1905-03-09

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 102) respecting a certain patent of the Gold Medal Furniture Manufacturing-Company, Limited.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 103) respecting the Richmond and Drummond Fire Insurance Company.- Mr. Tobin.
Bill (No. 104) respecting the Northern Bank.-Mr. Bole.
Bill (No. 105) to incorporate the Ontario Fire Insurance Company.-Mr, Boyce.
Bill (No. 106) respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Black.
Bill (No. 107) respecting a certain patent of Celeste Joly.-Mr. Ralph Smith-by Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 108) to incorporate the Western Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Adamson- by Mr. Burrows.
Bill (No. 109) respecting the Hudson's Bay and Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Toronto and Hamilton Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. Ill) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Bridge Company.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 112) respecting the Hamilton, Galt and Berlin Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 113) respecting the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railways Company. -Mr. Dyment-by Mr. Parmelee.
Bill (No. 114) respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Dyment-by Mr. Parmelee.
Bill (No. 115) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Company-Mr. L. G. McCarthy-by Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Dyment-by Mr. Parmelee.
Bill (No. 117) to incorporate the Athabasca Railway and Oil Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 118) regarding the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. Oliver.
Bill (No. 119) to incorporate the D. R. Fraser Company, Limited.-Mr. Oliver.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	Wliat is the estimated cost ol equipment of the Royal Canadian Mint in machinery and appliances for coinage ?
2.	What is the estimated cost of working per year, including number and wages of staff ; and by whom will the working staff be appointed ?
3.	What is the capacity of the mint ? What amount of gold bullion could be coined per year, exclusive of the necessary silver and copper coinage for use in Canada ?
4.	What was the amount of gold held in reserve on January 1st, 1905, by the Dominion, and by all the Canadian banks, respectively ?
5.	Is it the intention to coin free of charge all gold bullion brought to the mint ? If not, what charge is proposed ?
6.	What charge, if -any, is to be made for coinage of gold for the British government ?
7.	How much is it estimated will be coined for the British government each year ?
8.	What has been the face value of copper and silver coined for Canada each year since 1895 ; the cost of bullion therefor, the expense of coinage, and the cost of shipment to Canada ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: Would the hon. gentleman let it stand till next question day? It calls for something more than the facts recorded. I hope to have the information next question day.



NATIONALIZATION OF LIVE STOCK RECORDS.

Mr.   A.@: MARTIN-by Mr. FOSTER-asked:
1.	What steps have been taken to secure the nationalization of the live stock records of Canada ?
2.	Are national records likely to be established in the near future, and under what conditions ? If not, why not ?


Hon. SIDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: Last year at a convention held in Ottawa of gentlemen interested in live stock
from all over the Dominion, the question of the nationalization of the live stock records was discussed, and a strong resolution in favour of that proceeding was passed, and representations were made to me as Minister of Agriculture asking me to take steps to bring about the nationalization of live stock records. As a result of that request discussion has been going on amongst those interested in the live stock record. Just lately an agreement has been practically come to on behalf of the Live Stock Record Associations, organized and incorporated under the Act 63-64 Vic., chap. 33 of this parliament called 'An Act respecting the incorporation of Live fetock Record Associations,' by which these associations have undertaken to remove their records to Ottawa. These associations have been heretofore provincial in their character and incorporated under provincial laws, but they are now incorporated under the Dominion Act and have become Dominion in their character. A form of agreement has been submitted to these associations and to myself as Minister of Agriculture under which it is expected that the records will be removed to Ottawa from the places where they now exist, and in case there is no present record of any particular breed of live stock such an association shall be formed under this Act as will make such an agreement in future. Under this agreement the records are to be established in Ottawa, to have their home in the Department of Agriculture, where they will be supplied with house room, stationery, &c. The control and management of the methods of the keeping of the records and everything in connection with the financial affairs of these associations shall be entirely and wholly left in the hands of the associations themselves, the department assuming absolutely no responsibility or control in these respects. But, in view of the nationalization of the records, I have been asked as minister to affix the stamp or seal of the Department of Agriculture to the pedigrees or certificates which are to be hereafter issued, and in so far as supervision of the correctness of the records necessary before the affixing of the seal is concerned, the Department of Agriculture shall have so much supervision and only so much supervision in regard to this work. At the present moment a very great number of the record association of the Dominion have agreed to this proposition-the great majority of them-and I believe it is in the interest of live stock that the organization should be proceeded with, and that it should be completed in regard to all record associations with the concurrence and full approbation of these associations.



MONTREAL HARBOUR-PERMANENT SHEDS.

Mr. PIOHE asked :: course of erection at the port of Montreal or of part of the same prepared ?
2.	By whom were the specifications and estimates thereof prepared ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: 1.	The plans of the permanent sheds now being constructed were prepared by the harbour engineers and by a staff of engineers of the Dominion Bridge Company, for which an account was rendered by the Dominion Bridge Company for $1,200 from September, 1903 to September] 1901.
2.	The specifications and estimates were prepared in the same manner.



MONTREAL HARBOUR-GRAIN CONVEYERS.

Mr. PIC HE asked :: 1.	What engineer was employed hy the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal to prepare plans for grain conveyers in connection with the grain elevators which have been lately constructed by said corporation, under the supervision of the government ?
2.	Have these plans been submitted to the government ?
3.	What is the estimated cost of such grain conveyers ?
4.	How many piers or wharfs will be served by said conveyers ?


Hou. RAYMOND PREFONT AINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: 1.	The general plans of the grain conveyers were prepared by the harbour engineer and detail plans of the galleries and machinery have been prepared hy the J. S. Metcalf Company of Chicago. Only the flaming of the gallery over one shed is yet constructed.
2.	The general plans were submitted to government and approved of, but tbb plans of machinery have not been submitted and are not ready for submission.
3.	Tile construction of the conveyer galleries and their supports is included in the contract for building the sheds and the cost lias not been separated. The estimated cost of the machinery equipment which is not included in the shed contract $230,000.
4.	Two piers and two shore wharfs comprising ten ships' berths will be served by the conveyers.



EXAMINATION OF IMMIGRANTS.

Mr. URIAH WILSON asked :: 1.	Are immigrants coming from the United States into Canada required to undergo any examination as to their qualifications to become settlers in Canada ?
2.	If so, what is the nature of such examination ?
3.	At what points on the boundary line between the two countries do the said immigrants enter into this country ?
4.	What steps are taken by the department to ensure that the aforesaid immigrants are desirable settlers in Canada ?


Mr. PICHE.: 


Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: 1.	European immigrants coming to Canada from the United States undergo the same examination at the United States forts as do immigrants destined for the United States.
2.	The examination includes replies to all questions on the manifest, such as the amount of money, age, ability to read or write, occupation, and nationality. The amount of money, occupation and destination are the points upon which the boards of inquiry determine whether or not any immigrant is likely to become a public charge, if so he is excluded.
3.	The immigrants enter Canada from the United States chiefly at the several boundary ports leading to Montreal, at St. Albans, Malone and Newport. Some few arrive at Ogdensburg, Niagara Falls, Emerson, and Northport in British Columbia.
4.	Hitherto the department has depended upon the examination made by the United States immigration officers as to fitness of immigrants to become settlers in Canada. Settlers from the United States, the bulk of whom come in via Gretna, Portal, &c., undergo no examination. Lately the department has been considering the advisability of establishing a medical inspector at New York, but no final action has been taken in that direction.



GRAEME HUNTER AND THE ASSOCIATED BRITISH CANADIAN SOCIETY.

Mr. RALPH SMITH asked :: 1.	W'hen did the department first become aware of the society known as the Associated British Canadians, of which Mr. Graeme Hunter is president ?
2.	What are the aims and objects of this society ?
2. When was the first complaint made to the department that Graeme Hunter was not, in all cases, carrying out his agreements ?
4.	What action did the department take when these facts became known ?
5.	W'as anything done by the Glasgow police ?
6.	What further action was taken by the department to make known Hunter's operations in England ?
7.	Were any representations made by the Trades and Labour Society of Toronto ?
8.	Were any representations made by the Ontario Government Employment Bureau in Toronto, that mechanics from Scotland were arriving in Toronto with the promise of work, but were unable to find any ?
9.	What were the results of Mr. Bruce Walker's inquiries ?
10.	Was Hunter prosecuted ?
11.	Are there any other specific cases of misrepresentations on file in the department ?
12.	What' evidence was submitted by Mr. Preston ?
13.	Has the department definite knowledge of the indictment ?
14.	Has any evidence been taken by the commissioner from employers of labour in Canada, who were getting men through Graeme Hunter?

15.	Is there any definite knowledge that employers of labour were in communication with Hunter to secure mechanics, &c. ?
16.	What is the general policy of the department with regard to the encouragement of mechanics, &c. ?
17.	Was any reply received from the Colonial Office as to what action, if any, was taken by the Home Office "to suppress these fraudulent employment agencies ?


Right Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: 1.	By letter dated April 26, 1904, from Mr. Bruce Walker, agent in Glasgow, who did not seem to be favourably impressed with the society or its operations.
2.	Apparently to send to Canada, farm labourers, mechanics, &c., for whom situations are guaranteed on arrival.
3.	On May 23, 1904, David Dickson, a mason, and 10 others came to Quebec under an agreement witlj G. Hunter, a copy of which was furnished to the department, by which they were to be met by Hunter's agent, and directed to situations, but they found neither agent nor work.
4.	A cable was sent to Mr. J. Bruce Walker, Canadian Government Agent in Glasgow, to make known by advertisements that Graeme Hunter was sending out mechanics evidently under false representations, and that bis and other similar organizations were in no way connected with the department. Mr. Walker was also instructed by letter (May 27, 1904) to place the matter m the hands of the Glasgow police. In addition to this Mr. Dickson was asked for a list of the names and occupations or trades of the members of the party who came over with him.
5.	A cable was received from the government agent that detectives were investigating Hunter's operations.
6.	The Colonial office was informed that designing persons were apparently making use of the bona tide immigration movement to Canada for the purpose of defrauding and deceiving people in the United Kingdom, and sending them to Canada under false representations, and they were asked to communicate the substance of this despatch to the home office with the request that sieps be taken to prevent the continuance and recurrence of these frauds.
7.	Mr. John O'Donohue, an officer of the society made representations to the department.
8.	Yes.
9.	He found that Hunter advertised himself as a ' strike smasher,' and that while Hunter received some orders from manufacturers and others to send out men, he sent out numbers of mechanics and others in excess of the orders.
10.	Yes.
11.	The department has information in regard to additional cases.
12.	58 witnesses, including 38 disappointed artisans who had returned.
13.	Yres, a copy of the indictment is on file in the department.
14.	Not in so far as the department is aware.
15.	Some' 16 leading firms were communicated with and 14 answered * No.' two answered ' Yes.'
16.	The department does not take any steps to promote the immigration of mechanics. Its efforts are confined to those intending to engage in agriculture. All immigration agents are instructed along these lines.
17.	A reply was received to the effect that with one exception, sufficient evidence could not, at the time be secured to institute ciiminal proceedings.



AUDIT ACT.

Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	When will the promised improved Audit Act be introduced ?
2.	What progress has been made ?
3.	What is the cause of delay ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know what promise my hon. friend refers to, but all matters in re'-lation to the Auditor General's office are still under consideration.



DREDGING AT WHITBY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHRISTIE-by Mr. Walsh-asked :
1.	What amount was expended for dredging at Whitby, on Lake Ontario, in the season of navigation of 1904 ?
2.	Who was the owner of the dredge so employed ?
3.	Who acted on behalf of the Department of Public Works as local inspector ?
4.	What remuneration was paid to such inspector ?
Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	$13,502.67.
2.	Robert Weddell.
3.	James M. Willis.
4.	Paid at the rate of $3 per day.



DREDGING AT PORT PERRY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHRISTIE-by Mr. Walsh-asked :
1.	What was the amount paid for dredging performed at Port Perry, on Lake Scugog, in the year 1904 ?
2.	Who was the owner of the dredge so employed ?	,
3.	Who acted as inspector for the government, and what remuneration was paid to him ?
Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works).: No dredging was done at Port Perry during season of 1904.



JAMES BAY RAILWAY.

Mr. GRANT asked :: 1. Has the James Bay Railway Company filed a route map or plan of the location of the line

from Toronto to Sudbury with the Department of Railways ?
2.	If so, does such map show the line to run on the east side of Lake Gouchiching, or the west of said lake ?
3.	Has the minister finally approved of the route ?
4.	Has the company filed plans for a deviation, and has the department considered the same ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	No. They have filed the route map from Toronto to' Parry Sound.
2.	To the east of Lake Couchiching.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.



MAILS TO VICTORIA HARBOUR.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Who Is the contractor for carrying the mail from the railway station to the post office at Victoria Harbour ?
2.	Were tenders asked for such service ? it
so, when ?	.
3.	When does such contract expire 7
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General):: 1. Mark Vasey.
2	and 3. In December 1896 tenders for this service were invited ; only one, that of Mark Vasey was received being at the price of $120.80, and was accepted. The contract was renewed at $128.80 a year in 1901 with the same contractor and was further renewed in 1905 at the same price. It expires on the 31st of December, 1908.



