matter myself, and I know that you can get coal in Canada for ships' supplies, free of duty.


George William Fowler: Is that true of other ships' supplies as well as coal ?


William Manley German: Ships' supplies for boats traversing international waters are free of duty, including coal, and they can get coal free on both sides. But it would have to be in bond, it would have to be kept in bond on the Canadian side of the river, and there would have to be a bonded warehouse. But if they are willing to keep it there in bond, ships' supplies for all vessels traversing international waters are free of duty. So there is no excuse for them going to the American side.


Mr. TAYLOR.: There is every excuse. The Canadian Pacific Railway boats'could not land at the Soo because there was not sufficient depth of water to allow them to approach the dock. I took passage there two years ago last fall, and we had to ferry across. So it is now, unless a dock has been built within the last year.	,


William Manley German: The government is building one now.


George Taylor: But there is not water enough for a Canadian Pacific Railway boat to land at a Canadian port at the Soo. There has been no dock there since a year ago last fall.
; Mr. FOWLER. If their coal would be cheaper on the other side, I should think their stores would be about as cheap on the Canadian side.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I may tell the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), answering his question of a little while ago, that the price of the wire per pound was 13& cents.


George Taylor: The minister has his deputy beside him who knows all about the harbour. I would like to know if there is dockage and water sufficient for the Canadian Pacific Railway boats to call at the Canadian side.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is at the canal, not at the town.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was emphatically denied in this House that the Canadian Pacific Railway could get coal any more advantageously on the American side than on the Canadian side. The hon. gentleman says they would require a bonded warehouse on the Canadian side before they could get their coal free. But if I remember right, the hon. member for West Toronto stated that they

could get their coal on the Canadian side (without paying duty, as well as on the American side. It might be they would require a bonded warehouse. But when I was up there and we landed on the American side, the question was asked by many : Why don't you land on the Canadian side ? and the answer was that they could not land there because there was not a dock and not sufficient depth of water. I am satisfied it is so to-day. Now from year to year we have been voting money in this House ostensibly for this purpose, and we never seem to accomplish the object. That has been going on during the past six or seven years, and no one knows whether we are any nearer to the accomplishment of the object than we were five years ago-so far as official information is given.


George William Fowler: Is all this expenditure to be made at the canal, or is it to be used for making such a dock as has been spoken of ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is all at the canal.
I stated that the Public Works Department have charge of the expenditure down near 'the town, and t!hey are building a dock there, and dredging.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What depth of water have you on the mitre sill of the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are deepening it to 25 feet 5 inches. It is now IS feet at the upper entrance, and 20 feet 4 inches on the mitre sill. The canal proper has a depth of 22 feet of water in the prism, with 20 feet 4 inches on the mitre sill of the lock. It is 18 feet at the entrance. We are going to make the entrance correspond with the other end. We have completed dredging the entrance to a depth of 21 feet 5 inches.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now you are at the upper end.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do the Canadian Pacific Railway boats pass through the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Very seldom.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they go through at all ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have done so once or twice.


Richard Blain: Is it a fact that the large Canadian Pacific Railway boats cannot land on the Canadian side for want of dredging and a proper wharf and if so how long is that condition going to continue ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have stated twice that the work is under construction by the Public Works Department. Some contractor is at work there upon it. I do not know the extent of the docking. I cannot give my hon. friend any information as to the docks' now that are in course of construction because they are not under this de- * Mr. SPROULE.
partment. My information is that the only dockage on the Canadian side now is at the canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now you are doing dredging.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And some pier work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ' The pier work will be under the Department of Public Works.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not in connection with the canal. This is the entrance pier of the canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that let by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, Mr. Wm. Ber-mingham of Ottawa, who was the lowest tenderer, is the contractor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the price of the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a schedule contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there more than one tenderer for the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There were eight or ten.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are the schedule prices under that contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are a number of items. The prices are as follows :
Nos.
of	Description of items,
items.
1. Timber in sides and ends of cribs sawn 11 x 11 inches, rate per lineal
foot	$ 0 21
2 Timber sawn 10 inches square for floor of concrete superstructure, rate per lineal foot	 0	13
3.	Timber sawn 6 .x 11 in face and ends
of cribs below flooring, rate per lineal foot	 0	20
4.	Timber for ties, stringers and bottoms flatted to a size to square 10 x 11 inches at small end, rate
per lineal foot	 0	20
5.	White pine plank 3-inch thick, per
M. feet B.M	[DOT]	 20 00
6.	Binding pieces for cribwork 4 x 10-
inch pine 'plank, per M. feet B.M______	28	007.	Wrought iron in bolts (best Staffordshire brand) for cribs, in L bolts for fenders, mooring posts, &c., rate per pound	i.	0	068.	Boiler plate in guards or fenders,rate per pound	
0	089.	White oak for fenders 12 x 12, rateper lineal foot	
0	7510.	Providing and placing completemooring posts of cast-iron where-ever directed, as specified, rate per pound	
0	0511.	Stone filling in cribs and superstructure, measured in place, rate per cubic yard	
0	6512.	Broken stone and gravel, rate percubic yard	
1	i)06821	JULY
Nos.
of	Description of items,
items.
13. Concrete in superstructure, rate per
cubic yard	 $6 50
14.	Labourers for tearing down section
of old pier, including superintendence
and use of all tools, rate per day... 2 00
15.	Carpenters for levelling of old cribwork for concrete floor, including
superintendence and use of all tools,
rate per day	 3 50


George William Fowler: Eight cents for excavation work seems to be a very large price. Of course it would depend very largely on the nature of the material to be taken out, whether it is rock or mud.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was the lowest tender.


George William Fowler: What is the character of the soil there ?


William Manley German: It is a regular excavation of boulders. The price of dredging ranges from ten cents a yard in soft earth up to a dollar all depending on the conditions. This is simply digging out rock instead of blasting. It is a soft rock. I have seen the dredge working. Instead of blasting it out the dredge is so strong that the hooks of the dipper get into the rock and dig it out. They are digging it out in that way. The material is boulders and rock. It is certainly a cheap price for what they are doing. If they had to blast it would cost probably three times as much.


Richard Blain: As to the question of the Canadian Pacific Railway boats not stopping on the Canadian side is that not a matter that the government should take immediate action upon ? The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) stated that the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) did not give a very satisfactory reason to the committee last year why the Canadian Pacific Railway boats did not stop on the Canadian side.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I suppost that is a matter of opinion.


Richard Blain: I am quite sure the hon. member for Welland did not wish to misrepresent the hon. member for West Toronto. The hon. junior member for West Toronto made the statement before the committee last year that the Canadian Pacific Railway boats were unable to stop on the Canadian side because the water was too shallow and there was no wharf accommodation. It seems to me that that is sufficient explanation why the boats do not stop on the Canadian side. Poes the hon. minister not think that this is a matter which requires immediate attention and action on the part of the government ? Here is a large line of boats passing close to the Canadian shore,
15, 1004	6822
yet these boats are compelled to go over to the United States side and purchase their supplies not because we cannot supply them in Canada, not because we have not sufficient merchants on the Canadian side or a sufficient quantity of goods of Canadian manufacture, hut simply because the water is too shallow and we have no wharf accommodation for boats of that capacity to stay in while they purchase their supplies and give accommodation to the public. Surely that matter should be considered by the government at once. If that continues for many years longer our trade will be identified with the American Soo, and it will be difficult if not impossible to secure it for ourselves. Whatever other expenditure of money is made by this government, that is an expenditure that every man in Canada will support, and it should be undertaken at once in order that Canadian steamers may be able to purchase their supplies from Canadians.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So far as the government can control the matter, they are doing everything to furnish a new dock with sufficient water on the Canadian side.-lf the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers or any other steamers want to purchase their supplies on the Canadian side there is nothing to prevent them. I can well understand that it is to their advantage, even regardless of the duty, to coal on the American side, because the coal comes to that point from the mines in Ohio.


William Manley German: It is the same rate of freight to the Canadian side as to the American side.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, but the question of bonding involves delay and expense and may be somewhat irritating. If they wished to purchase their supplies on this side and could do so to advantage I venture to say they would do it.


Richard Blain: Do I understand that the large Canadian steamers can stop on the Canadian side and purchase their supplies, and take on and put off cargo ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think they can do so without question if they wish. I think the cargo could be put at the Canadian^ locks.


George William Fowler: They cannot land their passengers at the Canadian locks.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think so ; they sometimes go through there now and go to the American side afterwards.


Richard Blain: The minister would leave the impression, whether intentionally or not, that it is possible for large boats to stop on the Canadian side and transact their business with Canadians. Last year the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) said on that point:


Mr. OSLER.: There is no doubt that after building the canal at the Sault. we have neglected to build wharfs and other necessary railway accommodations. I think it is humil- ' iating for any of us who go up on the boats to find them on all occasions passing through the American canal. I have gone up many times, and on no occasion, either going or coming, has the vessel passed through our own canal. I understand that one of the reasons was that the coal was dutiable when taken on at the Canadian Sault ; but the main reason undoubtedly is that there is no wharf accommodation, and that the approaches to the canal on both sides are quite inadequate for large boats to pass through the Canadian canal.
That was the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) and it is uncontra-dieted.


William Manley German: I do not wish the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Blain) to go uncontroverted. Last year the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) stated that the Canadian Pacific Railway boats did not stop on the Canadian side because they could not get their coal there. The hon. gentleman asked me about it and I had the pleasure of sending him the regulations. There is plenty of water on the Canadian side of the river for any Canadian Pacific Railway boat that wants to go there.


George Taylor: Where ?


William Manley German: On the Canadian side at the government wharf. It is quite true that the approach to the Canadian canal is not satisfactory. I believe the late government spent money in improving the approaches, ,tut at any rate there is money be-.ing spent on that work now. In my opinion the canal on the Canadian side was a botched job in regard to the approach at the eastern entrances, because boats using it have to take too circuitous a route. But that is not the reason the Canadian Pacific Railway boats do not stop on the Canadian side. It is simply because they can get their supplies on the American side to better advantage. That is absolutely beyond controversy. They could get their supplies on the Canadian side if they wanted to, but it suits their purpose better to get them on the American side, and I challenge any member of this House or any man outside of it, to show that th%y cannot land their passengers at the government dock on the Canadian side of the river. They do not do so because they wish to get their supplies on the American side.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend (Mr. German) has said that there is good accommodation on the Canadian side but last year in his speech on the question he said:
There is no flock at the Soo at which the tipper lake boats can land.
Has there been a dock built since last iyear ?


Richard Blain: 


William Manley German: Read all I said.


Richard Blain: It is a very long statement, and I do not wish to have it repeated in ' Hansard.' It is the duty of the government to see to it at once that the Canadian Pacific Railway boats shall have an opportunity of embarking and disembarking passengers and loading and unloading freight upon the Canadian side. If the government do that these steamers will get their sup-*plies on the Canadian side, and I am sure the Canadian people would support the government in any reasonable expenditure to accomplish that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me very humiliating that we have such a town as Sault Ste. Marie and yet have Canadian lines of steamers arriving on the American side, dumping their passengers and freight there so that the passengers and freight have to be taken across the river in the ferry boats. It looks too much like a one-horse town. The Canadian town is a good town, alive, enterprising and active, and for years the same complaint has been made that boats cannot land there for want of accommodation. It seems to me the government is doing less than its duty when it does not provide what is required.


George Taylor: Two years ago last fail I went to Sault Ste. Marie accompanied by my wife. I purchased tickets at Owen Sound and asked to have them made out for the Canadian Soo but they would not sell them to the Canadian Soo and we had to be landed on the American side and go over on the ferry to the Canadian side. During my stay at the Soo, a boat was sunk, some place east of the Soo and a blockade of shipping ensued ; I presume that 100 to 150 vessels of all sizes and shapes were tied up there but not one of them came to the Canadian side. I discussed the question with the people there, and I was told that the boats could not land on the Canadian side owing to lack of water. Yet the hon. member f<M' Welland (Mr. German) says that Canadian boats can buy supplies on the Canadian side. They cannot, because if they do they have to put the supplies on the ferry boat and take tSiem across to the American side where they will be met by a customs officer as I was, and be obliged to pay duty. They could only put the supplies on board without paying duty while the boats were passing through the Canadian lock, but if another boat came along they would be unable to tie up long enough to do that, so that practically it is impossible for Canadian boats to take on supplies at the Canadian Soo, or to land passengers there with comfort. On my return I brought the matter before the House at the first opportunity but I presume that affairs are in the same position to-day as they were then. No boat of any size can

land on tlie Canadian side of the river owing to the shallowness of the water. The old government built a canal and had it about completed when this government came in, but the approaches and docking facilities to-day remain just as they were then.