COAL FOR GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARKER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	In six months ended 31st December, 1904,
how many tons of coal were accepted from the Joggins, Strathcona, Kimberley, and Chignecto mines, respectively, for the government railways ?	,	.
2.	What were the prices for the several mines, and qualities ?
3.	What were the respective places of delivery at the prices ?
Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals :
1.	Joggins mines, 15,084 tons ; Strathcona mines, 5,160 tons ; Chignecto mines, 14,820 tons ; Kimberly mine, ' nil.'
2.	The price paid to each of the several mines was $3.25 a ton of 2,240 pounds, and the quality of coal supplied by each of them was generally satisfactory.
3.	The place of delivery at the above price was for all the mines at Maccan station of the Intercolonial Railway.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-SEYMOUR WOODILL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BARKER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1. Is Seymour Woodill employed on the Intercolonial Railway at Halifax or elsewhere ? If so, in what capacity, and on what terms ?
Mr. GRANT.: .
2.	Was he previously employed in the Post Office Department or any other department ? If so, where, and in what capacity ?
3.	Was his employment or service discontinued ? If so, when and why ?


Hon.   H.@: R, EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :
1.	Yes. As clerk at a salary of $55 per month.
2.	So far as can be ascertained lie was not previously employed in the Post Office Department or any other department.
3.	He is still in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CARRIAGE OF COAL.

Mr. KEMP asked :: 1.	To whom in the city of Ottawa was coal transported free in the year 1902-3 over the Intercolonial Railway ?
2.	Was it for government use ?
3.	If not, for whose use was it ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Rail ways and Canals) :: 1.	The corporation of the city of Ottawa.
2.	No.
3.	It is understood it was sold by the corporation to those wishing to purchase it.



PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I shall make a few remarks with respect to a matter which I have informed my right lion, friend the Prime Minister I would speak upon to-day. Mf remarks will be very brief. They are in connection with the introduction of the Bills for the establishment of new provinces in the Northwest Territories. I do not of course propose to discuss the merits of these measures-the rules of the House would not permit me to do so, and even if they would, that course is not advisable at the present moment, when, as I understand, certain questions in connection with these Bills are under consideration by the government. However, if I were disposed to enter into a discussion of the merits, I would be unable to do so on account of the very well known rules of the House which do not seem to be thoroughly understood in some quarters throughout the country- The particular matter to which I desire to call attention is : that the Prime Minister introduced this legislation, as a measure concurred in by all the members of the administration, whereas we discovered afterwards that this was not the fact. My right hon. friend has always vaunted himself as a strict follower of constitutional usage-he has sometimes done more than that, because some ten years ago he claimed for himself the attributes of foresight and of courage when a somewhat similar question as that which arises to-day

was to a certain extent agitating the parliament and the people of this country. My right hon. friend then said :
My courage is not to mafce hasty promises and then to ignominously break them. My courage is to speak slowly, but once I have spoken I will stand or fall by my words.
I mention that, because my right hon. friend though he may have shown a great deal of courage in his action with regard to this measure, does not at least seem to have combined foresight with strict regard for constitutional usage. It is beyond all doubt that this House is entitled to regard every measure brought down by the Prime Minister, or by any other member of the cabinet, as a government measure, which is the result of the collective wisdom of the cabinet. I need not cite authority for that, to those who are at all familiar with the usage as laid down by recognized constitutional authorities ; let me, however, quote two or three words from volume II of Todd on parliamentary government in England where it is thus laid down :	.
Except in the case of an admitted open question, It must be taken for granted that the whole cabinet have assented to the ministerial policy as officially presented or propounded by any minister acting or speaking on their behalf.
Words could not be plainer. We have the absolute right to regard the measure brought down by the Prime Minister on the 21st day of February last, as a measure in respect of which every member of the cabinet had been consulted, aud which, whatever differences of opinion might originally have existed with regards to its terms, was in the end concurred in by all the members of the cabinet, and had the support of each of them. Now, it has turned out since the introduction of the measure, that the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Slfton), until recently the Minister of the interior, was not consulted about that measure at all. I do not know how it may be with regard to other members of the cabinet; we have no information with respect to that. We do not know whether or not the Minister of Finance was consulted with regard to the clauses which did not meet with the approval of the Minister of the Interior, nor do we know to what extent, if any, the Minister of Finance was consulted with regard to the financial terms embodied in this measure. But we have this peculiar circumstance, at least, that the measure was brought down two or three days before the return of the Minister of the Interior. Naturally we would not he led to suppose that a measure of this importance, with the terms of which the Minister of the Interior is so intimately connected, would he brought down within two or three days of his return to Ottawa, without his having had an opportunity to become acquainted with its terms. Nor is it to be supposed, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance had sailed about a week before from Europe to this country, that legislation of so great importance as the financial clauses of this Bill, would be introduced into this House Qn the eve of his return, without his having any opportunity to advise with regard to them, or to give his colleagues the benefit of the wisdom and experience which of course he must possess after occupying for some eight or nine years the position which he now holds. Under these circumstances, I think we might well call for an explanation from the right hon. gentleman who leads the House as to why it was he brought down this measure without vouchsafing to the House the explanation that two members of his cabinet had not been consulted at all with regard to its provisions, and that, so far as they were concerned, this was not the act of the government.
But I need not go to Todd or to any other authority on parliamentary government in regard to this matter. This administration has laid down a rule, peculiar, as it is declared, to the form of government whicli we enjoy in this country. What was the position of affairs ? The Minister of the Interior represented in the cabinet the great west of Canada-represented more than any other member of the cabinet that portion of this country which is now being created irto two new provinces. Further than that, owing to his experience of some eight years in the position of Minister of the Interior, he might be supposed to possess a more intimate knowledge of the needs and requirements of that country than any other member of the cabinet. And yet the Minister of the Interior was not consulted with regard to this measure, and that in the face of the most explicit declaration made by this administration no further back than the 14th of June, 1904, that he was the man above all others who should be consulted on this question. When Lord Dun-donaid was dismissed from his position as General Officer Commanding in this country, the government passed an Order in Council which was laid upon the table of the House, and in which the action of the administration in that regard was justified upon certain grounds; and one of the reasons put forward by the administration for the interference by the Minister of Agriculture in a department with which otherwise he had no concern whatever, indeed, the only justification for that interference, was expressed in that Order in Council in these words :-
In the ease of members of the cabinet, while all have an equal degree of responsibility in a constitutional sense, yet in the practical working out of responsible government, in a country of such vast extent as Canada, it is found necessary to attach special responsibility to

each minister for the public affairs of the province or district with which he has close political connection, and with which his colleagues may not be so well acquainted.
Well, I would submit to my l-iglit lion, friend that, taking- his own standard of ministerial responsibility thus expressed in this Order in Council, the Minister of the Interior was in this case the minister above all others who should have been consulted in the first instance about those very provisions which at the present time are causing some discussion in the country, and, if we may believe all we hear, some dissension on the other side of the House ; and I would like to know from the right hon. gentleman how it was that after having de-. layed some two years before taking up the question at all, the minister who, under the constitutional rule laid down by the government itself, was most to be consulted with regard to the terms of the measure, was not consulted at all, although the measure was introduced within three days of his return to Ottawa. My right hon. friend Lac been a very strict stickler for constitutional usage in some of his dealings with his ministers in days gone by. I will advert to only one case. We remember that the right hon. gentleman felt himself constrained to ask for the portfolio of Public Works at that time held by the Hon. J. I. Tarte, because Mr. Tarte had seen fit, in the words of the Prime Minister, to advocate a policy which had not yet been adopted by the government. Well, if that be a just reason, have not the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman a right to demand his portfolio at the present time, because he has seen fit not only to advocate, but to place before parliament and the country, a measure to which his colleagues have not all agreed. I do not know on what ground the right hon. gentleman can justify himself in this regard, because it seems to me that it is not treating the House of Commons with due respect to bring down a measure of this kind as one which is concurred in by every member of the administration, and afterwards to acquaint the House, as we are now acquainted, with the fact that certain members at least were not consulted.
Have we not the right under the circumstances to inquire respectfully of the First Minister whether there are any other members of his cabinet outside the member for Brandon, lately Minister of the Interior, ami the Minister of Finance who were not con-' suited with regard to the terms of this measure. The right hon. gentleman has adverted to the aid which he obtained from members of the Executive Council of the Northwest Territories. May we not also respectfully inquire whether all the provisions of this measure were considered at the conferences which took place between the members of the cabinet and the members Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
of the Executive Council of the Territories. There is some further desirable information, if the right hon. gentleman will not regard my curiosity as fastidious-because that is the term he usually applies when any question is in the least degree awkward-might I ask whether or not any conculsion has been arrived at with regard to the filling of the position made vacant by the resignation of tile Minister of the Interior. I would also respectfully inquire of the right hon. gentleman regarding another matter which I mentioned the other day, namely, whether or not changes in the proposed Bills creating Ihe new provinces are under consideration by the government ? We of course, do not seek to concern ourselves with any differences which may have occurred in the ranks of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but the shape in which these measures shall eventually come before parliament is a matter in which we are legitimately concerned and as to which we have a reasonable right to inquire. It is said over and over again in the organs supposed to have the confidence of tiie government-for example in the very last issue of that newspaper which is supposed to be the organ of the Minister of Agriculture ; it is stated not only that these matters are being discussed within the cabinet and in the ranks of the hon. gentleman opposite, but that certain conclusions have already been arrived at and will be announced in due course. I suggested to my hon. friend only the other day that as soon as those changes-if any' are contemplated-be agreed upon, they should be announced to the House in order that we may have them under consideration before the time arrives for discussing them in parliament. I venture to bring this matter before the government to-day. The right hon. gentleman told us some ten years ago, when matters of this kind were discussed in parliament and the country, that he was not in the battle 1 No,' he said :	' The battle is there ;
there is the seat of contest; there is the raging conflict.' I do not want to make any special application of those words today ; but I do think that as soon as the differences are amicably adjusted, we should have a statement from the Prime Minister as to the form this measure will eventually take when it comes before jiarliament.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am sorry to say that I have very little to tell my hon. friend of which he is not already aware. He is too old a parliamentarian not to know the answer I must give him. My hon. friend knows well, none better, that the deliberations of cabinets are secret, that all the members of a cabinet are sworn to secrecy, and that solidarity exists among them until one of them chooses to express his dissent because he finds he cannot support any longer the policy of the government. When such a thing o^-urs, it becomes the duty of the government to infonh parliament of the

causes of tlie differences which have arisen between the dissenting member and his colleagues. My bon. friend knows that in every government, it must always be presumed that there will be some differences of opinion among the members composing it. It is not to be supposed that in a cabinet composed of 13 or 14 members, all the ministers are of one mind upon all questions. It must be expected that there will be some differences among them. It is not in human nature that they should agree on all matters, and therefore some latitude must be allowed the individual members, and this latitude is always extended until it becomes impossible for one of the members of the administration to agree with his colleagues. Let me quote Todd :
Upon the formation of a ministry which embraces men of different shades of political opinion, it necessarily follows that there must be, to a greater or less extent, mutual concessions and compromises. But with the rare exception of certain questions, which by previous consent it is agreed shall be considered as ' open,' it is an admitted principle that all the responsible ministers of the crown are bound to unite in furthering the measures of government through parliament, and in otherwise carrying out the policy which has been agreed upon by_the cabinet. This policy is framed in the first instance by the prime minister in accordance with the principle of the party to which he belongs. It then forms the basis of negotiation between himself and those whom he may Invite to assist him in carrying on the Queen's government.
All members of the cabinet should agree on questions of policy, but if there should be a disappointment, if, as in the case of the bon. member for Brandon, there should be a difference of opinion, then either a compromise must be reached or the dissenting colleague resigns from the cabinet. In the latter case it Is the duty of the First Minister to give the House information of the causes which led to this unhappy result just as an explanation of the policies of the government is due to the House when the government Is formed. But does my hon. friend expect the government to give to the House all the different conversations or deliberations which may have taken place in council-everything which passed either in writing or by word of mouth ? If he so expects, his expectation is not borne out by the authorities on the subject.
It will be sufficient for me to quote to him the. author from whom he himself has quoted, who is recognized as the standard authority upon these subjects. I quote from Todd, Yol. 2, page 487. After having stated that the House is entitled to have full explanation on the formation of a government, Todd goes on to say :
But the House has no right to ask for more than a general exposition of the main principles on which a government is formed. It has no right to inquire, into all the conditions which may have taken place between the several 71
members of the government. Any arrangements, however, which have been specially referred to in debate by new ministers as the stipulations and conditions upon which they agreed to accept office, may be suitably inquired into by other members.
And this rule that is laid down for the formation of a government is exactly the rule laid down, as I understand the constitutional authorities on the point, in relation to giving information concerning a government that, instead of being formed is, to some extent disrupted. A few days ago, it was my duty-my painful duty-to communicate to the House the reasons which had brought about the rupture between the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) and the government. I do not know that the House in entitled to more information than I gave them. There are the facts, and the matter has been brought before the House. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has taken exception, and when the time comes to discuss the matter, be will be able to give whatever explanation he thinks it well to give. Until that time, the House must rest content with the explanation given. The hon. gentleman has not stated whether, in this matter, he refers to the Bill in toto, or simply to the educational clauses. It will he open to him to tell the House to what extent he refers to the Bill as a whole or to what extent he refers to in toto. Up to this time, I do not think the House is entitled to more information from us than that which has already been imparted.
My hon. friend asks a second question. He wants to know whether any action is to be taken to fill the vacancy in the portfolio ef the Interior caused by the resignation of my bon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton). He is entitled to a full and categorical answer. No action has been taken, and it is not my intention now to take any action in the way of filling that portfolio.
And my hon. friend asks still another question. He wants to know if any changes are contemplated in the Bill. Really, the hon. gentleman Is very inquisitive. I said the other day-and I think my hon. friend will agree with me-that l am not aware of any measure of any great Importance, and I am aware of very few measures even of little importance, that have ever gone over that table without having changes made in them ; and I shall be much surprised if this Bill, which is of such great importance runs the gauntlet of this House without fault being found with it-perhaps by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) ; perhaps by my hon. friend who sits next to him (Mr. Foster) ; perhaps by my hon. friend who sits behind him (Mr. Monk), or, perhaps by my hon. friend who sits at his right hand (Mr. Sproule). Perhaps fault will be found on one band, perhaps on many. Therefore, I cannot see how it is possible to gratify my hon. friend and say anything as to changes being contem-



plated. But I must say tliat I can understand that my hon. friend is very anxious to know in advance if there are to be any changes made in the Bill. I think, judging from past experience, my hon. friend will think it important to know in advance what is to be the precise character of the Bill when it shall come to the second reading. I presume-and in so presuming, I think I do not state anything that is not in accordance with the truth ; if I do, he will correct me-and I have reason to believe, that he is preparing some batteries to attack this Bill ; and, perhaps it is important for him to know at this time whether he should place his batteries on a certain hill or place them on another hill. I can understand that my hon. friend is anxious to know whether or not the Bill is to be as it is. If there are to be other provisions, as a matter of tactics he would like to be in a position to judge whether his batteries should be placed in one place or in another. But I can hardly give myself the pleasure of coming to the rescue of my hon. friend by giving him today information to which, in due time, he will be entitled.


Robert Laird Borden: May I say one word to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier): Whatever else I do I shall not retire within the lines of Torres Vedras. Might I respectfully suggest to him that he has not at all answered the question which I put to him, namely :	Why did he so far violate
constitutional usage as to bring down a Bill as the act of the administration when two members, who were on the eve of return, had not been consulted in regard to it. That is the point, the chief point, of my remarks.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has given no explanation as to the questions put to him.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker-


William Findlay Maclean: I intend to move the adjournment


Wilfrid Laurier: The House is to be moved in supply in a moment, and that will give the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. F. Maclean) an opportunity to speak.


Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN The right hon. gentleman had the opportunity to speak, and so had the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and I claim the same privilege of discussing the matter at the present stage.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: In order to keep myself within the rules of the House, I intend to conclude with a motion. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has made a statement that does not meet the point that has been raised. He has been asked to explain why he introduced legislation in this House dealing with the auto-Sir WILFRID LAURIER
nomy of the Northwest without having the approval of his colleagues. And he tells us that he does not intend to appoint another Minister of the Interior at the present stage and to consult that minister in regard to these Bills. We heard the other day about autocracy in this House ; but what about the autocrat of the present occasion ? Not' only has he got rid of one minister, but he intends to go on with this question without calling to his cabinet a new Minister of the Interior. Apparently, he does not care to consult the opinion of the west in regard to these things. But surely the west is worth consulting. Surely the new provinces of the west are just as well entitled to be consulted in this matter as are some other provinces. But every stage of the right hon. gentleman's conduct is on unconstitutional lines. I think the Prime Minister is constitutionally bound to tell us whether one of his colleagues had not objections to the financial phase of the Bill that has been brought before the House. We are supposed to have a Minister of the Interior especially charged with the affairs of the west. We have a Minister of Finance who is especially responsible for the financial program of the government. Yet we have this autonomy measure involving grave financial charges, and giving reason to all the other provinces for demanding better terms, and the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) so far as we can gather, has not even been consulted, as the Minister of the Interior was not consulted. Where are we to end. if these things continue ? And let us refer to another minister. I spoke of this matter the other day, but it should be mentioned in this connection also. We have a gentleman acting as Minister of Public Works who is putting through estimates for $10,000,000, and will probably have supplementary estimates for $3,000,000 more. The amount will depend on the political exigencies of hon, gentlemen opposite. Last session this gentleman was in the same unconstitutional position, and then put through estimates of about $10,000,000. And yet this unconstitutional method is to be continued, and when explanations are asked none are forthcoming. There are more governments in trouble than this one. If you read the papers to-day, you see that nearly every government in Europe is in trouble for some reason. But there is a cure ; there is a solvent for these difficulties ; and that is to consult the people. If the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) believes in the principle professed by his party, he will not carry on the negotiations that are now going on in the way of fights and bickerings in his own cabinet, but he will do the constitutional thing and go back to the country and submit this question to the people. He has confessed to-day that he is afraid to open the constituency of London, in Ontario ; he is afraid to open a constituency in Manitoba, and bring in a

Minister of the Interior. On such unconstitutional lines he has carried his course for a good many years. Take for instance, his .Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. He did not go to the people -with that before he introduced it here ? He carried it through two sessions and then went to the country with it. Sir John A. Macdonald, when he introduced the national policy, first went to the people, and got the approval of the people. The right hon. gentleman was afraid to go before the people of this country in the last election on the Autonomy Bill, and he brings it down in the first session in order to escape responsibility for it. Now, if he is in trouble, as he is in trouble, if he has trouble, if the Minister of the Interior-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Findlay Maclean: Do hon. gentlemen opposite mean to say that the Minister of Justice has not thrown all the members from the Northwest into fits ? There is trouble. I will tell you why the right lion, gentleman will not appoint a Minister of the Interior ; it is because if he gets a Minister of the Interior to consent to these modifications he proposes, he will have an other province on his hands, another rebellion to quell ; and, being in that position, he cannot resort to the straight constitutional method of solving these questions. He should not have introduced this Bill without having had the consent and advice of the members from the Northwest; and on behalf of the province of Manitoba to-day I ask the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), I ask the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), I ask all the delegation from the west, whether they approve of this legislation having been introduced without their representatives in the cabinet being consulted, and whether they propose to submit any longer to this legislation being proceeded with without having a minister in the cabinet representing them and representing the west. It is not constitutional. It may be justified, but it will end in disaster, it cannot end in anything else. Now, if the right hon. gentleman fixes up his fences as far as Manitoba is concerned, he will find them down in Nova Scotia, and as soon as he fixes them up in regard to Nova Scotia and the Northwest, he will find them down in the province of Quebec ; and, being in that position, he has to resort to all these tricks. He is afraid of trusting the people to-day, he is afraid of the good old principle he laid down years ago of provincial rights. Now, I want to tell him in regard to this education problem, that he can patch it up as much as he likes, he can hold what caucuses he likes, he can fix up his fences in this direction and in that direction ; but there is only one thing that will satisfy the provinces of Canada to-day, and that is complete autonomy for the Northwest provinces. the right of the people of the west to settle their own educational affairs. They 714
wish to be free to settle this question ; they don't want all these bickerings in the cabinet. They want to be treated as freemen, with the right to settle their own educational questions ; and it is because they dared to assert their freedom in this House, because they had a minister in the government who was prepared to assert that right, that that minister has been put out, and they are to-day to be treated as slaves. Again I tell the right hon. gentleman that he must have more respect for the constitution. So far he professes to be upholding the constitution. But everything he does is irregular-his relations with his ministers, these negotiations that are going on to-day, all these things that we hear of, and many other things that don't get into the press, but that we know are going on, with no peace in prospect, continued bickerings are in store for us. Again I say he is on the wrong line, and he must retrace his steps. He has spoken to-day of the retreat of the late Minister of the Interior. There was no retreat on the part of the late Minister of the Interior in standing up for the rights of the new provinces. He was maintaining what I call good doctrine in regard to provincial rights. Yet, because he took that position in this House, the First Minister says he is retreating. Well, the right hon. gentleman may say it is a retreat, but I say, No. Once again, in the name of the people of the great Northwest, I ask the government to keep their hands off these new provinces in regard to education. Let the people up there settle these questions themselves. They are well competent to do it ; they know what they want without any advice from any other province, I do not care which. A1 lthey ask is that they be permitted to settle their own affairs. I do not care what batteries may be placed in this House, on the one side or the other. There is no service in this House but the one service-the public service. I want to tell the right hon. gentleman this, that it may take much longer than he counts on to put this session through. I do not see why the right hon. gentleman should get one dollar of supplies while he has no minister of the Interior to take the part of Manitoba. I do not see why7 he should get any legislation through this House until he comes forward with a complete ministry,' until he comes forward with a man representing that portion of the country-if the government believe in geographical representation-with a man from that portion of the country prepared to assume the responsibilities of this government in connection with their programme in dealing with the autonomy of the west.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman did not conclude with a motion.


William Findlay Maclean: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: In making a motion the hon. gentleman should rise.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Mr, DERBYSHIRE. I would like to know who this member is that is moving the adjournment of this House, interfering with the proceedings and delaying the business that ought to be gone on with ?
Motion to adjourn negatived.



PRIVATE BILLS-EXTENSION OF TIME.

Mr. GERVAIS moved:: That rule 49 of this House regarding the presentation of petitions for Private Bills he suspended, and that he be given leave to present a petition to incorporate the Crown Casualty Insurance Company, Limited, time having expired for presenting petitions, and that the said petition be read and received forthwith ?


Hon.   H.@: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) not to make this motion ; let it stand until to-morrow. I would like to have some information about it.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Stand.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) when he will bring down the return which was ordered by the House on the 20th of February with reference to the application of Port Arthur and Fort William for access by their municipal telephone wires to the offices of the Canadian Pacific Railway in those towns. The hon. gentleman must be aware that there are a number of similar applications depending upon this return, and, having regard to what took place when the matter was last under discussion in this House, I think the return should have been brought down before this. I desire to have the return expedited as much as possible, and I trust the minister will agree with me in that.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I regret that we have not yet received from the Railway Commission the copies of tlie papers which are necessary to be included in this return. I shall take occasion again to call their attention to the fact. We have not received the information yet.



STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: I would ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that there are over 2,000 mail bags containing mail matter at Sackville and Plctou that have been delayed in transmission to Prince Edward Island. I would like to know what the department is going to do about it. This matter of mail communication has got to Mr. SPEAKER.
be in a most disgraceful condition and when we find that passengers take something like six weeks to get from Pictou to Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island, I think it is about time the government took some measures to remedy this great grievance. We find that about 2,000 hags of mail matter have now accumulated, and I think this is a matter for the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) himself to take in hand.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into the matter and give the hon. gentleman an answer to-morrow.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I might say in answer to that question that I have received word that the snow bloekade in Prince Edward Island was finally raised to-day. Until now all trains there'have been suspended for a considerable time.


Angus Alexander McLean: That is not the matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General. I was referring to the mail matter which is on this side, not to conditions on the other side.


William Mulock: I stated to the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. A. McLean) that I will inquire into the matter and give him an answer to-morrow.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Murray Harbour branch and Hillsboro' bridge, $357,400.
['We will go on with supply, taking up the estimates of the Minister of Railways and afterwards those of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.']
Henry Robert Emmerson: There was some information that was required but it will take a day or so to get it. We have had to send to Moncton for it and I therefore cannot go on with this item at present.
Item allowed to stand.
Railways and Canals collection of revenue- Intercolonial Railway, $7,000,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is the usual amount asked for in connection with the revenue and expenditure of the Intercolonial Railway with the exception that we have added $500,000 in order to cover the additional wages and increased mileage.


Mr. KEMP.: Could the hon. gentleman tell us if he has the information I asked him for in respect to tenders for supplies, the details of which I gave him two days ago ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In a large majority of cases tenders are invited from people all over the country, and I beg to hand now' to my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) the general form of' tender which is used in the Intercolonial Railway. In some cases the supplies are advertised for. The detailed information he asked for has to be obtained from Moncton where the original tenders and statements are kept, and it was impossible for me to obtain them so soon.


Albert Edward Kemp: Would the minister have them within a week ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not suppose my hon. friend wishes to have the matter delayed until the information can be obtained. I will have it for the supplementary estimates and my hon. friend can discuss the matter then.