William Manley German: I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should do away with protection.


George Taylor: My hon. friend would like to do away with protection and have us annexed to the United States. We have built a lock at an expense of millions of money on the Canadian side and it is doing no business because this government has been expending money upon useless docks all down the river and along the sea coasts, instead of taking a few thousands of that money to deepen the water at Sault Ste. Marie, a work which would be to the general advantage to Canada. It is a case of negligence on the part of the government in permitting this matter to remain as it has for the past nine years. After spending millions to build a lock, Canada is getting no benefit in the way of trade from vessels passing through that lock.
Lachine canal, slope walls, $13,500.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This $13,500 is required for a dry stone wall, 2,300 yards at $2 per cubic yard. The coping, timber and stone of the dry stone wall will cost $13,500. This is to continue the repairing of the stone lining in the upper reach of the La-chine canal. The north side, it is expected will be completed during this coming season. It is slow work as it can only be done when the canal is watered in the spring.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is it done, by contract or day labour ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: By contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who is the contractor ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A man named Lor-rimer is the contractor.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where does 'he reside ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In Montreal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You advertised for tenders.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, yes. This has been going on year by year. I am informed that he has been doing the work ; but his contract is closed out and we will have to ask for further tenders for the continuation of the work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the matter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He got on too slowly. There was a limited time in which to do it, and he did not seem to hustle, so that
great inconvenience resulted. We simply gave notice and closed out the contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What did you do with the percentage of the contract you got as security for the work being done ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would be adjusted of course.


George William Fowler: Have you paid that back yet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, but it will have to be of course.


George William Fowler: How long since you closed it out ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: During the month ot June.


George William Fowler: Why not have called for other tenders ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We cannot unwater the canal until next spring. The only time we can permit, the canal to be unwatered is in the spring, because of the business interests. The contractor delayed his work to such an extent that, acting on the report of the deputy minister, I authorized the cancellation of the contract.


George William Fowler: The work has to be done in the spring before the canal opens '!


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. When you have it unwatered, all the business is paralyzed. The contractor should have done 1,000 yards this spring and he only did 400. Therefore we will ask for tenders for next spring's work.
Lachine canal, dredging basins Nos. 1 and 2, $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How is that going to be done ?	-


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to continue the deepening of the basin on the lower section of the Lachine canal, to a depth of 15 feet. This work is nearly completed. It is done by the canal dredge under the direction of the Marine Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were you working at that last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, there was no appropriation last year. In No. 1 basin we calculate there would be 12,000 cubic yards at 75 cents or $9,000, and in basin No. 2
8,000	yards at 75 cents, $6,000.
Electric installation, &e., Lachine canal,


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was an appropriation last year of $10,000 and we require this year $8,000. This is for electric installation on locks and bridge cabin. The present locks and bridge cabins are in a very dilapidated condition.


Richard Blain: Do the government use their own power ?

(3828


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
Trent canal, construction, $100,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was there not some discussion as to where the outlet of this canal is to be ?	'


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not yet determined.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the government sent an agent to examine the different routes ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, and I laid on the table the reports of those engineers. I think there were two different engineers. The people of Trenton and Port Hope have taken exception to the conclusions of the engineers and there will have to be another survey. There is a difference of opinion among the engineers and we will have to get' some sort of arbitration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do the government engineers not make a recommendation ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They report the facts 7


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the government reached any conclusion-yet ?
Mr.	EMMERSON.	Not yet.Mr.	SPROULE. When do they expect	to
reach a conclusion ?
Mr.	EMMERSON.	Very shortly.Mr.	FOWLER.	What portion	of	this
canal has been completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a canal without an end, it is short at both ends.


George William Fowler: Is it of any use until it is completed ?
ill1. EMMERSON. Yes, it is of use. The other day we went up to Peterborough and examined it and were much pleased with what we saw. It is navigable now for 170 miles of water stretches, with the locks.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What depth for traffic ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it is about eight feet deep, with six feet of water on the' mitre sill. .


Edward Frederick Clarke: The people of that district would like to get some more information about it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Do you want me to go into the whole matter ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: No, but I think some opportunity ought to be given to gentlemen who represent that district to speak upon it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is all arranged for.


Mr. VROOMAN.: Could the minister say whether the work is being pushed on on the


Richard Blain: upper division, the division that is called the Simcoe and Balsam Lake division ? I think it is under contract now. That work, seems to be going on very slowly, it has been on the tapis ever since I was a boy, and seems to be interminable. I would like to know what is being done.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Simcoe and Balsam Lake division is being pushed on. The section known as the Larkin and Sangster division is nearly completed. On the other, I think the work is progressing now quite rapidly, but there has been some delay in the past.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Is the Larkin & Sangster contract completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Does the minister mean to say that there are 170 miles of continuous navigation on that canal now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The section between Balsam Lake and Ivirkfleld is completed. The next section is under contract to Larkin & Sangster, and is just about completed. Then the section between the Larkin & Sangster section and Lake Simcoe, is progressing well, that is the Brown & Aylmer section. Another lift-loclc is to be put in on the Larkin & Sangster section, but the steel work is not yet completed. It is not yet under contract.


Adam Edward Vrooman: Will that be as high as the Peterborough lift-lock ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That will be a fifty foot lift, fifteen feet less than the Peterborough lift-lock,


Adam Edward Vrooman: When may we expect that will be completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The steel portion of it within a year. The substructure is completed now. However, we have got our hands in now and we will carry it right along.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I think the minister must be mistaken when he says there are 170 miles of continuous navigation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was wrong in making that statement. You can navigate from Feely's Falls below Peterborough, through to Kirkfield, a distance of 120 miles.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How much remains to be done to complete the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not in a position to say that. $310,000 were expended on that canal prior to confederation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How long will it take to complete the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps that could be worked out by the rule of three.


Adam Edward Vrooman: I would like to hear from the minister a little more with regard

to Ms visit to that canal, and of what use he thinks it is going to be. Is navigation complete from Peterborough to Lakefield ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that is complete. I was delighted with everything 1 saw in Peterborough, and I am sure no one went away without feeling impressed with the importance of that water stretch.


Adam Edward Vrooman: That is a very brief account. I am pleased, however, to hear the minister express himself in this way, because for many years, in fact ever since I can remember anything about politics, I have been hearing hon. gentlemen now sitting on the opposite side traducing and running down this work as being of no use. X am glad to see that the government and the party sitting behind them, appear to have changed their minds on that subject. What is the length of the construction from Peterborough to Lake Ontario and what would be the probable expenditure there ? I understand that $4,000,000 has been spent on this canal already.


Hr. EH HERS  ON@: It is estimated to cost about $6,000,000 to complete. The cost will depend on the route. Some say that to go by one route will cost a great deal more than to go by the other. And, under any circumstances, the cost will exceed $6,000.000 according to the estimates of the engineer.


Adam Edward Vrooman: What weight of freight can be lifted at one time on the lift-lock at Peterborough ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A vessel containing about 25,000 bushels of wheat can be lifted


Mr. HAGGAET.: It would be interesting to know the policy of the government with reference to the completion of the canal. If I understood rightly. it, is completed to within 15 or 16 miles of the Bay of Quinte. What will be the cost of finishing that portion, and what will it cost to finish the uncompleted work at the Lake Simcoe end, which, if I remember well, is about the same distance ? And I would like the hon. gentleman to tell us how these lift-locks work-1 see he was at the opening of them. Besides the one at Peterborough, which has been completed, I understand there is to be another at Lake Simcoe. What progress is being made upon it, and what amount is required to complete it ? This is an important work, and we ought to have the fullest possible information.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend asks what it will cost to complete from Feely's Fails to the Bay of Quinte, and also what it will cost to complete the section to Georgian bay. It will cost upwards of $4,000,000 to complete the Bay of Quinte end and about $1,500,000 to complete the part to Georgian bay.


Mr.   IIAGGAET@: What are the distances to be completed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About 13 miles on the Georgian bay end and about 17 or 18 miles on the Lake Ontario end. The lift-lock recently opened at Peterborough works very satisfactorily. In saying this, of course T. give the judgment of others, for my own judgment would not be of great value. The substructure of the other lock is completed, but the superstructure has not yet been contracted for.


John Graham Haggart: Are any contracts proposed to be made for the work at the lower end of the canal and at the Georgian bay end ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not routed yet.


Mr. LENNOX.: The minister speaks of an expenditure of $6,000,000 to complete this canal. I understand that to cover the whole of the Ti'ent Valley canal system. But I find that on 21st March last the present minister, in answering a question in this House, said that if the canal were carried out by way of Trenton it would cost $6,960,000, and if it were carried out by way of Port Hope it would cost $6,850,000. This, I presume, was made on the basis of careful estimates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was according to the estimates made by the engineers who were sent.
Mr. LEiNNOX. That is as I understand it. But I presume the minister was speaking more definitely than he is just now. The estimates show an expenditure to be made of about $7,000,000 either way. AVhat I would like the minister to explain is Wow much work this covers, and to what point it would carry the construction. We understand, of course, that we get to what is practically the St. Lawrence, whether the canal is made by way of Trenton or by way of Port Hope. The minister speaks of the Georgian bay end. Do his estimates cover all the expenditure required to carry on the work through to Georgian bay ; and. if so, by what route ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: By the river route from Lake Couckiehiug to Georgian bay.


Haughton Lennox: That would be by the River Severn. So this would include all the expense estimated to be incurred in carrying the canal by way of the Eiver Severn to the Georgian bay. Has the department under consideration the idea of carrying it through by way of Barrie, coming out at Collingwood, or probably some miles east of Coilingwood. by way of the Nottawasaga river ? I can direct the hon. minister's attention to that by saying that I understand that the Transportation Commission-I think it is only fair to refer to this-have that matter under consideration, and have been receiving evidence as to both these routes. From all the information I have been able to collect, it seems to me that the best course is to proceed .to Orillia, thence to Barrie,

through the open waters of Lake Simcoe and Kempenfeldt bay, and so west to the Georgian bay. That route would go through a magnificent country. And even if it cost more money-and I do not know that it would cost more-still I believe it would be found to be much more desirable than the route by the River Severn. However, I have no doubt that the bon. minister is waiting, the same as the people are waiting, for the report of the Transportation Commision in relation to this matter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would ask my hon. friend if the route he is advocating is through the riding that is represented by my hon. friend ?


Haughton Lennox: No, it is not. It is through the riding which is temporarily represented by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) and which I hope will be better represented when we assemble again in the new parliament.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You anticipate being the man ?


Haughton Lennox: No, I have a better riding still. Nothing would induce me to leave old South Simcoe. There is no riding which has such a pleasant ring in the ears of the Liberal government as South Simcoe and I have the honour to represent that riding. We have no canals in it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think you are both to be congratulated.