Mr. CROCKET.: Before the general discussion on this vote is proceeded with, I want to call attention to what seems to me to lie-and what I think will appear also to the unbiased, independent judgment of the House to be a most unwarranted and unjust dismissal by this department. I refer to the dismissal of Mr. Odbur White, station agent of the Intercolonial Railway at Fredericton, that is on the line, which was formerly the Canadian Eastern Railway and is now in operation as part of the Intercolonial system. Mr. White had been in the employ of the Canada Eastern for twenty-two or twenty-three years, indeed ever since the first year of its operation. For fifteen years he had been station agent at Fredericton, from which position he was dismissed on the 24th of January last. Before being appointed at Fredericton he served for five years as station agent at Boiestown, and for two or three years prior to that he had been a brakeman on the road. Mr. White has ever been recognized by all those who know him as a most respectable, intelligent, painstaking and industrious man, a perfectly inoffensive man whose whole thought was en-giossed in the performance of his duties and in providing for the comfort and welfare of his family. I believe that Mr. White's politics wrere known to no one, outside possibly the circle of his own family. When the Canada Eastern was taken over by the government on the first of October last, Mr. White received the same notice as all other employees of the railroad, that he would be after that date continued In the service of the Intercolonial Railway. The Canada Eastern was added to the Moncton-St. Flavie division of the Intercolonial Railway, and Mr. Thomas Hoben, who had served with great satisfaction to the public as superintendent of the Canada Eastern from the first year of its operation, was appointed assistant superintendent of the Moncton-St. Flavie division. All the other employees and officials of the Canada Eastern retained their several positions under the government management in accordance with what I believe was the agreement between the Alexander Gibson Railway and Manufacturing Company, the former proprietors, and the government. Mr. White continuel to perform the duties of station agent at Fredericton after the taking over of the railroad until after the general elections, and down to the 10th day of January,
, when without any suggestion having been made to him or any intimation of any kind communicated to him from any source that his services were unsatisfactory, he received this letter :
Gibson, N.3., January 10th, 1905.
Mr. Odbur White, agent, Fredericton :
Dear Sir,-I am directed by my superior officer to inform you that your services as station master at Fredericton for the Intercolonial Railway are to be dispensed with. It will take effect 14 days from this date.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) THOMAS HOBEN.
It will be observed that this letter assigned no cause whatever for the dismissal of Mr. White. It will be observed also that his dismissal was to take effect, not at the beginning or end of a quarter, not at the beginning or end of a month even, but on the 24th day of January in midwinter on a two weeks' notice. I think that even had there been any reasonable grounds for dissatisfaction with Mr. White, it was reprehensible and contemptible to the last degree for this department of the government to treat him in this summary way, a man who lmd given twenty-three years of his life to the service of this railway. I think I will be able to show, however, that this dismissal was absolutely without any justification or excuse, and to serve no purpose, except that of gratifying the spiteful whims of the defeated government candidate in the county of York. As I have said, the letter which I read was the first intimation Mr. White had that there was any dissatisfaction with his services, and on its receipt lie went at once to Mr. Hoben, under whom he had served for twenty-three years, and asked him the cause. Mr. Hoben in formed him that he knew nothing whatever about ij, aud that the first Intimation he had received of an intention to make any change was the letter of dismissal, with instructions to sign it and to forward it to Mr. White. Mr. White then wrote to Mr. Evan Price, superintendent of the Moncton-St. Flavie division, and also to Mr. J. E. Price, the general superintendent of the Intercolonial Railway, but to neither of these letters did be receive any reply. Then he wrote to the minister himself, asking for the reason of liis dismissal, and six days later the minister replied with a letter, which I will refer to later. Mr. White, not having received this letter up to that time or been able to ascertain from any one the course of his dismissal, I asked on the 23rd day of January, the following question of the minister :
1.	Has Odbur White, station agent of the Intercolonial Railway at Fredericton, N.B., been, notified that his services as such agent are to be dispensed with on the twenty-fourth day of January, inst. ?


Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals :
1.	Yes.
2.	January 10, 1905.
3.	Yes.
4.	Mr. Tiffin, general traffic manager, and Mr. J. E. Price, general superintendent, reported him as not qualified for the position.
Hon. members will observe that I asked specifically if there were complaints, and if those complaints were in writing. The minister's answer was: 'Yes. Mr. Tiffin, general traffic manager, and Mr. J. E. Price, general superintendent, reported him as not qualified for the position. The reasonable inference the only presumable inference from the form of'the question and answer, was that these complaints were in writing. Assuming, then, that these officials had in writing reported Mr. White as not qualified for the position, I moved on the 26th of January :
For copies of the letters of Mr. Tiffin, general traffic manager, and J. E. Price, general superintendent, of the Intercolonial Railway, reporting Odbur White, station agent at Fredericton, N.B., as not qualified for the position ; and of all other correspondence in the possession of the government of the Department of Railways and Canals, relating to the dismissal of said Odbur White ?
When that motion was moved the Minister of Railways made this statement:
There is no correspondence. Reports were made to me orally at Moncton in the month of December. I have received a letter from Mr. White, to which I have replied. That correspondence can be furnished if the hon. gentleman is satisfied with that.
Now, it seems to me that it is a most remarkable thing that these complaints, if there were complaints, should originate with the head officials of the road at Moncton, Mr. Tiffin and Mr. Price. It seems to me that those officials could not possibly have had any personal knowledge of the manner in which Mr. White was performing his duties at Fredericton. The only knowledge they would have would be such as would be communicated to them by patrons of the road at Fredericton or by reports from intermediate officials, and, therefore, the statement which the minister made, that these complaints came, not from the ground upon which Mr. White was performing his duties, but from the fountain head of the system, struck me as being rather a singular statement. Imagine two of the chief officials of the government railway system meeting the responsible Minister of Railways at Moncton in the month of December last, as the minister stated, and both importuning him for the dismissal of a station agent who enjoyed a salary of but $65 a month, and that Mr. CROCKET.
at the Christmas season of the year. This may apepar to be a creditable statement to the members of this House, and of course we are bound to accept it, but at the same time it does seem to me that it is a most remarkable explanation of this dismissal.
I have referred to a letter which Mr. White addressed to the Minister of Railways asking the reason of his dismissal. This correspondence I get from the return, which was brought down on the 13th of February in answer to the motion to which I have already alluded. On the 14th of January Mr. White wrote this letter to the Minister of Railways :
Fredericton Station, January 14, 1905.
Dear Sir and Brother,-I am not personally acquainted with you, but I am well known in the-city. I have worked on the road since it was first started. I have been dismissed, notice to take effect January 24th, 1905. No cause given whatever.
Now, my friend, I am, and always have been, a supporter of the present government. I defy the face of clay to say anything contrary. I think it pretty hard, a poor man with a family, and to be thrown out of a job just in mid-winter, and if you think well of it you might ask the management to be a little merciful. Will you please look into this matter and kindly let me know.
Yours, in trouble,
O. WHITE, Agent.
To this the minister replied as follows: Ottawa, January 20, 1905.
Dear Sir,-Yours of the 14th instant is received, having reference to the notice which has been given you by the Intercolonial author^ ities. On the report of the officials of the road as to your efficiency and the necessity of having a better qualified man at Fredericton, I was constrained to give assent to your being set aside. I had reprimanded the officials for the manner in which the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway at Fredericton were being conducted, and their answer was that they could not be held accountable in view of the want of qualification on the part of some of the officers. I hold them responsible for results, and must give them a free hand in the choice of officers to do their work.
Yours faithfully,



[Stage Direction]
It appears to me that it is pretty difficult to reconcile this letter, addressed by the minister to Mr. White on the 30th of January, with the statement which was made by the minister in this House iu answer to the question I asked on the 23rd of January. From the answer which the minister made to these questions, it would appear that this dismissal was the result of complaints which had been made by Mr. Price and Mr. Tiffin. From the letter which the hon. Minister of Railways addressed to Mr. White on the 20th of Januafy, it would appear that the initiative was with the minister himself. In that letter he says he reprimanded the officials for the manner in which the affairs of the Intercolonial Rail-

i
way at Fredericton were being conducted. It did seem to me somewhat out of the ordinary that the lion, minister should have any knowledge of the manner in which the business at Fredericton was being conducted except through reports made to him by these same officials whom he was reprimanding. When I questioned him the other day regarding the necessity for a new station house at Fredericton, he said he had no knowledge personally of the requirements of the traffic at Fredericton ; and it seems rather singular that . while he had no knowledge of the requirements of the traffic at Fredericton, he should have personal knowledge regarding the details of the work of a station agent who was receiving a salary of $55 a month. However, that is the statement made, and from this letter it appears that the initiative in connection with this dismissal lay with the Minister of Railways himself. It is rather remarkable, I think, that an officer who had served for fifteen years in charge of that station-the most important station upon the Canada Eastern Railway-and in the employ of the Alexander Gibson Railway and Manufacturing Company, and against whom no complaint had ever been made- that such an official should have been retained by the Intercolonial Railway and continued in this position until shortly after the elections and then, without any previous intimation, be dismissed in mid-winter on a two weeks' notice for the alleged reason that he was not qualified for the position. By the .law of this country a domestic servant under a month's hiring is entitled to at least a mouth's notice if dismissed. In my opinion the treatment meted out to Mr. White does the Railway Department great discredit and will not do the government or its party in the county of York much good. Neither do I think that it will commend itself to the judgment of this committee.
Henry Robert Emmerson: My bon. friend has the idea that in this matter I was moved by some spirit of political antagonism. I want to say distinctly and unequivocally that the dismissal of Mr. White was in no way due to any act of the gentleman who was Liberal candidate at the last election in the county of York. Nor was it inspired by any political antagonism or due to any political representations or political interference at all either in that county or out of it. Let me state the bare facts. It came to my knowledge during last autumn -I think in December-that the traffic from Fredericton to the west was largely going over the Canadian Pacific JEtailway. I then had a conference with the general traffic manager here in Ottawa in the first instance. I called his attention to the fact that the traffic was being diverted to the Canadian Pacific Railway, when naturally it should go by the Canada Eastern. I
spoke warmly, and he explained that the solicitation for freight was under the direction of Mr. Smiley, the district freight agent at St. John, and that Mr. White, station agent at Fredericton, was charged with the duty of looking after freight matters there, and that he was entirely inefficient. More than that he said that those who shipped freight complained of Mr. White. Mr. Tiffin, the general traffic manager, told me that he had gone to Fredericton himself and had seen that the traffic was being diverted from the government road, and he complained against Mr. White in that connection. I did not know Mr. White from Adam. I did not know there was any such person in charge of the station. I had to ask who he was, and I said to Mr. Tiffin : If Mr. White is not fit for the place, you will have to get somebody else. There was no arrangement between myself and Mr. Gibson or anybody else representing the Canada Eastern Railway that the employees on that railway should be continued. I did say to Mr. Gibson that of course if the men he had been employing were found efficient and satisfactory, we would keep them on. They were therefore continued on probation. The railway was not taken over until last summer late or in the autumn and these men were on probation. It was the duty of Mr. Tiffin to find out how these men were doing their work, and it was on his report that I took the action 1 considered necessary. Later on, in December, the matter came up at Moncton, when I was there. It was either the 1st December or the 1st January. I cannot remember the exact date.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: How long had the Intercolonial taken over this road at that time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was taken over in October, I think. Then, I saw Mr. Price and Mr. Tiffin. These gentlemen had been discussing the matter, and their view was that Mr. White was not capable of attending to the work there, and it would be necessary to have somebody who was qualified. I gave my consent to that. There was nothing political in the matter-I make that statement here. In addition, Mr. White's letter states that he was a Liberal during his whole life.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Gibson did not seem to consider him such.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Gibson did not approach me in the matter. This seems some little parochial affair that has been taken up by my hon. friend without full appreciation at least of the responsibilities of my position. The hon. gentleman seems to think that Mr. Gibson wanted Mr. AVhite dismissed ? I do not know that he did. It was purely a departmental matter, and it was carried out in accordance with the

routine of the department. Even with selecting the man to take Mr. White's place, I had nothing to do. It was part of the routine of the Intercolonial Railway. I am not consulted about appointments of station agents.


Mr. INGRAM.: Who took this place ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A man from one of the other stations was promoted. I think his named is Walker. He was entitled to the place in order of promotion. He had been stationed on the northern division at Dalhousie. The notice was the customary notice, and I had nothing to do with it. Of course, I have to assume the responsibility here, and I do not shirk it. I think that, with the knowledge of the facts I have given, my hon. friend must revise his judgment with respect to the matter. I stated in my letter to Mr. White the exact facts.


Mr. FOSTER.: I am not sure that I understood what the minister meant by the diversion of freight, and the agency of the station master in that respect.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was western freight.


George Eulas Foster: Where from ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Originating in Fredericton and vicinity and shipped from Fredericton. A certain quantity or class of that freight, I am informed, always went by the Canada Eastern and Intercolonial. I understand that it transpired that some of that freight was, under the changed conditions, being sent by way of the Canadian Pacific Railway by .Fredericton junction. The duty of the station agent at that station. in conjunction with Mr. Smiley, the district freight agent, was to attend to the solicitation of freight and see that it went out in the right direction. This I was told by the traffic manager of the Intercolonial, and it was solely upon his complaint that the action was taken.


Samuel Hughes: Has the freight been secured under the new agent ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not heard any complaints.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the minister communicate with the assistant superintendent of that district whose headquarters were at Fredericton, with regard to this diversion of freight ? Would not this assistant superintendent be responsible for that diversion rather than the station agent ? And what does the minister mean by his letter in which he speaks of the difficulty arising through want of qualification not on the part of the station agent, but, ' on the part of some of the officers?' If there were others responsible, who were they ? And, were complaints made to Mr. Hobeu, who was primarily responsible for the administration of the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway at Fredericton ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Hoben has to do with the management of the trains and the maintenance of the road-bed, as I understand it-he is not a traffic officer any way. My communications are with the head of the department; I do not have communications with track masters along the line or the district superintendents. The communications between the minister or the department and the railway are through the general manager, or,. on a matter relating to traffic with the Raffle master, or in a matter coming under his department, with the superintendent of motive power.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would not Mr. White be immediately responsible to the assistant superintendent, Mr. Hoben ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In regard to his station duties, yes ; but not in regard to his duties in the solicitation of traffic.


Oswald Smith Crocket: To whom would he be responsible on that point ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The freight agent at Moncton, and the general traffic manager.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would the hon. minister explain why he was so anxious about freight being transferred to the Canadian Pacific Railway before the dismissal of this man, and, since the new man has been put in the place, he has made no inquiries ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Complaints were made to me that we were losing freight. I took action on those complaints. I have had no complaints lately. I had not thought it my duty to inquire into these internal affairs, but, when they are brought to my notice by the officers of the railway, I feel it my duty ,to take action with regard to them. When the complaints reached me I inquired whether these conditions existed and what was the remedy, and, according to the advice of the officer that remedy was applied.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Am I to understand that Mr. White's dismissal was in consequence of the diversion of traffic to the Canadian Pacific Railway through his fault.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated the reasons for diversion.


Andrew B. Ingram: They were very unsatisfactory.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of course, I know that there is nothing I could say that would be satisfactory.


Andrew B. Ingram: This Mr. White, had he been a member of parliament, perhaps would have been listened to with greater attention ; but, being only a poor station agent, his case was held to be not worthy of consideration. Now, the hon. gentleman has made, by inference, a serious charge against Mr. White. You can only infer that Sir. White has violated his instructions. Violated them, how ? If Mr. White was instruct-

ed to collect general freight at Fredericton, and John Brown came along with freight and wanted it routed over the road to a certain point, and if Mr. White, yielding to his request, did not route it over the line that the minister wanted him to route it, then Mr. White is deserving of censure and dismissal. The minister has not given a single instance where he routed freight belonging to any man over the Canadian Pacific Railway, lie has not made out a case against Mr. White. In the next place, if Mr. Hoben, who is superintendent of that division, was not consulted as to whether he was carrying out his duties properly, then I hold that Mr. Hoben was not to blame. This is	a clear case of dismissing a man in the most heartless manner and without a proper investigation. As I said before, if a member of parliament had done something of this kind his case would have been considered ; but, as he is only a poor railway agent, twelve days' notice is sufficient for him to get out. This man had been an agent for fifteen years on the Canada Eastern Railway, after he had been a brakeman for years previously to being an agent, and still we are told he was not qualified for the position of agent at Fredericton. I say it is disgraceful. The government have had this road only from October to January, and if this is the way they are going to treat their employees on the Canada Eastern Railway, it is high time a change should be made. As to Mr. Tiffin's ability as a railway man, there is no question that he is thoroughly competent and capable. He has had a wide experience, and is doing his duty faithfully and well. I am not finding fault with him, but I am finding fault with the government for dismissing this man in the manner they did. It is unheard of in any other railway service in this country.


Oswald Smith Crocket: One word with regard to the statement of the minister with reference to Mr. White's politics. As I said before. I do not think Mr. White's politics were known to anybody in the city of Fredericton outside his own family.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I only quoted from his letter.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But I do know that Mr. Alexander Gibson, junior, the Liberal candidate in that election, suspected that Mr. White was not a supporter of his, and simply for the reason that liis father and liis brother were said to have been supporters of the Conservative candidate. Now, I have every reason to believe the statement which Mr. White made in his letter to the minister, saying that he voted for the Liberal candidate. I believe he did so. At the same time I do know that it is a matter of common knowledge in Fredericton. Mr. Gibson, the Liberal candidate, suspected that Mr. White had voted against him, and that he was marked for dismissal for that reason. Whatever may be said in this
House, it will be difficult to convince the people of Fredericton and of the county of York that this dismissal was not made upon political grounds. Now, the minister has stated that politics had nothing whatever to do with this. I would like, in this connection, to draw attention to a declaration which the Minister of Railways made in the city of Fredericton in regard to citizenship in this country. In a speech he made in Fredericton, on Thursday, October 20th, the Minister of Railways declared :
If there was any man in this city so blind to the best interests of his city, his family and his province as to cast his vote on November 3rd against Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government, he was not worthy of Canadian citizenship.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want to say to my hon. friend that I did not make that statement. It was quoted in the papers, and there was a great ado about it, but I did not say that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am glad to hear the minister make that statement here.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have given it a denial more than once since then. I have not had an opportunity of speaking in Fredericton since then, but if I had I would certainly have denied it.


George Eulas Foster: It was in the heat of the contest.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I did not use the words ; I did not speak in a moment of weakness, either. There were no exceptional circumstances, and I did not use the words.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am glad to hear the minister make that statement. I did not hear him speak myself ; but I took this quotation from a full report of the speech which appeared in the ' Gleaner,' a Liberal paper published in that constituency.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend will not contend that it is a Liberal paper ; it is edited by his brother, as he knows, and it is a Conservative paper. The report of that speech was manifestly unjust. That alleged quotation from the speech was published all over the country, when, as a matter of fact, I had not used the words at all. I want to give it the most unqualified denial.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This is the first time I have heard this. But I had this statement in my mind when the minister said that Mr. White was not qualified for his position, and I was therefore not surprised that a minister of the Crown who entertained the view that no man who would vote against Sir Wilfrid Laurier was worthy of Canadian citizenship, should hold that a station agent suspected of having voted against the government, was not qualified to hold a position under a Liberal government.


Mr. WHITE.: If this question is ended, I would like to say one or two words with regard to the Intercolonial Railway expen-

ditures. I frankly confess that I have been somewhat startled by an examination of the public accounts in noting the large amount of money that appears to have been drained out of the treasury year after year in connection with that work. An examination of the report of the Minister of Railways for the last year shows that there was expended upon capital account on the Intercolonial $1,800,000 ; and that, in addition, the deficit between earnings and working expenses was $900,000. There we have upwards of $2,500,000 taken out of the public treasury in connection with that railway, and that at a time when the other great railways in this country have been increasing their net earnings. In addition, we have an expenditure of over $700,000 on capital account on the Prince Edward Island Railway, and a deficit of over $100,000 in connection with the running of that road. Now these figures are somewhat startling, and they indicate to my mind that something must be done in connection with this road to equalize receipts and expenditures. What that remedy is to be I do not propose to suggest. Rut it seems to me that with a road such as the Intercolonial, with an excellent roadbed of over 1,300 miles, which has cost the country, according to the public accounts, $72,000,000, the results are exceedingly disappointing to the general public. I find upon examination of the estimates that a very large expenditure is contemplated on capital account for the present year we are about to enter upon. If the deficits that have been shown during the last year continue for the next ten years, we will have a road of 1.300 odd miles costing us $100,000,000. I would suggest to the government and to the Minister of Railways that it is an absolute necessity that something should be done to improve the condition'of things as they exist. I said I was not going to suggest what remedy should be adopted, but I would like to point out that upon an examination of the report of the Minister of Railways I find that one portion of the government railway in the eastern provinces, the Windsor branch, is the only portion that appears to have made any profit to the government at all ; and, if I am rightly informed, that road is not being operated by the government. I am not going to offer any criticism upon the officers of the road. The general manager, I believe, understands his business thoroughly. I do not believe he would have been retained in the employ of the governments that have employed him for a great number of years if lie did not understand his business thoroughly. But I think that some explanation ought to be given to the committee as to why this large deficit has occurred, as to what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals anticipates in the future, and, if these large deficits are to be continued, what remedy he proposes to get rid of them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think that my hon. friend (Mr. White), whom I respect Mr. WHITE.
very highly, was in the House when I endeavoured to make my statement in respect to the revenue account the other night, and I do not think he has done me the honour of reading that statement. I would hardly expect that he would do so, but, I endeavoured on that occasion to show the reasons why there was such a deficit and I think I gave the true reasons. I have suspected for some time that there was an effort being made to discredit the Intercolonial Railway and that it was made in the interest of large railway corporations in this country. I think that a good many of the facts in respect to the Intercolonial Railway have been distorted. We have been increasing the wages and the cost of everything has increased, but our rates could not be changed. They remain the same. We hear a great deal of complaint about the Intercolonial Railway and its deficits. Now, the Intercolonial Railway was built for a certain purpose. It is practically the highway between what were known as the older provinces of Canada and the provinces by the sea. It was built in very much the same way as the canal system was-for the benefit of the whole country, for the benefit ot' transportation and for the purpose of inducing and stimulating trade between the provinces. We hear no complaint about the million dollars, or nearly a million dollars, that are expended annually in order to support and maintain the canals aside from the question of capital expenditure. We are putting millions year after year in the canals in the way of capital account and we are spending every year, or have been during the past few years, some $800,000 or $1,000,000 in maintaining these canals. We hear no complaints about these expenditures or about increasing the capital expenditure on the canal system. We hear no maritime member on the other side getting up and complaining that the Intercolonial Railway is being unfairly dealt with in this respect although we hear hon. gentlemen opposite who are from other sections of Canada than the maritime provinces, condemning the capital expenditure and all other expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Pardon me, it is done year in and year out, and it has been going on for years by these hon. gentlemen who do not in any way complain of adding to the capital account of Canada in respect to the canal system. I think this is a matter that should be treated fairly.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Why are you dragging in the canals ? It is because you cannot get yourself out of the hole you are in.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) remembers that he wants a canal down near Brighton. I was waiting to hear what he had to say about canals. My

only object in bringing in canals was to hear what be bad to say about them.


Edward Cochrane: It was not any such thing.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sure my hon. friend will not interrupt me. I am sure be will not say that he does not want to have the Trent Valley canal go down through his constituency.


Edward Cochrane: That's parish politics. You had better stick to your subject.


Peter White: I am sorry that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals should suppose for one moment that I am desirous of treating this question from a sectional standpoint. I am not proposing to treat it from a sectional standpoint, but the defence that the hon. minister has set up is really no defence at all. He states that the great railway corporations are endeavouring to decry the Intercolonial Railway. In what way ; pray ? Does not the report of the Hon. Minister of Railways justify every word I have said to-night in regard to the deficits and capital expenditure ? Now, my hon. friend alludes to the canals. He says that a large amount of money is expended on the canals, but I have been endeavouring to draw a comparison between the results of the Intercolonial Railway upon which there is a franchise and other great railways, and my hon. friend will remember that there are no franchises on the canals, that the canals are open to everybody who has a boat to put into them. I have been endeavouring to show that whilst the other great railways throughout the country have been increasing their net earnings the Intercolonial Railway has been going behind and notably the last year. If that is the case surely it cannot be called sectionalism on the part of myself because I happen to come from the province of Ontario if I complain that this great drain is being made on the public treasury. I am not complaining in regard to the management of the road because I do not know how it is managed, but I venture to affirm that if the Intercolonial Railway were put upon a different basis, if the manager of the Intercolonial Railway were entirely free from political complications, from the political complications that beset the Minister of Railways, if the railway itself were put into the hands of a competent manager-as I presume Mr. Pottinger to be-and if he were allowed to use his own discretion and judgment in regard to the working of the railway, we would have fewer deficits and fewer complaints from any portion of the country in regard to these deficits. I have endeavoured fairly, I think, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this subject. I have pointed out what appears in the public accounts. I have shown that the public accounts indicate
that if the deficits and expenditure go on for the next ten years as they have during the last year, and as it is proposed that they shall go on during the present year we will have really a capital account of $100,000,000. Is that a condition of things that is to continue ? I ask the hon. Minister of Railways if he thinks it is a question of sectionalism. It is not a sectional question at all, I am not debating it as a sectional question but I am debating it, as I consider it, from the national standpoint, and I say that when a railway constructed as the Intercolonial Railway has been constructed! having the best roadbed in Canada, being well equipped in every essential and with a large portion of the expenditure which upon other great railways comes out of the working expenses, being charged to capital account-I say that when a railway under these conditions, managed through the department of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, shows the results which the Intercolonial Railway has shown during the past year there ought to be some remedy applied and that remedy should be applied at the earliest possible moment.


Edward Cochrane: I was going to say in connection with this matter that my position in this House has been very clearly defined. I am not here to represent any section of the country. I am here, as I understand it, to use my best judgment and to see that the people's money is properly expended in all parts of Canada from the boisterous Atlantic to the placid Pacific. I take it that I am here to see that the money is expended in the best interests of the Dominion of Canada as a whole. But I do not want the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to introduce low parish politics as he has done by appealing to me to know whether I want a canal constructed through the village of Brighton.
I am here representing a constituency in which Brighton is situated ; Brighton is a thriving and populous village and when the. Minister of Railways and Canals was perambulating his surveyors around Cobourg and Port Hope, the inhabitants of Brighton asked him to have their route surveyed. Why does the minister want to refer to the canal system which was inaugurated before he and I were horn, and why does he attempt to raise sectional prejudices in connection therewith. A minister of the Crown should be above that. The fact stands out that other railroads in the Dominion are paying well, while year after year there are huge deficits on the Intercolonial Railway in addition to there being larjje sums charged to capital account which ought to be charged to running expenses. We should call a halt. We, on this side of the House desire that the money of the people of Canada should not be frittered away as it is, and if that railway is to be conducted on business principles they had better adopt the plan under which other rail-

ways are made to pay. We are not criticising the expenditure of the Intercolonial Railway from a sectional point of view. I do not care where the money is spent if it is properly spent in the best interests of the Dominion, and when we point to these things as representing our constituents the minister has no right to draw a red herring across the trail by talking about the money spent on the canals. The canals are for the benefit of Canada or they would not be built if it were not for the benefit of Canada, and the canals have nothing to do with the question of wasting money on the Intercolonial Railway.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman from Renfrew (Mr. White) made a very reasonable demand when he asked what the Minister of Railways was going to do to prevent these large recurring deficits on the Intercolonial Railway. In the statement which he made the other night the Minister of Railways gave no suggestion of a remedy for the prevention of these deficits.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, I did.