Haughton Lennox: We have no canals in it and no public works of any kind, but we have a magnificent Conservative majority, I am happy to say. I hope the hon. minister ' will take this matter into his most serious and careful consideration. Of course, I do not expect him at the present time to be influenced very much by what may be my opinion or the opinion of any one who is not an expert in matters of this kind as to *which is the best route, but I am in hopes the matter will be carefully considered by the Transportation Commission and that we will soon have a report upon it. The other day when I called the hon. minister's attention to the question of the Transportation Commission he told me that it Lad made an interim report in reference to some ports in the maritime provinces. I think the whole of the evidence has been taken in regard to the Trent Valley canal. If that is the case I would urge upon the hon. minister to endeavour to get a report in reference to this matter without waiting for the general report of the commission. There was a time when there was some division of opinion as to the utility of this work. I am exceedingly glad that there is no division of opinion as to that now and that the present government, as represented not only by the hon. Minister of Rail-llr. LENNOX.	*
ways and Canals but as represented by the hon. Postmaster General, recognize that this is a great work and that there is great necessity for immediately pushing it ahead. I want to urge upon the hon. minister and upon the government that it is a loss of money if this matter is, not taken in hand now and finished. I do not mean dribbling out a little money from year to year. I mean a sufficient sum of money to complete this work in the same way as the government would go at the construction of a railway, not dragging it out for an indefinite period of years but doing it within a few years and I would say a very few years as to that. There is no system that is more to be condemned than the system that governments practice once they have committed themselves to a certain scheme of merely making a parliamentary appropriation from year to year. What is the fact in reference to this canal ? It has cost us up to the present time almost $4.500,000. That means that it is costing the country for interest, without receiving anything by way of compensation, in round figures. $150,000 a year. What is the use of that. The moment the canal is completed we will be getting a return in some form. That is the only theory upon which this work can be prosecuted. That is the theory on which the government have continued the work and until it is completed, until communication is opened from the Georgian bay by whichever course may be adopted down to Trenton or Port Hope the country is not getting the benefit of this great work. It will get a great deal of benefit from it, not only' the direct advantage of affording means of transportation to a large class of people along the line of the canal which traverses a farming district which in many parts is unsurpassed, but it will be of great incidental advantage to the people by affording direct competition with the railway and so reducing and controlling rates. In this I think the hon. minister will be ready to agree with me. Therefore, I think there can be no excuse that the government could urge or that the government would be disposed to urge for not taking this work in hand as a definite work to be completed within a reasonable date. I cannot prescribe the date but I would say within a few years, probably within four or five years at the outside. We have $4,-
500,000	in it now and within ten years we will have, according to the present rate of progress, $3,000,000"or $4,0000.000 more so that it will then cost us about $300,000 a year in interest. Until the *whole work is undertaken as we undertake a railway or undertake to erect a public building, that is that we keep at it and do not let up until it is finished, we will be losing money by this transaction. I trust the hon. minister will give us a promise more or less definite

now-I hope very definite-that some such policy as this will be pursued. I think the people look for it, I think it is fair, I think it must commend itself to a man of the astuteness and energy of the present minister as being the only wise and proper policy to pursue.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) is in error in saying that the canal as far as it has been constructed is unproductive.


Haughton Lennox: I did not intend to advance the idea that it is absolutely unproductive, but as compared with what it will result in I consider that it is unproductive.
I understand that there are a number of miles in use.


William Mulock: At the present time I understand there are 120 miles of continuous navigation made possible by these improvements which are the subject of discussion at the present moment, and that this facility for traffic is of very material advantage to the district locally at the present time. Before the completion of the lift-lock the navigation was divided into two parts, north of Peterborough and south of Peterborough. There were on the waters from Peterborough northward thirty steamboats engaged in various classes of business and seven below Peterborough, making thirty-seven steamers with 120 miles of continuous and uninterrupted navigation. These vessels are engaged in carrying passengers, lumber, cordwood. grain aud other native products. There are, as my hon. friend is aware, at Peterborough at the present moment certain cereal works manufacturing foodstuffs of various kinds and consuming daily enormous quantities of grain.
Mr. SP'ROULE. They do not bring that in by the canal.


William Mulock: No, except from some adjoining local district.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was there some time ago and the manager told me they were obliged to bring it in by train, and he spoke of the advantage the canal would be.


William Mulock: 
John Graham Haggart: The Postmaster General took a great deal of trouble to state that all the progress on this work was due to the present administration. Would the hon. gentleman point out what part of the work his government initiated on the Trent canal ? My memory is that all the contracts that are under \ way at the present time were let by the Conservative government. He says that the government intends to push this work to completion, but look )al the paltry vote of $100,000 which they ask for, and which would not pay for , the contracts already let. What are these gentlemen doing in connection with making the Trent canal an election issue ? When I asked the minister when he was going to let the contract down to the Bay of Quinte, his answer was that it was not routed yet. The Postmaster General says that when they decide where the outlet is to be, the canal will be proceeded with energetically. He is thus in a position to say to the people of Port Hope :	Support our candidate if
you wish to have the canal at Port Hope ; and to the people of Trenton he will say : Unless you behave better than you have in the past there is no chance whatever of having the entrance at the Bay of Quinte.

T'he decision as to the entrance of that canal should have been arrived at long ago. The members of this House should have been told where the entrance would be before they voted any money. The government now take credit for the lift-lock. What had they to do with it ? I listened to the speeches these gentlemen made the other day at Peterborough, and the name of the man who started the first lift-lock in America was never mentioned ? I myself let the contract for the lift-lock and decided upon the principle of it, and yet the present Minister of Railways thinks it was all done under the able administration of himself and his Liberal predecessors. They had nothing to do with it. No work has been done on the Trent canal that was not initiated by the Conservative government, and the contracts let for it by that government. The present government had to go on and complete it because the contracts were let. That is the truth of the matter. I am glad to hear the Postmaster General say that this work will be of benefit to the people of Canada. That is a new idea of his, because when any expenditure on the Trent canal was proposed by the Conservative government it was denounced by the Liberals when they were in opposition. I say that the expenditure of $4,000,000 on the Trent canal has been returned twice over to the people of that section, and that is true if for no other reason than that it has controlled freight rates. But, Sir, we have no expenditure on public utilities in our section of the country. Poor Ontario fares badly ; the public money is reserved for other places. What do you think of an expenditure of $100,000 on the Trent canal, a work which the people of that district have been expecting the completion of for years. Even to-day the government state that they do not know what route will be taken by the canal. Well, I can tell them that the route is decided. They are within 16 miles of the Bay of Quinte ; ,are they going to stop there and go to Port Hope. I would like to see both routes adopted.
I think it would be better that tlie canal should be built both to Trenton and to Port Hope ; then you would satisfy both sections of the country. However, in my opiniou, the work is one of great utility to the people iu that section of the country. The expenditure is a justifiable one and one that will have the result of equalizing freight to any man who lives upon any part of the canal add I am glad to hear that this undertaking, for which I let' the contracts, lias proved a success. I would like from the minister a comparison of the expense of working a lift-lock and of working an ordinary lock such as is in use in other parts of the country. What is the difference in time and expense of the two systems ? We want the fullest information, and I would like parliament to know how this $100,000 which is voted this year is to be expended. Is it
.Mr. HAGGART.
to be expended for the completion of the upper lift-lock in order to- enable us to get communication with Lake Simcoe, or is it intended to expend it in some other way.


William Manley German: Having let the contract, the hon. gentleman no doubt decided in his own mind as to whether or not the canal should go from Rice lake to Port Hope or to Trenton. Did the hon. gentleman or his government decide that question ?


John Graham Haggart: There is no doubt that when our government were in it was never thought that the canal was going to Port Hope, but it was urged upon the government that this would be an equally advantageous scheme.


William Manley German: Then you decided against Port Hope ?


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman has asked me to give an opinion of the two routes when the government which he is supporting has not given such an opinion. Do yon think the opposition have not as much right to dangle the two routes before the people as the hon. gentlemen supporting the government ?


William Mulock: What route does the hon. gentleman favour ?


John Graham Haggart: Hon. gentlemen say that it is not routed, but would ask the opposition to adopt a particular route. We have not the routing of the canal.


William Manley German: You had it.


John Graham Haggart: And then we proceeded upon a plan and intended to complete that plan.


William Mulock: To what point ?


John Graham Haggart: But when these gentlemen got into power they said:	No, the
canal is not routed at present. They have not surveys or information enough to enable them to determine whether the canal is to go to Port Hope or to the Bay of Quinte. The general election is coming on this fall, and in each section of the country through which the proposed routes run, hon. gentlemen will be able to give assurances to their friends and will send letters into the country : Do your duty by our condidates and we will see that you get justice in the building of the canal.


William Mulock: The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals professes to say that his government really placed under contract the works which have now been completed, and manifested great energy, zeal and earnestness to complete that work, and if I understood him rightly he went on to say that the government or himself had decided in favour of the outlet to the canal at Trenton.


John Graham Haggart: I never did.


Edward Cochrane: No lie did not say any such thing.


John Graham Haggart: I carefully avoided that and I told the reason why.


Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK.: The bon. gentleman says he was working on a fixed policy rapidly to complete that enterprise and he dropped a remark that Trenton was their destination.


Edward Cochrane: No, he did not.


William Pate Mulock: I am surprised that the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) should seek-


Edward Cochrane: I am not surprised because I always advise people to tell the truth.


William Pate Mulock: I am sorry that we have East Northumberland against East Northumberland in this matter,


Edward Cochrane: You need not say that at all. You have been fibbing to me for 18 years and I am not going to allow you to do it any longer while I am here.


William Pate Mulock: The hon. exMinister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Hag-gart) has informed us, that he had given great study to this question and was pushing it forward, and he has here stated to us that, according to his conception of the scheme, Trenton is the outlet. I am surprised that the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) does not try to hold him to that expression instead of helping him to escape.


Edward Cochrane: I will attend to East Northumberland without any of your help.


William Pate Mulock: He is not helping East Northumberland at this moment. But to return to the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart). After all, what would be the policy of the late government that began this enterprise in 1880 and in 1(5 years had expended upon it in all $882,000, or the record of this government that in 8 years has expended $3,200,000 upon it. We have expended nearly four times the amount that my hon. friend's government expended upon it.


John Graham Haggart: You have expended $3,-
200,000	?


William Pate Mulock: That is what I am told by the engineer. He said that all we have done is to complete the contracts he had let.


John Graham Haggart: I said that.


William Pate Mulock: I am now speaking on the information of the chief engineer, and my hon. friend will of course bring out any errors and the chief engineer will be obliged to give me the correct information. I will now give the information I have from the engineers who are now present, the chief engineer and Mr. Rogers the engineer in charge of the work. . I wish to show my hon. friend how erroneous he is in his statement that we have practically done nothing except to allow the running on to completion of contracts which he had lit before his government went out of office.
We found the following contracts let by the previous government and we have completed them : The contract of Brown. Love and Aylmer, the Corry and Laverdure contract anti the Onderdonk contracts. These are the only uncompleted contracts handed down as legacies to the present government. The present government has let the following contracts and there has been expended on these contracts the sums which I am about to mention :
Larkin & Sangster	$296,860
Dominion Bridge Co., for the
lift-lock	 211,160
Brown & Aylmer	 282,660
Central Bridge Co., bridges... 32,420 Dominion Bridge Co., bridges. / 4,301
Hamilton Bridge Co	 35,514
Conroy	  ..	7,638
Edward Conroy, for piers.. ..	27,317
Grand Trunk Railway Company, track	 23,490
James Bogue	  6,625
Battle, for cement	 610
Lakefield Cement Co	 60,948
Owen Sound Cement Co	 55,031
Rathbun Cement Co	 190,444
A. T. Rowley	 14.200
Sola cement	 23,214
Wurtelle cement	 5,428
Land damages	 310,619
These land damages of course are not contracts, but are features of the scheme.


Edward Cochrane: Are there contracts for them ?


William Pate Mulock: No you cannot contract for damages of that character. My hon. friend says that they were determined to carry this scheme through and therefore that we are only completing their work so that they are entitled to all the credit.; that we are simply drifting on with what they commenced.
He says that on the other hand we pronounced ourselves against the scheme and yet to-day are committed to it. Well, we have heard of the one who said he would not and yet he did and of the other who said he would and yet did not. To -whom belongs the greater credit ? My hon. friend the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Haggart) when in office, favoured the Trenton route. Out of office he favours both the Trenton and the Port Hope routes. Any gentleman who would voice the opinion of his party as favouring two routes evidently favours neither, because he knows that no government would ask parliament to vote an expenditure for connecting that inland system at the two points.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I would support both routes. [DOT]


William Mulock: There is another available route as well. That would be three routes. Th'ere is the Cobourg route. Is the ex-Minister of Railways going to give the'go by to Cobourg 7 It is true that Cobourg in the last election or two did not support these hon. gentlemen, but prior to that it gave them good support. Why then turn their backs on Cobourg 7


Edward Cochrane: You want to help your candidate.


William Mulock: I want to do what is right. It is contended by the people of Fort Hope that the surveys made up to date in favour of the Trenton route are not reliable. They contend that their route has not received fair consideration. That may be true or it may not. I am sure that none of the officers who have been giving consideration to the selection of a route would unintentionally do any injustice ; but nevertheless it is quite possible that the merits of one route may have been so paramount in the minds of the engineers that they paid no attention to a more desirable one. I am not offering any opinion, because I know nothing of the relative merits ; but when a great portion of the community, when the people in the eastern part of the county of Durham and the western part of the county of Northumberland assert that they have a more desirable route, is it not the duty of the government to listen to their representations and give them an opportunity to make good their statement 7 We have received twice of late very influential deputations of prominent men from the county of Durham urging the government to have a careful examination made of the topography of then- country before reaching a final conclusion. We would not be a representative government if we turned a deaf ear to such an appeal. Therefore before any government would be justified in committing itself to any special route, it should have unbiased and reliable advice as to which is the better route. This is the course we intend to pursue and one which will commend itself to the taxpayers of this country. When expert opinion is obtained and all information with regard to the business side of the question, the government will be in a position to decide. Did the ex-Minister of Railways ever have a survey made of the Port Hope route 7 Did t'he late government ever have plans and specifications showing the work to be done on the Port Hope route and a classification of the advantages and disadvantages, or did they reach a decision with regard to the Trenton route, without considering any other 7 I would like an answer to that question.


John Graham Haggart: I will answer everything as soon as the hon. gentleman is through. The hon. gentleman took me to task about ' Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
my statement that this government only carried out the contracts which the late government had let for the purposes of this canal. Well, there are two contracts which he let since he came into office-one to a Mr. Brown and the other to a Mr. Larkin. The contracts he read had reference to the Hamilton Bridge Company, the Dominion Bridge Company and other bridge companies and four or five cement companies. All these were for the purpose of carrying out the contracts which I had let when I was in power. The cement is for the purpose of building the locks and the iron and steel are connected with the lift lock, so that his boasted comparison between the expenditure of the late and present government falls to the ground. The hon. gentleman talks about the two routes. To go back to ancient history, the first route, the Trent canal route, was surveyed by the imperial engineers shortly after the battle of Waterloo.


William Mulock: Some seventy odd years ago 7


John Graham Haggart: Yes. The plan they adopted was by Trenton up to Lake Siincoe and further on into the Georgian bay. They built a couple of locks, I think, upon the Trent canal, which became the property of the province of Ontario when the assets of the provinces were set aside. The hon. gentleman asked me if I had a survey of the Port Hope route made. Why I never heard that route suggested until these gentlemen got into power. The first person I ever heard speak about it was my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane). He did not begin agitating until long after the work was under construction by the late government, and I do not know whether it was the late or the present government- perhaps it was the present government

which got a survey made of the two rival routes. We would like to hear which is the cheaper and better route. If I remember rightly, from the information which the present government brought down to the House and the surveys made at that time, it was decided that the Port Hope route was the more expensive and the most difficult to construct. .


William Mulock: Who decided that 7


John Graham Haggart: The engineers did. If I remember rightly, I heard the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) criticising the report of the engineers, and pitching into the engineer in charge of the work, saying that his report and skill were not to be relied upon, insisting upon the government having another and a better survey of the route, because it was condemnatory of the Port Hope route.


Henry Robert Emmerson: One of the reports I laid on the table was from an engineer who was connected with the department, Mr
<5841

MacLeod. The other is the report of Mr. Rogers, the superintending engineer of the Trent Valley canal. But there was an independent report.


John Graham Haggart: The report of the engineer in charge of the Trent Valley canal was in favour of the Port Hope route. Is that so ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not remember.


William Mulock: It is.


John Graham Haggart: I heard the hon. member for Durham criticising it in the House, insisting upon having a new survey of the route, because the route proposed, or supposed to be better than the Trent route, had been examined by the engineers attached to the department, who showed that it was more expensive and a less valuable route than the other.


Mr. SCOTT.: Which one do you favour ?


John Graham Haggart: I am not responsible for the route of the canal at the present moment. But the gentlemen who are responsible for the legislation of this House, when they come down with a vote, and we ask the fullest information, and when they have the fullest information from their engineers as to the feasibility of the one route or the other, ought to be prepared to give a decision upon the information they possess which route will be selected. .


Thomas Walter Scott: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he favoured the construction of both.


John Graham Haggart: The hr n. gentleman is entirely mistaken. I never said anything of the kind, nor insinuated anything of the kind.


Thomas Walter Scott: My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Gourley) understood him so.


John Graham Haggart: If the hon, gentleman interrupts me again, I wish hi would be more accurate, and state something which is pertinent to the remarks which I make. It is unfair to make interruptions of that kind, especially when they suggest an inference that I said something some time ago and was saying the contrary now. I never did that. What I said was this : It is not my business to have a policy in reference to this matter, I am not called upon to give a decision between the Trenton route and the Port Hope route. What we say is that the e-nvernment, when asking for a vote at the present time upon information from their own departmental engineers upon facts which are in their possession, ought to give the House the information and decide at once upon the route, instead of descending to the petty parish politics of holding up the two routes before the electors in the coming election and saying to them : Gentlemen, we are making an accurate survey of two different routes, and
it may be that the route which you ask us to take will be the preferable of the two. Now, I want this information from the minister. I want to know when the contract will be completed for the upper section so as to give communication into Lake Simcoe ? I understand from the minister there are about 130 miles of continuous navigation completed. I did not think there was that much.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 120 miles.


John Graham Haggart: I am glad to hear it. That takes you to within 16 miles of the Bay of Quinte and within 17 or 18 miles of Lake Simcoe. I think that the true policy is for the government to make up their minds at once and go on and complete the canal. But I want an answer to these questions : When will that contract he completed ? What is the comparison between the cost of a lift-lock and ordinary locks serving the same purpose ? What is the time saved ; and whether this lock has proved to be the success that they expected ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I much regret that my interruption has ruffled my hon. friend. But I am within your judgment, Mr. Chairman, and the judgment of the other members of the House, if the hon. gentleman, in hi; former remarks, did not advocate the construction of the canal, over both routes, the Trenton route and the Port Hope route.


John Graham Haggart: I stated distinctly that I did not, and here is the hon. gentleman getting up again in the face of my denial. If I did say so, and I stated afterwards that I did not say so he is obliged to take my denial.


Thomas Walter Scott: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


John Graham Haggart: Why is he repeating it ?


Thomas Walter Scott: I have not the slightest intention of declining to accept the present statement of the hon. gentleman. But I was proceeding to say that I was within tlie judgment of the chairman and the other members of the House that my hon. friend did


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Graham Haggart: I will not allou the hon. gentleman to question my statement.


Thomas Walter Scott: I willask'the hon. gentleman to read the ' Hansard ' to-morrow.


John Graham Haggart: Order.


William Mulock: Allow me to make a remark.


Peter Macdonald: I will point out the rule. The rule is that if an lion, gentleman is charged with making a statement and denies it, his denial must be accepted, and the matter must end there.


William Mulock: I was going to offer a word of explanation, because,

while I freely accept my hon. friend's denial, yet I am in the same position as my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Sir. Scott). My hon. friend from Lanark will remember that after his remarks I commented upon his attitude.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, I know.
Sir WILLIAM MUtLOCK. We are trying to clear the matter up. I want the hon. member for Lanark to do justice to my hon. friend from Assiniboia, who is quite ready to adhere to the rule of debate. I honestly believed that the hon. member for Lanark made the statement attributed to him by my hon. friend, and I think other members of the committee were under that impression. Probably the hon. gentleman does not remember what he said. He may not have intended to say it. That is his position. My hon. friend from Lanark did not intend perhaps so to express himself ; but I am under the impression that every member of the House understood him to say that he favoured both routes. Then I proceeded to say :	Why does not my hon. friend go
further ? There is a third route, why does not he favour that as well ?


Seymour Eugene Gourley: That was myself.


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister think I stated on the floor of the House that I was in favour of building both routes ?


Sir WILLIAM  MTJLOOK@: I think he said so, yes.


John Graham Haggart: I never said anything of the kind.


William Mulock: My hon. friend will find, I am sure, that he is mistaken. He did not intend to say so, and that disposes of the whole point. But my hon. friend will find on reference to the ' Hansard ' that he so expressed himself.


Edward Cochrane: I regret that this matter has been dragged into little parish politics by the Postmaster General, and we have an illustration now how the progress of the estimates is hindered by ministers of the Crown dragging parish politics into a large question like this. I was never more surprised in my life than to hear the Postmaster General on a big question like this, when he was so elated by seeing the superstructure that is built and that magnificent lift-lock, that when we were taking into consideration the estimates to finish that job, he should drag in parish politics by referring to the member for East Northumberland as he did. I am here to say to the Postmaster General that I can go into East Northumberland and challenge the electorate upon the question whether I ever misled them in any statement I made. I Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
do not think that any minister who is sitting on the treasury benches now and who was sitting in opposition in former years can truthfully make that statement in the House. They now say that we are aiding them. We are, and I want to tell the hon. minister who is now controlling the Department of Public Works and I want to tell the hon. Postmaster General that I am here to act upon a higher plane in promoting the best interests of this country and that I am not here to import little party politics into every question that is submitted for the consideration of this House. I cTTre very little where the money of Canada is expended provided it is expended in the best interests of the country and I desire to draw the attention of the hon. Postmaster General and the hon. Minister of Customs to the fact that when we were promoting this canal we got almost abuse when the estimates were submitted. They made party and parish politics out of it, and they said that we were throwing away .the people's money in order to secure the return of Conservatives to this House. They do not get that criticism from us now. We are prepared to vote the money provided it is to be expended for the promotion of the best interests of the country and for the development of trade. When we were in power we were developing great works in this country. We built the Soo canal. We deepened the St. Lawrence canals. What have these hon. gentlemen done ? Millions of money have been frittered away for paltry party ends in the maritime provinces and in the province of Quebec. Although we built the Soo canal it is useless from the fact that these hon. gentlemen, instead of spending a few thousand dollars to build a wharf, are allowing all the trade to go to the American side. There was $60,000 spent to build a wharf to benefit an hon. gentleman who is in this House.


William Mulock: I want to ask the hon. gentleman


Edward Cochrane: If you want any information in reference to the canals ask it from the engineers. That $60,000 that was spent to benefit an hon. gentleman sitting in this House, if it had been spent at the Soo, would have built a wharf there so that Canadian vessels would not require to go over to the American side to land. The large amount of money which has been spent on the Soo canal is almost useless because you have not made the entrance of the canal what it should be and you have not built a wharf on this side so that vessels can go in there. I do not care where this money was spent on this route and I am not opposed to it.
. At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Kecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 80) respecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limi-ited.-Mr. Oliver.
Mr. HENDERSON.: I thought that this Bill had been referred to the Railway Committee. May I ask if it has been before that committee and if it has been reported back by them ?


Peter Macdonald: Yes. It has been before the Railway Committee and has been reported back by them.


David Henderson: The endorsation, I see, reads, ' Reprinted as reported by the committee on miscellaneous private Bills.'


Peter Macdonald: The copy before me is signed by E. P. Hartney as being reported from the Railway Committee with amendments.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED 'IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 150) to amend the Act of the present session to incorporate the Thorold and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. INGRAM moved concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill i No. 40) respecting the Canada Southern Railway Company.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Two of these amendments seem to be unimportant, merely adding the words ' subject to the Railway Act 1903.' But the Senate have cut out clause 10, which reads as follows :
Net withstanding anything in this Act or any previous Act applicable to the amalgamated company, the Railway Act, 1903, shall apply to the amalgamated company to the exclusion of such of the provisions of any special Act of any provincial legislature as are inconsistent with the Railway Act, 1903, and instead of any general railway Act of any province of Canada.
It seems to me that that would have an important bearing, because, if there were any provisions of the provincial Act applying to this road which ought to be continued they would be made null and void and the company made entirely subject to the Railway Act of the Dominion. I do not know whether it will cause any injury or not, but it seems to me that it must have been put in there for a special purpose, to keep alive some provisions of the provincial 218
Act, this having been originally a provincial company.