Andrew B. Ingram: I listened attentively to the speech made by the minister and I challenge him to point to any effective suggestion which he made for doing away with deficits on the government railways. The Minister of Railways finds fault with the members from Ontario discussing this matter, and he says that the members from the maritime provinces do not discuss the Intercolonial Railway estimates. The minister may Tie correct to that extent, but I can tell him that the members from Ontario are not objecting to a reasonable expendiure on government railways. What we are objecting to is extravagant and wasteful expenditure. What we are objecting to is the method of expenditure, and we have good reason to make a protest. I have stated often in this House that I am a believer in government ownership of railways, but I am entirely opposed to the present method of government management of these railways. I am not saying one word against the manager of the government railways. I have often said, and I repeat it that if he were allowed to do what he thought best ; if he were allowed to proceed without political interference, then, instead of having a deficit from year to year it is possible that the railroad might pay its way. It is because of the political management and adminstration of the railway that the minister is compelled to come to parliament year after year announcing ever increasing deficits. That is what we complain of, and we will continue to complain until the grievance is removed.


Robert Laird Borden: The observations of the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. White) were very much in point, and especially so in view of the declaration of the Prime Min-Mr. COCHRANE.
ister during the last campaign, who in discussing the question whether it would be advisable for the government to own and possibly to operate a transcontinental railway, said he objected to do so because the system under which government railways are operated in Canada at present is a vicious system. That expression was used by him in Toronto. We must assume that he expressed the view of the administration and therefore something ought to be done by him and his government to abolish this vicious system. The results show that something is wrong. We have a deficit of $900,000 on the Intercolonial Railway, a deficit of $100,000 on the Prince Edward Island and capital expenditures amounting to upwards of $2,000,000, a considerable portion of which would not be classed as capital expenditure by the great railroads of this country.
If I am not interrupting the discussion on this point, I wish to mention another matter. In the papers laid on the table of the House in connection with the arbitration proceedings between the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk Railway, there are a great many allegations made on behalf of the government as to the violation of the agreement with the Grand Trunk in respect to diversion of traffic. At page 29 of this document the government declares:
That the Grand Trunk Railway Company has endeavoured to divert, has diverted and is now diverting traffic which should go to the maritime provinces under the agreement between them ; that it is endeavouring to divert that traffic to points in the United States, and that in consequence the Intercolonial Railway suffered a great deal of damage.
On page 21, the amended statement of the government declares :
The government is claiming damages for the diversion by the Grand Trunk Railway Company of traffic originating throughout the company's system or connections west of Montreal and offered for shipment to points on the Intercolonial Railway or reached by its connections ; and for the diversion, of traffic originating in the city of Montreal or on the Montreal joint section destined to points on the Intercolonial Railway and routed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company via United States ports instead of via Montreal and the Intercolonial Railway.
I find that same allegation emphasized by a charge made on page 36 of this case, namely :
That the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in reference to traffic originating throughout the. company's system or connections west of Montreal, for export via Montreal and the Intercolonial Railway and via the ports of St. John, N.B., and Halifax, N.S., has been and is diverting the same by charging for the carrying of the said traffic a higher rate than thatl charged by it to shippers for the carriage of similar traffic to Portland ; the whole to the great loss and damage of the Intercolonial Railway.

I find further a charge as follows:
That in order to carry out Its object of so diverting the said traffic in breach of its said agreement, the Grand Trunk Railway Company has in the first instance instructed its agents by circular and otherwise to refuse, where shipments for export via St. John, N.B., or Halifax, N.S., to European or other ports are offered, to give to the shipper a through bill of lading from the point of origin of the said freight to the point of destination, although bound by its contract to do so ; and further, in the second instance, has endeavoured to carry out, and has carried out', its object of so diverting the said traffic in breach of its agreement, by issuing circulars and instructions to its agents, and by authorizing the latter to accept the said traffic for export, when the same is consigned via Portland at a lower rate and on more favourable conditions than when carried for export via the said ports of St. John, N.B., or Halifax, N.S.
I find charges also on pages 40 and 47 of the case, where it is alleged that the Grand Trunk Railway Company has removed from its station houses in Montreal and elsewhere advertisements of the Intercolonial Railway placed there under the terms of the contract already referred to. Now, this is a very important question. The minister will remember, at least most of us remember, that when an arrangement was made between the Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the user to the extent of one-half by the Intercolonial Railway of terminal facilities at Montreal, it was claimed by the gentlemen who then spoke for the government that it was a wise action on behalf of the government to pay an enormous rental for one-half the user of those terminals, because under the contract then made with the Grand Trunk Railway Company we would secure for the ports of Halifax and St. John a very large amount of traffic. Apparently, according to the allegations of the government made in the arbitration proceedings which are now pending, that contract has not been observed at all by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and the results which have been submitted to the committee by the Minister of Railways and Canals indicate in a very emphatic way the truth of that statement. I would like to ask the minister to what extent the expectations of the government in that regard have been disappointed-whether or not it is true that the Grand Trunk Railway Company is still refusing to carry out the terms of that agreement, with the result that we are paying for terminal facilities in the city of Montreal an enormous rental without any corresponding benefit to the Intercolonial Railway or the county as a whole?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Referring to the last question of my hon. friend, as to any cor- I responding benefit for the rental paid to the Grand Trunk, I may state that the Intercolonial Railway does complain and has complained to the Grand Trunk Railway
Company that they have not carried out an agreement which if carried out would be very greatly to the interest of the Intercolonial Railway. Now, the matter is pending, and the Intercolonial authorities are determined to carry it through, and to exercise all the power they can exercise in order to have that contract carried out. But it is perhaps not fitting that we should discuss it while it is the subject matter of arbitration. It may be that the result of the arbitration will teach the Grand Trunk Railway Company a lesson. If not, I shall hope that there may he some way whereby they may be taught that it is not to their interest to violate conditions which they solemnly entered into with the Intercolonial Railway in regard to the railway terminals.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. STOCKTON.: The statement was made by the hon. minister this afternoon that there was a diversion of freight from Fredericton over the Canadian Pacific Railway, which otherwise would have gone over the Intercolonial Railway. I would like to ask the minister what was the objective point of the freight and the kind of freight so diverted.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not the details. My information was general to the effect that traffic which had hitherto gone by way of the Canada Eastern over the Intercolonial Railway, was going by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I spoke to the general traffic manager and he admitted that some freight was being diverted.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Was that freight going to the United States or Western Canada ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think to Western Canada.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Then the minister had no information as to the kind of freight that was being diverted or the objective point to which it was being sent.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I had not the details.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Then for ail the minister knew, that freight might have been going to the United States.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not assume it was, but it might.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: The hon. minister knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway has a station in Fredericton, and so lias the Intercolonial Railway since it acquired the Canada Eastern. They are separated stations. Did the minister think that the agent of the Intercolonial Railway, when a customer came to his station, to ship freight, would divert that freight from the Canada

Eastern and the Intercolonial Railway to the Canadian Pacific Railway? Is that the charge against Mr. White or the information received by the hon. minister from his official ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The freight that would go by the Canadian Pacific Railway would not go to the Intercolonial Railway station at Fredericton at all, and the way-bills would not be brought under the notice of our agent there. But I understood from the general traffic manager that it was the duty of this man at Fredericton, under the supervision of Mr. Smiley, district freight agent at St. John, to solicit for freight by way of the Intercolonial, and that there was a falling off in that respect as compared with the period when the Canada Eastern was not under control of the Intercolonial Railway. At that time the Intercolonial Railway got that traffic in connection with the Canada Eastern, but the Canadian Pacific Railway had been too active and had got ahead of the Intercolonial Railway.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: The Canada Eastern was taken over in October and the minister was given the information he speaks of some seven or eight weeks after that. Then without any evidence as to how the falling of occurred or why there was a diversion of freight, if there was any, the minister dismissed Mr. White.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the hon. minister call the attention of Mr. White to this matter ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Personally, I did not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the general superintendent, Mr. Price or Mr. Tiffin, or any of the officials, have any communication -whatever with Mr. White regarding this alleged diversion of freight ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not that I am aware of. I left the matter in the hands of Mr. Tiffin, and told him that if there was any official who was not qualified to cope with the Canadian Pacific Railway in the securing of freight, he should take the proper action.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I quite agree that if any officials are inefficient/ they should be supplanted by men who are efficient. But [DOT] what I am trying to find out now is what justification there was for the dismissal of Mr. White. So far as the minister has told us, it seems that after an experience of only seven or eight weeks, he found there was a falling off in the freight from the Canada Eastern to the Intercolonial Railway, and without taking sufficient time to get general results, he jumped to the conclusion that this station master was responsible and was guilty of dereliction of duty in diverting freight to a rival railway.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: I must be guided by my general manager, Mr. Tiffin. When I ask the cause, and he assigns a certain cause, I must be guided by his conclusion.
I left the matter in his hands. I told him I would hold the traffic department responsible because freight which had heretofore gone by the Canada Eastern should continue to go that way. Mr. Tiffin mentioned that he had seen some of the Fredericton shippers and had personally inquired into the matter.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: But in the light of subsequent events, does not the minister now think he should have made inquiries and that he had not sufficient information on which to fasten a charge of this character against a man who had been in the employ of the Canada Eastern for thirty years and against whom he had no direct evidence. All the minister had to go upon was a falling off of freight, and because there was a falling off, he assumed that it had been diverted, at the instance of this official, to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman seems to fail to catch the point. There was a direct charge by the traffic manager that this man was not securing that freight and that it was because of his inefficiency that we were losing it.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: There was a falling off in freight, and so it was assumed that there was a diversion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. This was at Fredericton. Freight originating there was not going by the Canada Eastern but by the Canadian Pacific Railway, and it was alleged that it was because this man was not looking after his duties and that he was not qualified for them.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: The minister told us but a moment ago that he did not know the objective point of that freight, whether to the west or to the United States. If to the United States it would not go by the Intercolonial Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If it had gone by way of Chaudiere to the Quebec Central before that, why should it not continue ?


Alfred Augustus Stockton: Did it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand that this freight was going west. I did not inquire whether it was going to a United States point or to a Canadian point.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: That is just why I find fault with the minister. When these general statements were made, he should not have allowed his officials to deal so harshly with this station agent. There was no evidence, so far as I can see. that he was guilty in connection with the falling off of freight for the Canada Eastern or Inter-

colonial Railway, or that there was a diversion to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Mr. EMMER'SON. The hon. gentleman has referred to the fact that this man was employed by the Canada Eastern for twenty-three years. I care not whether he was employed fifty years. I, as head of the department would not be justified in keeping him if he was pronounced inefficient by our officials. There cannot be any great claim of sympathy for this gentleman. Ordinarily speaking, when the transfer of the Canada Eastern to the Intercolonial Railway was made, that would end his services. He was there only on (probation after that, as all of them were. The conditions prevailing on the Canada Eastern since the transfer, it will be admitted [DOT] are not the same as those previous to the transfer. These men were retained simply on sufferance and on probation. We were not under obligation to keep them. Those who were satisfactory were continued, and those who prove satisfactory no doubt, will be continued.


Alfred Augustus Stockton: I do not think the minister does himself justice in making the statement he has just made, that he did not care whether this man was there twenty-three years or fifty. I say that a man who has been in the employ of a company for twenty years or fifty years is entiled at least to justice ; and, before he is dismissed he is entitled to know why. And there should be sufficient evidence in the possession of the officials, and brought to the notice of the minister, to justify that dismissal.


Mr. DANIEL.: We have heard a good deal to-night about the diversion of freight from Fredericton to the Canadian Pacific Railway instead of the Intercolonial Railway, and it was assumed to be caused by the want of attention or of ability on the part of this station agent. Possibly, there were other reasons for that diversion from the Intercolonial Railway to the Canadian Pacific Railway. We are called upon tonight to vote about $7,000,000 for the running expenses for the ensuing year for the Intercolonial Railway. We have heard a good deal of the very large deficit on the operations for the last year, the largest deficit, by a very large amount, ever recorded against the people's railway. As an explanation of that deficit, it has usually been pleaded in this House that it was occasioned largely by the increase in the wages of the employees. But, if that is the reason of the deficit on the Intercolonial Railway why do not the other railways of Canada show a deficit. Is the Intercolonial Railway the only railway that raised the wages of its employees? I think I am within the mark when I say that the Intercolonial Railway has not increased the wages of
its employees in any greater ratio or any greater degree than the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk, or any other railway in Canada. We find, in the report of the Department of Railways and Canals, the statement that the Intercolonial Railway actually carried less freight last year than it did the year before. Then, it must have earned less money. And that, I take it, is the reason of this large deficit. And, I might point out that this deficit is caused at a time when every gentleman in this House has been congratulating the country on being in such a remarkably high state of development, with every thing booming and business in the best shape. The Intercolonial Railway, I believe, is the only railway that, with an increase of mileage, shows a decrease of freight hauled. If that is the case under the present circumstances, what are we to expect when business is less prosperous, when hard times come? It seems to me the case is a very serious one. The minister spoke of the criticisms of the opposition on the expenditure of the Intercolonial, and intimated that the members* especially from the province of Ontario, were sectional in their criticism. I was very sorry to hear him bring up so frequently as he has during this session reference to the expenditure on the canals in Quebec and Ontario, and intimation that if the canals, which have cost a great deal of money, are being largely made free, no one can criticise any expenditure on the Intercolonial. Now, no one on this side, whether from Ontario or any where else, has the slightest desire to curtail proper expenditure on the people's railway. What we do object to is reckless and unnecessary expenditure, and the making of the railway management a partisan political machine. That, I am sorry to say is what the management at the present time very largely is. If the minister will do justice to government ownership, and, by proper government management will do for the railway what ordinary business management does for other railways, there will be no two opinions in this country as to the benefit of government ownership. We believe in government ownership-certainly for my part I believe in it very earnestly. I do not believe in the management which the Intercolonial is getting at the present time. Now it is possible that there may be some other reason than the laxity of a station agent why freight is diverted from the Intercolonial. With regard to that matter, I would like to read a statement that appeared in the hon. gentleman's own organ in Moncton not long since.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have no organ.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Well, for the benefit of those gentlemen who have not seen it, I will read some extracts from it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No one ever claimed that any paper printed in Moncton is my organ.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Well, then, we will call it the government organ. It is difficult to tell just now whether a paper is really the organ of a minister, or whether the organ of a member is a government organ or not. There are difficulties abroad just now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would not bank too much on those difficulties if I were you.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I will read it, then the hon. gentleman can claim it or not, as he wishes :
The traffic situation on the Intercolonial, particularly with regard to freight, is rapidly reaching a climax. Indeed, in the minds of many it has already reached a crisis and sharp action is absolutely necessary, and that at once. Shippers from all over the country are crying out against the management with respect to the manner in which their shipments are handled, and will not believe the excuses made by the official staff. Many thousands of dollars have been spent in making improvements and placing the road in a position to handle a situation far more difficult than that which confronts the operating department to-day. A representative of the Allan Line of steamers passed through the city recently and complained bitterly of the manner in which cargoes from their steamers were handled between Halifax and Montreal. He stated that his firm had protested that if their shipments were not given better attention and hauled over the road with better despatch and fewer delays, they would be compelled to divert this traffic to a competitive point.
That ia the point.
With this in view, and many similar complaints from shippers with business just as large as the Allans', how can it' be reasonably expected that all important shipments will be made over the Intercolonial and not be diverted to the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific roads?
Surely, Mr. Chairman, I think there is one reason why traffic becomes diverted occasionally, and perhaps frequently, from the Intercolonial. During the last week or two I have had occasion to have a little correspondence with the Intercolonial through Mr. Pottinger ; and I may say in that connection that Mr. Pottinger certainly facilitated the business I had to do in eyery way he could. But as a wind-up to that correspondence, I give a letter from a gentleman to-day in which he states that :
He has come to the conclusion that his freight is of no benefit to ;he Intercolonial and has decided to bring his freight via the Canadian Pacific Railway. .	. [DOT] Should this state
of affairs continue I will have to go out of business.
1 may say that in addition to the correspondence I have previously read, and which Mr. Pottinger will remember, this gentleman says :


John Waterhouse Daniel: At present my mill is idle for want of corn, and two cars within a few yards of my mill. I have used every means available to get a shunt, but of no use. Even put my men out and had my siding cleared, yet the sectionmen can clear the siding directly in front of my place for Peter's tannery, and get both coal and tan bark, while I have to stand by with my hands folded and oancfel carload afte'r carload of meal. I have come to the conclusion that my freight is of no benefit to the Intercolonial, therefore have decided to bring my freight via Canadian Pacific Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Who makes that complaint ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. O. W. Stewart, who went there and invested his capital in a corn meal mill, which he built up right alongside the Intercolonial, intending to use the Intercolonial for all his business, and he has been using it for all his business. But he has not met, as he tells us at all events, with that treatment which he has a right to expect. As I said just now, I have brought this matter to the attention of the officials of the road. I did not say anything to the minister, because I presumed that the proper thing to do in a case of that kind was to act through the officials of the road, and Mr. Pottinger communicated with Mr. Tiffin. Now I would appeal to the minister if he thinks that is the way to increase the business of the Intercolonial. Here is a case in point. The report shows that the traffic business of the Intercolonial is decreasing, and here is one of the reasons, I take it, why the traffic is decreasing. As a matter of fact, the minister will see in his own report that there was really less through freight on the Intercolonial last year than there was drawn over it seventeen years ago. That is not a condition of thing,? that ought to exist. I would be very glad if the minister would see, now that his attention has been called to it, that this gentleman is properly treated. I do not know what his business amounts to, but he brings everything he uses for that mill over the Intercolonial. I know the position of these two places, Peter's tannery and the corn meal mill are almost alongside one another. One man gets everything done for him, the other man cannot even get his stock in trade, that is only a few yards off, brought up to his warehouse.


Samuel Hughes: Why can one man get the favour and the other cannot ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Because the Intercolonial does not see fit to do it. He wants a little shunting of a few yards, and it cannot be done-that is his statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does my hon. friend say that the matter of shunting was brought to the notice of Mr. Pottinger ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not know-his 'letter is all I know about it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend says he has had considerable correspondence with Mr. Pottinger, and that it culminated in the letter he had received to-day. Now did my hon. friend call Mr. Pottinger's attention to the matter of shunting ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: This letter only came to me to-day. This gentleman says he is done now, he has reached the climax, he is going to cease operating with the Intercolonial and will bring his business vja the Canadian Pacific Railway. If he had asked me to interest myself in getting his wants attended to, I should have been glad to do so. But as a matter of fact, he says he cannot stand the racket any longer and that he must go somewhere else.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend has mentioned something that has not been brought to my attention. I would remind him, however, that this complaint against the management of the Intercolonial has nothing to do with politics. It is simply a complaint against the officials and their management or control of the details and the routine. I hn* e never heard of it until this moment, but sitting here, I have gathered already some information with which the hon. gentleman must be familiar. He has had before him the letters of the general traffic manager. It appears that there is a complaint upon the part of Mr. Stewart who owns a corn grinding mill at St. John that the Intercolonial Railway is charging him a higher rate than the Canadian Pacific Railway is charging somebody else for the same class of goods. That, as I understand it, is the core and kernel of the whole complaint. My hon. friend must know what the answer of the general traffic manager and of the general manager of the road was in that regard. He has had their answer before him and I think it would have been fair for him to have given that information to the committee, namely, that the management state that there could be no such thing, that the Canadian Pacific Railway, under the traffic arrangements, could not charge less than the Intercolonial Railway is charging for the same amount of transportation ; that is that the rates that apply to one railway must apply to the other. Everybody knows that in so far as through freight is concerned there are certain traffic arrangements between railways, there is a certain schedule of rates and unless there is a breach of faith on the part of some one they are all bound by that agreement and that schedule, and if there is any rebate it is in fraud of the agreement and certainly is against good faith. Mr. Pottinger has informed me that in so far as any question of shunting is concerned this is the first he has ever heard of it, and I am sure that the officials would not discriminate in favour of one as against the other. It is purely a matter of the internal management of the Intercolonial 72
Railway, and my hon. friend will see that the complaint that is made that this railway is a politically managed road has no foundation. These things are under the control of the manager, the general traffic manager and their officials and they are all regulated by them. These matters do not come under my supervision. Sometimes appeals are made to me in respect to these matters and I am sometimes called upon to adjust them. In doing so, I do it in conference with the officials. I have not the technical knowledge, I am not supposed to have it, and I must necessarily be guided by their 'reports and their advices in such matters.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have no statement to make in regard to the rates of freight as charged on the Intercolonial Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway. As a matter of fact my correspondent has certainly expressed his dissatisfaction with the rates that are charged on the Intercolonial, and he says that he was charged one cent more per hundred pounds, or per barrel, whatever it was-per hundred pounds, I think- than the rate that was guaranteed to him, by the Grand Trunk Railway Company. I might make the whole thing clear by reading this corespondence, but I do not think it is worth while to do that. I will merely state that my corespondent says in his letter :
In reply I would say that Mr. Wallace, general freight agent's information with regard to lake port corn is correct, but my claim is on. corn all rail to Chicago.
That is what he says in regard to the rebate. I do not know that it is neeessary for me to read this letter. I do not want to detain and weary the committee with a large correspondence on this one single thing, but I just bring the result to the notice of the hon. minister, and I am quite sure that a man who has invested his money in a mill, placed right alongside the Intercolonial Railway in order to be near it and to do his business in connection with it, would not write such a letter as this or state that the condition of affairs between the Intercolonial Railway and himself has about come to a climax, that he is coming to a conclusion that his business is no good to the Intercolonial Railway and that he will have to do business elsewhere unless there were some grounds for so doing. I desire to draw the attention of the hon. minister to this state of affairs. If it is not the fault of the railway why, of course, the railway cannot be blamed for it. But I do not think that a gentleman such as Mr. Stewart is, would make statements of that kind unless he had some real cause to do it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, I think my hon. friend is manifestly unfair to the officials of the Intercolonial Railway. This is not a charge against me, it is not a charge

*2231

against the department, but it is a charge *against the efficient management of the Intercolonial and he has brought to the attention of the committee what I would say, *and I do not say it in any offensive sense, Is a garbled statement of some complaint which the hon. gentleman says exists.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I take issue with that statement and I would like to know whether the hon. minister is in order or not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I say that I do not say it in an offensive sense.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not care in what sense the hon. minister says it, it is not a true statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The facts will speak for themselves. It is a one-sided statement. The hon.' gentleman has all the letters there, he has letters that were addressed to the officers of the Intercolonial Railway and he has their replies and their explanations. The great charge of the colleagues of my hon. friend on the opposite side of the House has been ever since I have been a member of this House that we have been carrying freight for nothing, that our freight rates are entirely too low-this has been the universal complaint against the Intercolonial Railway-and now the hon. gentleman stands up and says that the Intercolonial Railway is charging too much, that it is charging more than the Canadian Pacific Railway. In so far as their rates are concerned, they are supposed to charge the same rate per hundred pounds or per barrel. That is recognized, and if any one of the parties to a traffic arrangement violates it he is not acting in good faith towards the others. Surely this matter having been imported into this discussion, not for my sake but for the sake of the management, it is only fair, that the whole matter should be made known. I regret that it will take up time, and 1 regret that it will take up space in ' Hansard ' but there must be some answer. I have not a very clear knowledge of it, it has not been brought to my notice, I never heard of it until I heard it from the lips of my hon. friend a few moments ago. But there' is one statement he made in respect to the earning of the Intercolonial Railway which I think should be corrected. I know it does not tell in favour of the position which I have taken, but it is truth :and should be recognized as such. The -earnings of the Intercolonial Railway last [DOT]year, as compared with the previous year, Rave been increased, and yet despite that fact the expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway were increased. P>ut the gross -earning's were increased and therefore it should not go down as a matter of record that the gross earnings of last year were mot as great as the preceding year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I wish to call the hon. .(gentleman's attention to the fact that I Mr. EMMERSON.
made no such statement as he has attributed to me. I did not mention the words ' gross earnings * at all. I said that the amount of freight he had carried over the road during last year was less than that carried during the year before. That is the statement I made and that is the statement 1 make now. Let me read to the minister his own report which is as follows :
The freight traffic amounted to $4,041,122.48, or 63'.25 per cent of the gross earnings, a decrease of $87,132.52.
There is the statement from his own report, and that is the report I was reading from. I made no reference at all to the fross earnings; I am quite aware there was a slight increase of gross earnings last year over the year before, but my reference was to the traffic, and the idea I had in bringing the matter up was that such occurrences as this might be some reason why a smaller amount of freight was carried. If there is good care taken of the patrons of the Intercolonial Railway, I do not see why the business should not increase. I can understand that if a man goes to Mr. SteWart and tells him that he is getting better treatment from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that such can be shown to be the case, it is reasonable to suppose that he would transfer his business.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I admit that if Mr. Stewart was getting his freight hauled over the Canadian Pacific Railway from Chicago to St. John for one cent per hundred pounds less than- the Intercolonial Railway rate, he would be justified in sending his freight by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have stated, however, that it is the contention of the traffic manager of the Intercolonial Railway that the freight between Chicago and St. John must, under the traffic agreement, pay the same rate whether carried by the Intercolonial Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I understand that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think it is fair that this country should understand it, too, and if it is true that the Canadian Pacific Railway are cutting rates in violation of the agreement it should be known.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have made no reference to the Canadian Pacific Railway cutting rates, and I do not know that the minister has any right to make such an insinuation. There are other things which count in the treatment of patrons of a railway besides the question of rates. My correspondent is evidently complaining of the treatment he gets by the railway, but as to whether any one gets better rates on the Canadian Pacific Railway for the same class of business than on the Intercolonial Railway I am not prepared to say; the rates are supposed to be and they probably are the same.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are through long Raul rates.	'


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then the rates being the same there must be a difference in the accommodation afforded by the two roads or my correspondent would not make such a complaint. I shall be very glad to pass this letter over to Mr. Pottinger. This gentleman makes the statement here that when a couple of loaded cars were within a few yards of the mill, although he,cleared the tracks with his own men, he could not get the cars shunted.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: After listening to the wishy-washy arguments of the Minister of Railways-


Some hon. MEMBER.: Oh.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Hon. gentlemen opposite say ' Oh.' but if they had listened to these arguments for the last few days, they would come to the same conclusion as I Rave.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You are entitled to a great deal of sympathy.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not ask for any. Here we have the minister trying to shunt the responsibility on to the men who are with him in managing the Intercolonial Railway. I do not believe that is fair to these men.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend pardon me. I take the full responsibility in connection with the management of the Intercolonial Railway, and in the discussion -of these estimates I have not in any way attempted to place any of that responsibility on the shoulders of the officials of the road. But my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) clearly stated that this was purely a question between certain officials and a gentleman named Stewart. It is a matter which has not been brought to my notice in any way, and according to my hon. friend's own statement, it is a matter for the officials of the railroad to deal with. Therefore, out of respect to these gentlemen, I ask that he should give their letter and place it on 'Hansard' side by side with thp charge that is made by Mr. Stewart. If my hon. friend does not do that I shall certainly do it, because I think it would be unfair treatment to the officials of the Intercolonial Railway if that letter is withheld from the knowledge [DOT]of the committee.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This afternoon we had the minister giving considerable attention to a poor station agent who was dismissed, and naturally it would be supposed that a matter of this kind mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) would come under his notice to. There cannot be too much said in condemnation of the present management of the Intercolonial Railway, with its huge deficits from year to year. The hon. member
for North Renfrew (Mr. White) made a splendid suggestion when he said the Intercolonial should be taken out of politics, and if that were done I believe it would be one of the best things that has ever happened this country. Why should not the Intercolonial Railway be a paying institution? Look at the Australian government railway system with its different gauges and the expense of transhipping freight and there you will find a government railway a paying concern.