Andrew B. Ingram: This clause 10 was hastily drawn when the Bill was before the committee of this House of Railways and Canals and Telegraph Lines. Since then the promoters have interviewed the Department of Railways and Canals and the Bill has been made perfectly satisfactory by the amendments to subsection 4 of sect'on 5 and subsection 3 of section 7, which brings it under the Railway Act, 1903. None of these railways, as I understand it, are brought within the scope of provincial Acts. I understand that this is thoroughly satisfactory to the Railway Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That may be, and yet [DOT]the Bill may not be entirely satisfactory 'to the Railway Committee. I think it was at the instance of the committee that this ^clause was drawn to protect the rights of province in the railway.
/ Mr. INGRAM. The Senate Committee looked carefully into the matter and deemed it well to make this change.
/Mr. SPROULE. It may be all right. I am riot saying that it is not. But I think that tjhis clause that has been struck out was inserted by the Railway Committtee after /careful discussion.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the clause was somewhat hastily drawn, and it was thought well after by the Senate Committee and after consultation with the Railway Department it was thought well to make this amendment.
Motion agreed to and amendments concurred in.



[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Canals-Trent canal-construction, $100,000.
['We propose going into supply and taking up the estimates of the Interior Department.']
Edward Cochrane: When you left the chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the fact that when the bon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was Minister of Railways and Canals and the Conservative party was in power we had the oppposition of a good many members of the present government to the carrying out of this Trent Valley canal scheme. We were accused of dilly-dallying and of insincerity in connection with that work. When the Liberals were in opposition one of the members of the present government proclaimed in sonorous tones that it was a burning shame and disgrace to tax the farmers of the country and b'eed them white in raising $35,000,000 a year to govern 5,000,000 people.


William Mulock: _ Considering *the government.


Edward Cochrane: Yes, considering the government; but while we were raising



$35,000,000 a year the present government is raising $70,000,000 in taxes from the people and they are frittering away the money. The late government was building the Sault canal, and building the Canadian Pacific Railway, and deepening the St. Lawrence eanals with a revenue of $35,000,000, but this government with double the revenue is simply throwing the money away on a wharf here and there without pursuing any well thought-out plan for the development of the waterways of Canada.


William Mulock: What wharf do you object to ?


Edward Cochrane: Time would fail me to point out the iniquities of the expenditure made by the present government. Ask the Minister of Finance alongside of you and he will tell you.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot; I do not object to any of them.


Edward Cochrane: I am not objecting to them, but I am telling you where the money is going.


William Stevens Fielding: We know that.


Edward Cochrane: I am glad you do. You are accusing the late government of not hurrying on with this work, but all you did towards completing the St. Lawrence canal system was to take a contract away from a man, and you did not get the job finished any sooner than if you had left him alone. The Postmaster General wants to deceive the people. If he were honest with the people he would tell them which was the best place to have the terminal of thial canal, and he would not have the audacity to talk about the town of Cobourg. If the Postmaster General had any decency he would wait until nearer election times before he attempted to bribe the people. He wanted to make the electors believe that I was opposed to having the terminal of this canal at Trenton.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman is obstructing the vote at this moment.


Edward Cochrane: Why, my dear man, what are you doing ? For half an hour you talked unmitigated nonsense which you did not believe yourself, and which no one listening to you believed.


William Mulock: Why don't you let the vote pass if you are in favour of the canal.


Edward Cochrane: No intelligent man would have a doubt in his mind as to where the outlet of that canal is going to be. If you want it to be of any benefit you know where it is going to be, and if you were not humbugging the people and playing to the gallery you would state so openly. I do not care about the expenditure of
money in East Northumberland


Edward Cochrane: 


William Mulock: You are not voicing the opinion of the people of East Northumberland in that.


Edward Cochrane: I am voicing the opinion of the people of East Northumberland, when I say that their desire is to have the public money expended where it will be for the best advantage of all Canada. We are not local in our ideas. Do you understand that ? I suppose it is incomprehensible to certain of these gentlemen opposite, how people can stand on a plane so high as that. The ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart) is here, and he can tell that I always insisted that the public money should be spent in the best interests of Canada. I knew that if the money for this canal were wisely expended the canal would go down the Trent route. It is two-thirds way across the riding I have the honour to represent. It is navigable to Healey's Falls and with a lift-lock like that at Peterborough, it would bring it down to the level of the waters of the Trent, and then it would develop water-power all along that route. I want to tell the Postmaster General if he doesn't know it, that there is a bay below Healey's Falls, and from Chisholm's Rapids westward there are ten miles of navigable water, so that it is not all canal. If his estimate is right that there are eighteen miles to complete, then deduct the ten miles, and you have only eight miles of canal to Trenton. Does the minister think that he can locate the entrance of this canal at Port Hope when he knows that in the fall of the year the barges could not live on Lake Ontario, from the harbour of Port Hope to the harbour of PresquTle. I may not live to see the canal completed, but I will live as long as I can and, I hope to see the Postmaster General out of power and then he will not be able to humbug the electors in talking about Port Hope or Cobourg or anywhere else in order to catch votes. These hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as I do that the outlet must be on the Bay of Quintd where the barges can take the inland waters, and bring their cargoes to Quebec and Montreal without transhipment. I do not want the Postmaster General to leave the impression that I am opposed to that canal going to Trenton. I thought that question was settled, and I believe it is settled, and the Postmaster General knows deep down in his heart that he is only humbugging the electors when he talks about it going to Port Hope or Cobourg.


William Mulock: My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) pretends to be very anxious to have this canal completed to the town of Trenton. He belongs to a party that began that work in 1880. They were in that office from that time until 1896, a period of sixteen years. The total cost of that canal would be, I suppose, $10,000,000. In sixteen years they had not built one-
6S49

twelfth part of that canal, in sixteen years they had not accomplished one-twelftli of the work. At the rate of progress they were making, it would have taken nearly two hundred years to have completed that work, and the hon. member would tell this House that he hopes to live to see it completed. The only chance he ever had of realizing that hope was that the enterprise should be put in the hands of an enterprising government. That happened to be the good fortune of the canal in 1896. My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) says that he never gave a thought to the Trenton route. I would have thought that, as representing Hast Northumberland, he would have given thought to it continually, would have been ever alert to guard the interests of East Northumberland and to see that the canal came by that route.


Edward Cochrane: I knew it was settled.


Sir WILLIAM MU  LOCK@: You knew it was settled ?


Edward Cochrane: Yes.


William Mulock: How did he learn that it was settled ? I have asked his late leader, the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, if it had been settled in that way by the Trenton route. What answer did I get ? The hon. gentleman made the confession that he favoured the Trenton route, but he receded from that in a moment, and my hon. friend from East Northumberland backed him up.


Edward Cochrane: No, 1 did not.


William Mulock: The Debates will show. I say that the hon. gentleman backed him up in withdrawing any expression he had given in favour of the Trenton route.


Edward Cochrane: No, I did not.


William Mulock: And I had occasion to point out that my hon. friend was not doing justice to East Northumberland.
The attitude of the government in regard to the enterprise is perfectly plain. It is quite true that certain engineering reports have been made in favour of the Trenton route, and it may be that those reports are well founded and that the balance of argument is wholly in favour of the Trenton route. But inasmuch as a very influential section of the country has asked to have another route considered, I may ask my hon. friend if it is not only fair that their request should be listened to and that full consideration should be given to their contention ? My hon. friend has as much as said so himself at this moment, because he says he is not wedded to any route ; he rises above local Considerations. No pent up Utica for him, and the money is to be expended where it will do the most good If a more thorough inquiry should show that it would be best to adopt the Port 2181
Hope route, my hon. friend will be found standing up here supporting the Port Hope route. WEI he not ? He has made great professions of virtue, he is not a partisan in the sense that he would have the money misapplied. He is in favour of the Port Hope route, according to his statements here to-night, if it can be shown to be the better route, and therefore he, like others, is asking us to consider the whole situation and not to reach a conclusion after only a partial consideration of the question. So we now have a statesman instead of the former mere local politician from .East Northumberland. He is willing to support this route if it is necessary for the benefit of Canada as a whole. I compliment him on the high stand he has taken. However, if he would really stand the test when it comes to submitting this to the decision of a final tribunal, time alone will tell. In the meantime the government propose to proceed expeditiously in the completion of this enterprise, as rapidly as the circumstances of this country will admit. The hon. gentleman protests against our spending money, and at the same time says he is anxious for the completion of the canal. We are told its completion will cost $4,000,000 or $5,000,000. Can we build it without money ? The hon. gentleman protests against the expenditure of money necessary for the completion of the canal ; therefore, he must be opposed to the completion of the canal. He cannot take all these inconsistent positions in the same breath. The country is committed to the completion of the canal : the government regards it as an enterprise of great promise, which is entitled to be completed as rapidly as circumstances will warrant. That is our attitude, and to that attitude we propose to adhere.


Edward Cochrane: The Postmaster General has continued on the same line, trying to make a little cheap political capital out of this great question.


William Mulock: Never dreamt of such a thing.


Edward Cochrane: And has put words in my mouth which I never uttered, and which he knows I never uttered. I am not going to allow him or any one else to say that I said certain things which I did not say.


William Mulock: What did you not say ?


Edward Cochrane: I would (think you would be above interrupting me. You should play the part of a gentleman anyway in the discussion. I never said that I was in favour of the Port Hope route. I said that I believed that that question was settled, and therefore I had not given it a thought, because I thought that any sensible government would decide on the route that had been decided on for seventy years past. That is what I thought, and I think in my own mind to-day that that question is

settled just as firmly in the mind or the present government as in the mind of any previous government, only they want to make a little cheap notoriety out of the matter.	*


William Mulock: Nothing of the kind.


Edward Cochrane: You can shake your head ; I do not think there is much in it, and it is easy to shake it; hut I am not going to allow you to put words in my mouth and put me in a false position. I will repeat what I said. I never was asking the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals to spend money in my riding because I represented that riding. I thought the money would be expended when the proper time came, and I would wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the statement that he has made, that he is going to complete this canal as rapidly as the circumstances of the country will warrant. Will he not allow the same latitude to the previous government as to the present government ? This government is asking the House to vote $70,000,000, and should not the previous government have shown the same consideration for the interests of the country when it was in power with only $37,000,000 of revenue ? I pointed out to him what we were doing with that $35,000,000. We were deepening and completing the canals, but the present government is doing no such thing. All public work, so far as canals are concerned, is now centred on the Trent canal, and although the Postmaster General tells as that the government is so anxious to complete this canal expeditiously, yet there is only a paltry $100,000 out of that $70,-C00,000 voted for that purpose. I cannot see how you have-I was going to say the cheek, but perhaps that would not be parliamentary-but I cannot see how you can stand up before this committee and tell the country that you are anxious to go on with this work when you are voting a total of $70,000,000, of which only $100,000 is to carry on this work, and then make a great plea on account of that expenditure. The contracts were all made by the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals, and you have carried them out. I think when you think the matter over and see what an exhibition you have made of yourself, you will feel sad.


William Mulock: If you are anxious for the completion of the canal vote the money. The hon. gentleman is here obstructing the passage of this vote ; if he is so anxious to have the canal completed why should he not have the money voted ? If we have this amount of difficulty to get a paltry $100,000, what would the difficulty be with a larger sum ?


Edward Cochrane: I was not objecting to it.


William Mulock: The country will understand how interested he is when he will not allow us to get the estimates through for this paltry sum.


Edward Cochrane: If the Postmaster General was not so willing and anxious to make political capital, and to make himself conspicuous, coming to the rescue of the Minister of Railways and Canals when it was not necessary, we would not have had all this debate.


David Henderson: I have just a few words to say to the hon. the Postmaster General, because I think he has been making rather an unfair attack on my hon. friend from East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane). The Postmaster General complains that the previous government did not proceed rapidly enough with the construction of this public work, and compared the progress which the present government have made with that made by the late government from 1880 to 1896. But let me, Sir, draw attention to this fact, that from 1880 to 1896- and I believe the Postmaster General had the honour of a seat in this House all that time-the opposition of that day made every effort to obstruct this public work, and the hon. gentleman himself was one of the movst prominent in that obstruction. If there were delays during those sixteen years the government of that day could not be held responsible.


William Mulock: Why not ?


David Henderson: Because every dollar that the late government succeeded in obtaining from parliament to expend on that work was practically, owing to the obstruction of the then opposition, like drawing teeth, to use a common expression.


William Mulock: You had an overwhelming majority.


David Henderson: Yes; but day after day the time of the committee was wasted in obstructing that public work, and every effort of the opposition was directed to prevent its being proceeded with.


William Mulock: No.


David Henderson: We know the tactics that were resorted to by hon. gentlemen opposite in those days. Why, the present government lias a very easy road compared with what the late government had in more matters than one. In the construction of public works they were opposed at every turn ; and when they did succeed in getting a few hundred thousand dollars, they were hounded from one end of the country to the other for their extravagance. Those hon. gentlemen opposite who constitute the remnant of the old opposition were largely responsible for the delays that occurred, and therefore it ill becomes] the Postmaster General-who was one of the foremost of those who denounced this public work as


Edward Cochrane: worthless and as being constructed for (political purposes-to now taunt the late government with delay. I do not live in the neighbourhood of that canal, I do not pretend to know the topography of that country, I am not a judge as to whether Trenton or Port Hope is the proper outlet, the matter is one in which I am not personally interested ; but I have no doubt that had the late government remained in power, they v\ould have determined long before this what route was best in the interests of the country, irrespective of politics. I hope that the Postmaster General, now that he has had his memory refreshed, will withdraw some of the charges he has preferred against the late government for delays. The former government spent very considerable sums in preparing to push this work through. In 1887 they spent more money on that canal than the present government spent in 1899. From 1896 to 1903 more money was spent on the canal each year, except one, than was spent in the previous years. But the reason is evident. Hon. gentlemen on this side are patriotic. We believe in having a public work, which is of great advantage to the country, completed. We assist the government in these matters instead of giving it the bitterest opposition. I notice also that two of the contracts which, I understand, are jus|t about completed, if not already completed, were let by the late government. They were given by the predecessors of the hon. gentlemen now in power-one of them in 1895 and the other in May, 1896. So that the late government should not only have credit for the money they did spend, but also for having pushed that work forward even to the very dying days of that administration. I think there is as much credit due to the ex-Minister of Railways, who gave out these contracts, as to the present government, which carried them to completion. We are not offering to the present government the factious opposition which hon. gentlemen opposite, when on this side, offered the late government. We act like men who take a keen interest in the affairs of the country, and hon. gentlemen opposite, instead of taunting us with the results of their obstruction in the past, should give us credit for helping them to expedite business in the present.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I desire to say a word on this question. I think that a member from a province in which the canal is not situated will probably be in a better position to voice the sentiment of Canada than one directly interested in the work. I want to say here that it gives me the greatest pleasure to support the building of this water-way. Ever since I have entered this House I have endeavoured to inculcate the principle that we should not vijew any public question from a narrow provincial standpoint. I have gone so far as to say that we should be the last to advocate expenditure in our own particular province.
That should be left to people outside, because the members themselves should regard all the provinces as but one country, and should be as interested in the development of every other portion of Canada as they are in the little spot in which they happen to live. I am now in a position to justify the stand I have taken ever since entering this House. When 1 received the invitation to visit Peterborough, I made up my mind to go and see the opening of this great public work. I went, I may say, in fear and trembling, because I believe that if there is a stain on the escutcheon of the Conservative party, it is the Trent canal.
I concur absolutely in what my hon. friend from Haiton (Mr. Henderson) and my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) have said, namely, that no work was ever more represented by gentlemen constituting Her Majesty's opposition as a low political job than the building of the Trent canal.
I live in Nova Scotia. I was not familiar with the location of the Trent Valley canal. I knew nothing about the possibilities of the water-ways of that section. And so, I, and others in Nova Scotia like me, had to take the word of members of parliament. We, in Nova Scotia, had learned to respect members of parliament. We had men to represent us like, for instance, Hon. Mr. Ross, who, though he differs from me politically, wouid be fair in this discussion of a public question. He is a strong Liberal, and, if he ever went wrong, it was when he was swayed by that unholy passion. But, we were accustomed to public men who would fairly represent the interests of the country, and we could not believe that any public man would prostitute his position in the House of Commons, to misrepresent a work that was calculated to be a benefit to his country. I went to Peterborough, the other day, with fear and trembling. When 1 received an invitation from the government, I thought, at last, the government was to show the country the extraordinary character of this work. I fancied they would say : We found this scheme, which was a piece of political debauchery, only half completed ; we have done the best we could with it; we are in possession of the record, and we want to lay before you the jobbery of the Conservative party in connection with this work. So, as I say, I went there in fear and trembling. The Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) was there, and he was one of the happiest men I ever saw. He seemed to be presiding over the completion of the work that was entirely to his liking. I did not think it possible that one who had inveighed against the Trent Valley canal could preside at the opening of that canal with such pleasure. Why, I recollect that we people in Nova Scotia were almost frightened out of our wits that the Conservative government had done something wrong in carrying on this Trent Valley canal work. We trusted the Conserva-

tive party and believed that, in the main, it was right. Still, we feared that, in connection with this matter, there must be something wrong. And the Liberal party in Nova Scotia nsed to tell us : Look at your corrupt government ; look at this infamous ditch in which the public money of Canada was pretended to be spent; that money was not spent, except to be the means of corrupting and debauching the electorate. That was the opinion that hon. gentlemen opposite cultivated for eighteen years. And, even members of the Conservative party almost half believed it. The hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) amused me, some time ago, by telling me that, when the Liberals opposed the Conservatives so earnestly, strongly charging them with corruption, even he almost felt like deserting the government, for it seemed impossible that men could bring themselves to carry on such stern opposition, unless they believed something of the charges they were making. Of course, he said he had lived long enough to know that they did not mean a word of what they said. But, such was the earnestness of their advocacy, that even he wavered in his support of Sir John Macdonald, on several occasions. And, if we in Nova Scotia ever wavered in that support, ft was over the question of this Trent Valley canal. So, you can imagine the feeling with which I went up to view this work. And, you can imagine my feelings when I found it to be such a splendid work for the development of the country. I believe in the development of Canada in every part-not less in Ontario and British Columbia than in my own country. I got hold of the map-I love maps and study them always. And, as I studied the map, it was borne in upon my mind that, whether this canal was to carry through freight or not, did not matter, for it is a splendid internal water-way, and will develop an immense country. I devoted a night or two to the study of the map ; and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, my esteem for the province of Ontario was not heightened. We, in Nova Scotia, are apt to believe that the people of Ontario are the narrowest people you can find. And, as I say, my esteem for them was not heightened by my study of this map. Why, you should have had this canal developed eighty years ago. You have settled along the St. Lawrence and taken the little peninsula of western Ontario, but you have left the rest of the country, up to James Bay, almost as bare as when Cartier came. And, you deserve no credit for what has been done. If confederation had not come, you would have been as backward as you were thirty-seven years ago. But, the other provinces have joined you, and have helped to develop your province. I was amazed, when I looked at the map. to think that any man of integrity could have opposed the development of his province by this splendid water-way. Every Mr. GOURLEY.
man in Ontario should have joined to get that country developed thirty or forty years ago. But the great misfortune of Canada is that we talk, and dispute, and decades go by. and nothing is accomplished.
Well, as I say, I went to Peterborough. And I must say that I admired the courage of the Postmaster General (Sir William Mu-lock). Why, his courage was Alpine in its grandeur. For a man who has spent years in opposing this canal to stand up here, and speak in its defence, shows that he possesses the courage of an African lion. And, when I recall the names of McMullen and Cartwright, associated for years with the most deadly opposition to this canal, I admire also the courage of the Conservative party in insisting upon the completion of this scheme. The Conservative party carried every dollar in support of this canal at the point of the bayonet. No Japanese assault was ever bolder, more masterful, or courageous, than the work of the Conservative party in carrying these votes for the Trent Valley canal, against the deadly opposition of their Liberal opponents. Why. these hon. gentlemen opposite must think that the people of Canada have no memories, if they think, for a moment, that we shall lose sight of one of the saddest, and most disgraceful, chapters in Canadian history, the opposition of Ontario Liberals, for eighteen years, to the development of their own province. We always thought that the narrow Liberals of Ontario were opposed to the development of the maritime provinces. We thought that their betfi noir was Nova Scotia and the maritime provinces. But I find that they are equally opposed to the development of Ontario. Bred in a little mould, they could not bear the expenditure of a dollar for public improvement anywhere, even in the province of Ontario. That being the case, I can understand the feelings of contempt that such men as the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), and the hon. member for Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson), must have for hon. gentlemen opposite. There is such a thing as carrying bravado too far. A statesman should have some sincerity. The Postmaster General would have commended himself more to me if, when this matter was under discussion, he had appeared in habiliments of sackcloth, and with ashes sprinkled on his head. That would have been his proper garb. Had he come here, and said : I have sinned beyond all forgiveness ; but I acknowledge my sin, and, in acknowledging it, I hope I have half won the forgiveness that I crave-had he done that, I would have thought him a man. But when he glories in his sin, when he tries to gain credit by it, he does not add dignity to the public life of Canada. Having seen this great water-way, I heartily support this vote, and I hope my party will support it, as a great work for the development of Canada.
6857 '

I viewed with great pleasure that high lift-lock. The effect of that great engineering work is not confined to Peterborough, it solves many transportation difficulties all over Canada, for instance in the province of Quebec, where rivers drop down from a high plateau to another high plateau. This lift-lock will make the water-ways of Canada available to the commerce of the country. Therefore when I looked upon that magnificent feat of engineering and scientific skill, and remembered that it had been conceived to a large extent in its improved form by the genius of Canadian engineers, I was proud of Canada and of its sons. I am delighted to know that this parliament is charged with the development of more territory than any other parliament in the world, or any other government, barring that of Russia. We have half a continent in charge, we are simply standing at the edge of its development, and in the work of that development we shall find that this lift-lock solves many of the problems that will present themselves to our engineers. Therefore I hail with delight the opening of this lift-lock at Peterborough. X said some harsh things about the Postmaster General, but not intending to say unpleasant things, and X hope that when he looks at this great work and begins to*realize its true meaning, he will ask forgiveness from high Heaven for the awful sins he has committed in not seeing this great work in its true proportions twenty-five years ago, and I hope God will forgive him.
Now my hon. friend seemed to treat with much levity the proposition of having two termini for this water-way. I would like to see half a dozen termini for this water-way. I am not pleading for either one or the other. You can locate them anywhere that will serve the purpose of making a through highway, because then you will want elevators and all the equipments of a port, and I regard this as infinitely valuable as a local and internal water-way. But so narrow minded was the Postmaster General, so bred is he in that little Liberal, Grit, Ontario way of his and of his party, that he could not dream of there being two termini to a great work of this kind. It would burst his head, I fancy, and shatter his brain if he once attempted to conceive it. In many ways 1 admire the hon. Postmaster General, I admire his good nature, and I wonder how a man of some humour can ever be sober when he is speaking and indulging in jokes of that character. I support the idea of two termini, one at Port Hope and one at Trenton ; you can make your third terminus wherever you will ; but in every section of this country where there is a little town growing up. it should be connected with this water-way in the same way.
Now allow me to refer to another thing. My hon. friend said :	Let us get expert
testimony about the settlement of the termini of this water-way system. But I
recollect that when they were proposing to spend two hundred millions of money on the Grand Trunk Pacific system, and we proposed that they get expert testimony before doing so, they refused us, they laughed us to scorn, they said : Let us vote the money, get the railway started, and we will get expert testimony afterwards. That was their position. But hon. gentlemen, in a little matter of this kind, must play the cheap politician and hold this dangling in the air for the purpose of fooling the people of Ontario. I am bound to say that the people of Ontario will be infinitely greater fools than I think they are-and I have not the highest opinion of a great many of them, especially of hon. gentlemen opposite. In the lower provinces we always had an idea that there was a little soft spot in the pates of people of Ontario, but we never dreamed they would go so far as to take the hon. gentleman seriously when he proposes to dangle these two termini before their eyes, without meeting just retribution at their hands. If I were a Liberal of Ontario, after hearing the speech of the Postmaster General this afternoon, I would vote against him and his pary at once and for ever. It is too late in the day for public men to be eternally fooling and scheming about a question of this kind. We want integrity, we want ministers of the Crown, representing the people in this country, to settle these questions on the broad lines of statesmanship and patriotism, then they will be worthy of our confidence.
Now I want to congratulate the ex-Minister of Railways, the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), whom I have learned to respect. I was a stranger when I came into this House, and I had to make up my estimates of men as I met them. I have a very high opinion of the member for South Lanark. He has got convictions, and very few men have them. That is what I admire in him. Right or wrong, you know where to find him. It is a great credit to a man to have convictions about something. The misfortune is that so few of our public men have convictions, but the public man who has them must always be a strong man. But I never knew my hon. friend from South Lanark had such a claim upon the eternal gratitude of the people of this country as to be the father of this great system of the Trent canal. I honour him for supporting it twenty years ago, because at that time there was no Liberal public opinion in Canada. Every little fellow was struggling for his own province. There was no such thing as a man voting for a public work in the interest of the whole of Canada, but he had to vote from the standpoint of his township, or his county, or his province at most. Therefore, when the hon. gentleman started out to carry that canal forward-because it had started years before, but somebody had to carry it forward- and when that hon. gentleman undertook to.

carry it forward he was a brave man, because he had to meet, and oppose, and overcome objections of all sorts from the Liberal party in this House. When he undertook to vote money for this canal he found it a herculean task. Now, after having seen his efforts crowned with so great a measure of success, I hope he will be the father of many other great schemes for the internal development of Canada, and the great Conservative party who has supported him, and will continue to support him, will deserve the utmost credit from the people of this country.


John Graham Haggart: Will the minister tell us about the lift-lock ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think there was a question by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) in respect to the route at the Georgian bay end. He referred to the alternative to the Severn, or river route, as it is called. That alternative route, around by Barrie to which he refers) was surveyed some years ago by Mr. Rubidge, an engineer connected with the canals of Canada for a great many years and who has recently died. He had a very large experience in connection with the canal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A very able man.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So I understand. He surveyed that route and reported, as I have been led to understand, condemnatory of it. He favoured what is known as the river route. I simply call my hon. friend's attention to the fact because he may not have heard of it, or he may not have known that the matter was ever under consideration. It appears that it was. My hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has asked me a question with respect to comparisons between the ordinary lock and the hydraulic lift-lock. One set of ordinary locks would consist of five as compared with one hydraulic lock, or double lock as it is called. The capital cost of one set of five ordinary locks would be $275,000. One hydraulic lock, double set, costs $500,000. The cost of maintenance and wages on the five ordinary locks requiring twenty lockmen, two men to each lock with day and night shifts, each man at $400, is $8,000. The wages in connection with the working of the hydraulic lift-lock would be, for a lock master, one during the day and one at night, and four gatemen, $2,500, as against $8,000 for the five ordinary locks. The annual repairs to the five ordinary locks would be $1,000. They would cost about $250 each.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It would cost $1,250 if there were five locks 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. The annual repairs to one hydraulic lock are estimated at $100. An element to be considered is the time of locking. With the five ordinary Mr. GOURLEY.
locks, sixty-five feet, one and a half minutes per foot, if will take one and a half hours for one vessel going up or down, or if two vessels go through the locks at the same time it will take one of them one and a half hours, while it will take the other vessel three hours to get through. By the hydraulic lock both vessels will pass through at the same time in twelve minutes. If the saving in wages and repairs, $6,650, in favour of the hydraulic lock over one set of five ordinary locks is capitalized at three per cent it will be equal to a sum considerably above $200,000. This, if deducted from the capital cost of the hydraulic, will leave the cost of the hydraulic lock very little more than the cost of one set of five ordinary locks, while the advantage in the saving of time by the use of the hydraulic lock is vastly greater than by the use of one set of five ordinary locks. These are the views of the engineer, Mr. Rogers, who is in charge of that work and who is certainly to be commended for the efficiency displayed by him in the carrying out of the work.


John Graham Haggart: When will the canal be completed to Lake Simcoe ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In about a year; when the other hydraulic lift is finished.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister has not noticed my question as to whether it is the policy of the government to make immediate provision for the completion of the work not in sections and by dribbling out an amount of money each year, but as I suggested this afternoon by the making of provision for the immediate finishing of the work. I do not know whether the hon. minister takes it seriously. I think he does. Certainly the hon. Postmaster General does not take it seriously and I think the committee is entitled to some explanation as to how it happens that after the boast that has been made by the Postmaster General as to the rapid way in which the present government have been carying on the work, as to the generous way in which they have been providing money to carry on this work, we are only asked for an appropriation of $100,000 at the present time. The hon. Postmaster General says that according to the rate at which we were proceeding under the Conservative administration it would have taken a great many years to complete the work.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK About two hundred.


Haughton Lennox: That is the hon. gentleman's way of stating it but it does not figure out. According to actual computation, according to the rate at which we are asked to vote money for this enterprise now, it will take at least 150 years to complete the work. Estimating that it

will cost $7,000,000 it will take seventy years by dividing up the time. If you take into consideration that works are always deteriorating as they progress and if you take into account the additional sums of money that will therefore require to be expended during that time it will certainly take a century and a half at the present rate of progress before you may expect the completion of the work. The hon. Postmaster General points out that this work is proving very productive and beneficial at the present time ; in fact he says it is exceedingly beneficial, that this is a magnificent work and one of the greatest possible moment to the people located along the line of that portion of the canal which is now open. But, it is sealed at both ends and it is not a tithe of the benefit to the people that it will be if you open up the two ends. We have been working in the centre and it is the duty of the government to set to work vigorously and open up the ends. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals says that he does not know whether I ever heard of the surveys. Why, I live right alongside of where the surveys have taken place. We know a great deal about the canal, we are interested in it, and I am amazed to think that the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) who is attached to the government has never brought to the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals the fact that the people of North Simcoe are intensely interested in this matter. We have been studying up the reports of the engineers. The people of North Simcoe are greatly interested in the question as to what the Transportation Commission is going to do, and whether the route is by way of Barrie or by the way of Orillia and through Midland by the Severn river, the project is still one of great importance to the people of North Simcoe.
I am amazed that the minister does not realize that all the Simcoes, and especially North Simcoe are interested in this matter. The town of Barrie has the happy fortune of being now associated with South Simcoe, and by reason of my political connection with it in the future, I am urging upon the minister the importance of getting to woific seriously. If this $100,000 for such a work came from any source but the government, I would say it was an insult to the intelligence of the people. Why, when this lift-lock has been opened and connection made between the two stretches of the canal, should this vote be cut down to $100,000 ? The Postmaster General only considers that the public are watching for the expenditure of money in each locality, but I look upon this as a great national work. The people of the United States are watching us and their most eminent engineers are pointing out that this immense improvement should be developed in the interest of Canada, and they are pointing out, too, that it will probably be their greatest competitor for the trade of the western states. At the present time there is every danger, on account of the building of the so-called National Transcontinental Railway, that our trade be diverted to United States ports, and it is more than ever important that we should see to it that our water-ways should serve the purpose for which nature designed them, and that this scheme inaugurated almost a century ago, should not be allowed to lag. Now that there is congestion of traffic in the west it behoves the governments to open up I every avenue of transportation, and the most natural of these avenues is by Lake Superior through the Georgian bay to Montreal and through this very canal. It will not only open up a channel for the commerce of the west, but it will have the effect of compelling railways to largely reduce rates by reason of the competition it affords. I understand that this item is not to pass, as the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Ward) wishes to speak in reference to it, and on my own behalf, until I get certain papers, I would ask the minister to allow it to stand for the present.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have arranged with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Ward) to have a discussion on this question, and if the item passes the same opportunity will be given to my hon. friend.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member for Durham might take the matter up when I am accidently out of the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I shall try to arrange that you will be present.


John Graham Haggart: Any way there are several items for the Trent canal.


Haughton Lennox: Can the minister give us an idea as to whether this work will be progressed with rapidly ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think I can say that the object is to make progress.
Soulanges canal-survey for breakwater,


John Graham Haggart: This seems a very large sum for a survey. You have the staff on the Galops canal who have done nothing for over a year and surely you can utilize them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am advised by the deputy minister that this amount would be necessary. If we take the men from one canal to the other we shall have to charge their services to this work.
Soulanges canal-steel bridge at power house, $4,000.


John Graham Haggart: I want to know the total expenditure on the Soulanges canal and what it costs to work each year. The Auditor General was comparing the cost of the Soulanges canal and the Cornwall canal, and there was a dispute between him and the

Minister of Justice as to a very large amount.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will give my hon. friend a full statement at next meeting.
Soulanges canal-workshops, heating, lighting and machinery, $7,200.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This includes $4,000 for the steel bridge at the power house over the tail-race. That is the first item. The next is the workshop. $7,000 is for the installation of machinery, wiring, electric lamps, &c. There are about 140 incandescent lamps at forty cents each.


George Taylor: You can buy electric lamps cheaper than that retail.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These are by public tender, advertised in the newspapers. The total estimated cost is $7,200/


Haughton Lennox: Is there anything for the workshops themselves ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is simply for lighting and heating and the machinery of the two workshops on the Soulanges canal.


Mr. LANCASTER.: We have it stated in connection with the Cornwall canal that the workshops there will require a large amount of horse-power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are two at Cornwall which will require sixty horsepower. This also requires sixty horse-power.


Haughton Lennox: We were told that the workshops to be built at Cornwall were to serve the two canals.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, no. The workshops at Cornwall are to serve the St. Lawrence canals. They are separate altogether,


Haughton Lennox: What is the meaning of this last item of No. 103 7
Appropriation not required for 1904-5, $413,919.37.
I notice that recurring frequently and I would like to know what it means. ,


William Stevens Fielding: It means that the columns for the two years would not balance otherwise. That is simply striking a balance from the appropriation of last year. The different items coming under that head which it is not necessary to repeat are lumped together and put in in that way. It is a mere striking of the balance, an aid to comparison, and has no bearing on the estimates of the two years.


Haughton Lennox: It does not balance.


William Stevens Fielding: It is intended to permit of a comparison of the appropriation for the two years.


Haughton Lennox: The column comes to $2,000,000 odd but the corresponding column for 1904-5 is $1,500,000.


John Graham Haggart: 


William Stevens Fielding: In order to show the amount appropriated last year, they take the amount for similar services this year and then in the ease of other services for which no vote is required, they fill in the difference as an explanation of how the total of last year was made up. This practice has been adopted in the preparation of the estimates for generations.


Haughton Lennox: It means that items of a similar class last year are not required this year and the items are added together and inserted in this way ?


William Stevens Fielding: Quite correct.


John Graham Haggart: Are the whole final estimates made up and paid on the Soulanges canal now ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: These are the total
estimates.


John Graham Haggart: Are the final estimates made out and settled with the contractors ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In so far as they can be settled between the department and the contractors they have been, but the contractors have an idea that there are certain additional sums which are due to them.


John Graham Haggart: What I want to know is this. Has the department made its final estimates on the Soulanges canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: All except the workshops.


Richard Blain: How many men are employed in the workshops ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We require two or three carpenters and a blacksmith and a machinist.


John Graham Haggart: Have you workshops on the Beauharnois canal ? Where was the work for that canal done before ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A good deal was done 'at Lachine.


John Graham Haggart: And the workshops on the Cornwall canal did the work for the upper canals ? [DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, on the St. Lawrence canals.
St. Ours lock, constructing new gates,


John Graham Haggart: Where is the work done -at Lachine or on the canal itself ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is below St. John's on the Richelieu river. New gates were provided for this lock last year and they were placed in position at the opening of navigation this spring. The old gates are in a dilapidated condition, not fit for service, and this amount is intended to provide spai'e gates. Usually on the canals we keep sets of spare gates in case of accidents. This is to provide the timber and $6,000 is the

estimate. The timber is estimated to cost $2,410 ; the castings are estimated to cost $700, the steel $140, the paints and oils $250, and labour $2,500.


Haughton Lennox: Let by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, done by the men employed on the canal. We must have men there to make these constant repairs. A great deal of the material in the old gates is good, especially the timber, and we put in new timber just as you would put in new ribs in a wooden vessel. You could not have this work done by contract.


Haughton Lennox: This is not a question of repairs, but of constructing new gates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These new gates are made by the men in the employ. It was necessary to keep them to make repairs to the old gates, and as they are there it is cheaper to utilize them in making the new gates than to give out the contract.


Haughton Lennox: I venture to say that the hon. gentleman will find that it would be much less expensive to have this work done by contract. This is a most improvident way of doing the work.


Richard Blain: How much money was expended there last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was nothing expended last year on that item, because there was no appropriation.


John Graham Haggart: Are these new gates made at the shops in Lachine or on the St. Lawrence canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the workshops at Ghambly. A good deal of the work is done in the winter, and these men employed in the summer are given employment in the winter in connection with this work.
Carillon and Grenville canal-rebuilding -Grenville wharf (revote), $23,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This wharf was built twenty-one years ago. The part above water is in urgent need of being renewed. It is proposed to replace the cribwork with concrete. The whole amount was voted last year, but became available too late to be used during the year.


John Graham Haggart: Will this $23,000 finish the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the estimate. It is intended to invite tenders.


John Graham Haggart: What did the wharf cost before ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was built twenty-one years ago, and I have not the figures as to the cost.


John Graham Haggart: The portion under water ought to be as good as ever, and all that would need repairing would be the upper
part. This seems an enormous sum for such work.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The cribwork is to be replaced with concrete, which makes it much more expensive.


John Graham Haggart: But it is only the part above water that is to be replaced, not the whole cribwork.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a good portion of it.


John Graham Haggart: And this is a good price. It must be a large wharf when the part above water costs $23,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the estimate of the engineer. But the work is to be put up for tender, and I suppose there will-be competition. Of course, the lowest tender will be accepted.


Richard Blain: I understood the hon. minister to say that no money was spent at St. Ours Locks last year. But I would draw his attention to the fact that $800 was voted last year. Was not that expended ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not in connection with the gates at St. Ours.


Richard Blain: I did not say for the gates. I asked if there was any money expended.
MB. EMMERSON.	There were two
wharfs repaired in that lock last year.


Richard Blain: What was the total cost ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not that information.


Richard Blain: Would the expenditure be at the same point ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, at the same point-the St. Ours canal.


Haughton Lennox: I understood the minister to say there was expenditure for new gates last year. What was the necessity for that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was in the appropriation of the year previous. There was no appropriation in 1903-4. Of course, I was reading the explanation given by the engineer, and this explanation, of course was prepared last fall.


Richard Blain: Under what item can we find the explanation of the $800 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will bring a statement of the expenditure for my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) if he wishes it.


Richard Blain: Oh, no.
Welland canal-stone protection to banks of new canal, $20,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is represented that the rip-rap protection of the banks of the new canal has not been renewed since it was first placed about twenty years ago ? It is all worn away in many places and the banks have been cut by the action of the

water. It is estimated that $20,000 will renew the rip-rap protection on ten miles of the bank.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will this work be let by tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
Welland canal-to change valves and hanging gear of new Welland canal lock gates, $30,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to change the Townsend valve, which never worked satisfactorily, being complicated, easily put out of repair and slow. This valve is being replaced with what is known as the butterfly valve. The valves are placed at the bottom of the gates. There are twenty-seven locks, in over half of which the valves have been replaced. The amount expended up to last May, 1904, was $14,498.62. The work is being done by the canal staff. The full expenditure on the work does not appear in the amount I have named. The account was not kept separately, the expenditure charged up to the vote to execute heavy repairs.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How long has the Townsend valve been used ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: This work is at Ramey's Bend. The expenditure becomes necessary because the deepening along the side of the present wall which is now going on tends to bring the wall down. It is .already falling in places. It is proposed to build a concrete wall founded on the new bottom of the canal at a cost of $70,000.


George William Fowler: Has the contract been let ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.
Lachine canal-rebuilding old Locks 1 and 2, $45,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to rebuild and lengthen or extend the walls of the old locks 1 and 2 at Montreal. The walls were falling into decay, and becoming unsafe. This is contract work, Quinlan & Robertson are the contractors. This amount will complete the work. It is expected the locks will be ready for navigation in the course of the present season. The total expenditure up to the 1st of May last was $143,014. The estimated cost is $213,000. The work is certainly very necessary. It is all let by contract. Both locks were old. There are many market boats that go down through them.


John Graham Haggart: I thought there was a plan for utilizing the old locks of the canal, Mr. EMMERSON.
taking them down altogether and building virtually a docking place for ships.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a basin formed there which is to be utilized for the purpose my hon. friend mentions.
Lachine canal-under-pinning wall, basin No. 2, $7,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This work can only be done during the period when the canal is unwatered in the spring, a short period of about a month. The foundation of the new wall will probably be completed in a couple of seasons, after which it is expected the balance of the work will occupy two summers.
Lachine canal-lock gates, $10,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is required for repairs and for spare gates for the new locks. It is usual to keep on hand spare gates in case of accident.
Soulanges canal-arms for gates and heaters, $1,350.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We require five spare arms for operating the gates, costing $50 each. Then we want 12 electric heaters, costing $30 each, 13 transformers, costing $50 each ; and the wiring is estimated to cost $140.


John Graham Haggart: I would like'you to bring down the amount expended on the power-house and the amount expended for electrical purposes, both for power and for lighting that canal. I want these amounts for the purpose of comparison with the expenditure on the Cornwall canal.
Soulanges canal-water-wheel governors and heaters, $1 500. 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: We want to put in two new culverts at $400 each ; remove the old culverts and settle the new ones, $100 ; 6 electric heaters, at $40 each ; 6 transformers, at $50 each ; wiring, $60.
Soulanges canal-widening and deepening St. Amour's gully, $4,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This gully is about two miles above the lower entrance to the canal. The soil is very soft. There is a ditch which was not made deep and wide enough at first, and is now choked ; and in order to avoid damages to the adjoining farms by back water, this work is necessary. It is to be done. During the present season we expect to do the excavation, stone-lining, sodding and alterations to culverts.


John Graham Haggart: Are they under the canal ?
iMr. EMMERSON. The culverts are under the canal. It is to prevent water doing damage to the farms.


John Graham Haggart: We have had an enormous expenditure on the Soulanges for the purpose of taking that river under the canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not the place. I


John Graham Haggart: But I do not know of any other place in which drains passed along the canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is on section 3 of O'Leary's contract.


John Graham Haggart: Was there a drain before the canal was constructed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, there was a natural water-course, but they carried more water into it by reason of the ditches on the side of the canal.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This work is all done by tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Wherever you construct a canal you have to drain the whole neighbourhood ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, and then you have claims for damages for injuring property.
Chambly canal-to extend and repair wall at head of Ste. Therese island, $2,200.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This work is necessary and the money is required to provide a boulder line on the slope above the piece of wall built in the last three years to protect the head of the island against the action of the Richelieu river. The water in the river, a year ago last spring, rose to an unprecedented height and the necessity of protecting the slope above the wall became apparent. There was $900 provided last year. Up to May 1st, it is estimated there has been $748.29 expended. We will require $2,200 more this year.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister seems to have branched out a good deal since last year. Last year $900 was all that was required.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, but that was for a separate wall. That wall was completed but this is for an additional wall to line the slope above the wall already built with small boulders extending about 1,400 feet, the total estimated cost of which is $2,200.


Haughton Lennox: This is something that has developed since last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: And this $2,200 will complete the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the estimated cost.


Haughton Lennox: It will be let by contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It will be let by tender.
Chambly canal-to rebuild culvert, Renault's farm, $8,000.


John Graham Haggart: That is a large sum for a farm. You had better buy the farm and make a present of it to some one.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The culvert has been giving a good deal of trouble owing to leaks. It was examined during last winter and the timbers were found to be in a decayed and rotten condition, so much so that it is necessary to rebuild it. It is proposed to rebuild it of concrete as was done in the case of other culverts on this canal in the last few years. The excavation is ex-timated at $1,800. Other items are the removal of the old culvert, concrete and unwatering, the whole being estimated at $8,000. This is not for the protection of one farm.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of the culvert ? Does it drain more than one farm ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This culvert is under the canal and there is very much more than one farm drained but it is located on De-nault's farm, it is given that name.


Haughton Lennox: Will that work be let by tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Has there been any money spent on that work in the last three or four years ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.
Chambly canal-to macadamize road west side of canal, $4,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was an appropriation last year. It is estimated that the materials and labour for the one and a quarter miles necessary to be done will cost $4,000.


John Graham Haggart: What are you macadamizing it for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They say the road is almost impassable during wet weather. During the construction of the canal the earth was removed from the side and used in the building of that tow path. It has spoiled the road. At some seasons of the year the water in the canal comes up to within a foot or two of the road and makes the road soft and wet. The highway is on government property. About a mile of the road was macadamized in 1873. The macadamized tow path extends on the east side of the canal between St. .Tohn's, lock No. 1 and Chambly lock No. 2.


Haughton Lennox: This is on the west side?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Is this a tow-path simply?


John Graham Haggart: Oh. no. This is a road built for the benefit of the people of the country.


Haughton Lennox: This runs parallel to the canal 1


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Is the government expected to build these roads alongside of the canal for the accommodation of the public ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In building the canal they injured the road.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And this is making good the injury ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This makes good the injury. The road is impassable practically by reason of the act of the government in Duilding the canal. Now it is necessary to macadamize the road in order that the public may get the benefit of it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the 'government have to maintain this road for all time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Part of this was done as far back as 1873.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I say will the government have to maintain this road for all time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: If you encroach upon the road in building the canal you should restore it'to its original condition, but I think the maintenance of the road should fall upon the municipality. What appears to be done in this ease is that the government is keeping up at the expense of the country this highway which I think should be maintained at the expense of the municipality.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The water in the canal has been raised since the canal was built. The lock-gates were raised and the height of the water was raised with the result that the soakage into the bank does great injury to the road.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The country seems to be getting soaked in this case.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They think that the government rather than the road should be soaked. Perhaps there is some equity in it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I dare say.


Haughton Lennox: If it is by reason of the water rising it is quite proper to restore the road to a proper condition, but I do not think tlje government ought to keep it in repair unless some new condition arises. The ordinary repair of the road should fall upon the municipality.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly when I was minister there was a petition to have this road repaired. I think I got a report from the officer down there as to the liability of the government and I found that they had none. In fact I went over part of it myself when I was down there Mr. HAGGART.
and I did not see any liability on the part of the government. The damages were paid for and the repairs made after the canal was built. It is alleged now, as the bon. minister says and it was alleged in my time, that the height of the water some how or other had increased in the canal. I do not think that is so. The man in charge of the waste weir has reported that there lias been no increased water in it since the canal was built.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed by the deputy minister that there is no doubt the water was raised by the raising of the lock. The damage done to the individuals was paid for, but there is constant soakage from the canal to the road, and it is necessary to macadamize it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the work been done ?


Sir.   ESISIERSON@: About a mile was done last year, and there is about a mile and a quarter to do.


George William Fowler: It costs 83,000 a mile ?


Sir.   ESISIERSON@: Yes.
Sir. (LENNOX. The people of the country will be amazed when they find it takes 83,000 a mile to macadamize a road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is done by contract and tender.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Perhaps you are asphalting it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No ; macadamizing.


Haughton Lennox: It is time to give the government warning that the people will not be satisfied to pay $3,000 a mile for macadamizing a road.


George Taylor: Vote the money ; it is the last chance the government will have.


Haughton Lennox: There is something in that, but if the minister does get a chance I hope he will not do it again.


George William Fowler: The cost of the macadam would depend upon how the work was done. If it is an ordinary country road $3,000 a mile would be an outrageous amount, but if it is made with broken rock it would be different. What is the character of the work ?	-	- -


Sir.   ESISIERSON@: It is macadamized with broken stone.


George Taylor: What depth of broken stone ?


Sir.   ESISIERSON@: I have not the specifications here.
Chambly canal-renewing landing wharf,

Ml-. ESISIERSON. The old wharf is beyond repair. The action of the ice each spring is very damaging, but with concrete walls and steel girders the work will be of

a permanent character, except the timber flooring.


John Graham Haggart: Will this complete ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: We appear to have voted $6,000 for this last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; there are two wharfs, one above and one below the locks, and this is for the one above the locks.


John Graham Haggart: Is it time we were adjourning ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought, if these items were not controversial, we would probably get through with them.


John Graham Haggart: We cannot. Have you brought down the information we asked for the other day in reference to the Galops canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, I think so. Here is the Gilbert contract ?


John Graham Haggart: Of what year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 1897. This is the only contract. I asked the deputy for all the contracts with regard to these matters and he gave me these papers as copies of all there were.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


John Graham Haggart: What do you intend doing on Monday ?


William Stevens Fielding: We propose going into supply and taking up the estimates of the Interior Department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 18, 1904.