Some hon. MEMBER.: Oh.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do the hon. gentlemen say ' Oh ? '
Some hon MEMBERS. Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then they do not know what is going on in Australia. Last year the Australian railways paid the government three per cent on the investment and here in Canada we have a government railway which should be the most up to date in the country running behind year after year when other railways are earning large dividends and increasing their traffic. And yet in view of this the minister tells us that we are making garbled statements and that your humble servant here was having information pumped into him. Let us look back at what has occurred in this House for the last few days, and we will see that if it had not been for his deputy pumping information into the Minister of Railways the minister would be in a sorry plight. I do not wish to prolong the argument to-night, but too much cannot be said in condemnation of the way in which the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway and its branches are managed by this government, and were the Prime Minister in his place I would urge upon him the necessity of creating an independent commission and taking the Intercolonial and all its branches out of politics, so that we should have a paying investment instead of one that is running behind and showing deficits year after year.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Minister of Railways has taken occasion to stand up for the officials of the government railways in view of a remark of the hon. member for St. John. That is a good thing to do; and I commend my hon. friend for it. We are to-day voting some $7,000,000, part of which is to be devoted to increasing the salaries of the men on the Intercolonial Railway. What I rose specially to say was this. When the government bought the Canada Eastern Railway, I presume they intended to carry out the usual practice of railway companies of retaining in their employ the employees whom they found on the railway when they took it over. One of these employees was Mr. White, the station agent at Fredericton. After twenty-three years of service, Mr. White was paid the magnificent salary of $65 a month on which to keep himself and his family ; but, because the minister heard

223ft
a few complaints about Mr. White not getting sufficient freight at Fredericton, he discharged him on fourteen days' notice. I was sorry to hear the minister say it did not matter to him whether a man was ten years or twenty-five years in the service of the company. If the minister wants to encourage the employees on the government railway to do their duty, he must not exhibit that spirit towards them, but be prepared to appreciate long and faithful service and reward it properly, lie supplanted Mr. White by employing Mr. Walker and paying him $85 a month for what he expected Mr. White to do for $65 a month. That is a poor way to treat Mr. White after his long service. On ordinary railways the officials would say to Mr. White : We find that you are not competent to perform the duties of station agent at this important station ; therefore, we will supplant you with a man qualified to fulfil the requirements of this station, hut we will move you to another station where the duties will be such as you can perform. That would be humane treatment, and would encourage the employees on the railway to give efficient service ; and unless you give the employees humane treatment, you cannot expect them to work efficiently, l have a statement of the minister to the effect that the strong competition of the Canadian Pacific Railway with the Intercolonial Railway must naturally lead the officers of the Intercolonial to greater exertion. I again urge upon the minister, on behalf of this man, who appears to be a deserving man, to find some station where he can be of service. There is no person to stand up for him except the hon. gentleman representing his constituency. He has not been discharged by reason of any political interference. I appeal again to my hon. friend not to be harsh towards this unfortunate man, but to do his duty as the head of the government system of railways and give him employment at some other station. By that means he will encourage all good, stea4y, honest employees to do their duty.


Samuel Hughes: I have had it in my heart to express to the minister the same sentiments that have been so ably expressed by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram). I do not know the details of this case, but from the statement of the minister himself, there is no evidence to show that Mr. White was unfit for the position he occupied for so many years. At any rate, the rule of the government departments is to allow a gratuity amounting, I think, to a month's salary for every year of public service to men who are dismissed ; and I understand that when any road is taken over, the officers on that road are treated the same as if they had been in the government service. Even if the worst the minister says of Mr. White is true, that he is unfit for the Fredericton job. there are many other places along the line that' he could fill. I submit to the minister that a Mr. INGRAM.
man who has given the best part of his life to the service of a railway, when that railway is absorbed by the government, is entitled to consideration, and I trust that the-minister will endeavour, at an early date,, to find a station where this officer can be put in charge. Any man who gives twenty-three years of his life to the service of a company or the country is entitled tq consideration.


Henry Robert Emmerson: He did not give his-service to the country, but to the company.
Mi-. SAM. HUGHES. That company has been absorbed by the government, and I understand that its officers for the time being are recognized as placed on the same footing as if they had been in the service of the government.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I notice some little improvement in the conduct of the minister in the fact that Mr. White got ten days' or two weeks' notice, whereas the two dismissals which took place shortly after the by-election in February, a year ago, were instantaneous. No time was given for contemplation, or even for regret, but the dismissals were sudden, short and sharp. I am in hopes that in another year's time when a dismissal takes place the minister will investigate the case in the way in which almost any other employer would do, so as to make sure that he is doing no injustice. I would like to ask the hon. minister if this amount of seven million dollars includes the amounts which are paid the advertising staff of the Intercolonial Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, all expenditures.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How many are employed in that service and at what rates?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Creighton is head of the advertising staff. Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Allward, Mr. Hickson and Mr. A. E. Bar-ten are on the staff. Mr. Barten is with the advertising ear now at the sportsmen's show in New York.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are they employed all the year round?	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am not speaking from personal knowledge, but it has been intimated to me that that department is rather over-manned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: All last spring and winter we had men going through Ontario and the New England states with an advertising car, showing pictures of the different points.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In the winter?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, they were here during the session. They had a store on Sparks street where they showed views of the most prominent points in New Brunswick,

Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Cape Preton and Quebec. Mr. Lindsay had charge of the Intercolonial Railway exhibit at the St. Louis fair. Mr. Creighton is chief of the staff, assisted by Mr. Allward. Mr. Creighton travels over the Intercolonial Railway system, going to the different points. Mr. Allward remains in the office at Moncton. Therejtre only four altogether and the department is certainly not overmanned. They do very successful work. Any one who saw their exhibits here and at St. Louis will bear testimony to the good quality of their work. We got a gold medal at St. Louis for the Intercolonial Railway exhibit, and I am sure that that was quite' a triumph for a Canadian railway.


Mr. BLAIN.: Will the minister give us some information on the question of freight rates? What would the difference be on the Intercolonial Railway in freight rates say for 100 miles into Montreal as against 100 . miles going to Toronto on the Grand Trunk or Canadian Pacific Railway carrying farm products ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is dependent very largely upon water competition. Gen-, erally speaking the rates on the Intercolonial Railway are much lower than those -on the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Richard Blain: About how much?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It varies according to the different classes of goods. My hon. friend will perhaps remember the statement that a former Minister of Railways made in 1902, when he said that after studying out the matter he had found that in some instances the rates were 80 per cent lower [DOT]on the Intercolonial Railway. I think however that that was only an isolated case. In some instances, they are 50 per cent and in others 25 per cent lower. Generally speaking the rates on the Intercolonial Railway are very much lower than on the other Canadian railways. I am referring to local rates. We all know that the through-rates have to be uniform by reason of the traffic agreement. Then the rates are affected on the Intercolonial Railway very materially by water competition. For instance the rates between Montreal and Sydney are very materially governed by steamship competition during the summer months. In order to secure traffic the year round from any industry at Sydney, we have to make special arrangements. Of [DOT]course we could charge what we pleased [DOT]during the winter but during the summer they could snap their fingers at us. Of course we would not wish to be excessive and they would naturally get the best freight rates they could.


Richard Blain: Why does the minister enter Into an agreemeut with the Canadian Pacific Railway to make the Intercolonial Railway rates on the long hauls exactly the same as those of the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway but a traffic agreement in which a great many roads have to be considered. Coming from Chicago there is the Grand Trunk Railway and from other points beyond Chicago there may be other railroads. The traffic agents of the different railways meet during the year and make up a schedule as to the mileage. It is not an agreement in the sense of forming a monopoly or combine, but an agreement as respects the mileage. The Intercolonial Railway is governed in that connection by the shorter mileage because it cannot charge for its actual mileage. For instance we have to meet tile short line rates between Montreal and St. .Tohn though we go much further around.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman refers to local rates. Do we understand him to mean that between points on the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Intercolonial purely local, the Intercolonial rates are lower than those of the Canadian Pacific Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: On all other lines in Canada the Railway Commission has the right to interfere to prevent discrimination, but it has no control over government railways. Now the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway, for instance, at competing points make the same rates, and any violation would be interfered with by the traffic association. It seems to me the minister must surely have the same system as between the Intercolonial and the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understand that the object of the Railway Commission is to protect the patrons of the railways and prevent charges beyond a certain maximum. If one of the railways charges less than the maximum, I do not understand that the Railway Commission will interfere.


Andrew B. Ingram: Evidently, I have not made myself plain. There is a tariff arrangement between the railway companies. They meet once a year and arrange the rates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is for through rates.


Andrew B. Ingram: And for local rates at competing points.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister will allow me to inform him that that is so. If one railway company violates the tariff arrangement by discrimination, that tailway is punished.

Mi;. EMMERSON. 'As between themselves ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But the Railway Commission will not interfere.


Andrew B. Ingram: Except in cases of discrimination, where one man is charged more for the same service than another man.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought the hon. gentleman was speaking about separate routes. He mentioned the Canadian Pacific Railway and its relationship to some other road. But, as to one road, the Railway Commission would not interfere except in case of discrimination in favour of one customer as against another.


Andrew B. Ingram: But, referring to what I spoke of previously, surely the Intercolonial has an arrangement for local rates at competing points1 with other roads. But I understand him to say that this is not the case.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. gentleman will bear in mind that there are not competing roads, except so far as the points of Montreal and St. John are concerned. The Intercolonial was at St. John before the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Intercolonial had its rates fixed years ago, and these-I will not take time to explain why- have been continued. They are practically the same yesterday, to-day, and, apparently, for ever. And, I fancy, the Canadian Pacific Railway has adjusted its St. John rates to meet the Intercolonial. I hope these freight rates will have some modification in the future, so that we may be able to expunge the words ' for ever ' as respects rates.


Andrew B. Ingram: The Canadian Pacific Railway runs from Montreal to St. John, as the Intercolonial does. Do I understand the minister to say that the rates are much less on the Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood him to say so.	.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understood my hon. friend to speak of local rates. From Montreal to St. John is a through rate, as my hon. friend knows. But I do not think there is any arrangement even as to that, because that was established by the Intercolonial years ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: The association for the railways throughout the country meets every year and arranges rates


Henry Robert Emmerson: Through rates.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am speaking of through rates. That traffic arrangement is carried out by all the railways operating in the district. And I understand the Intercolonial is a party to that arrangement.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Mr. TAYLOR.: Combine.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It belongs to that association, and, so far as through rates are concerned, it is governed by it.


Andrew B. Ingram: There are the through rates. In addition to that the other railway companies have their arrangement for competing points. These are local rates-If a shipper chooses one route rather than another, it must be on account of cars or something of that kind, for the rates are the same. I do not understand that the Intercolonial has different local rates


Henry Robert Emmerson: Let me explain. The Intercolonial does not submit its local rates to this association, and in no way depends upon any action of the association. And, if I am correctly informed, the rate from Montreal to St. John is considered a local rate in the sense that it was established by the Intercolonial and is not a subject of agreement. A through rate is always in connection with connecting railways, where-there is a division of the traffic and an apportionment to connecting lines. But where the freight goes from a station on the Intercolonial to another station on the Intercolonial, that is a local rate, controlled entirely by ourselves, without regard to other railways or the traffic association.


Andrew B. Ingram: Take an instance. Suppose that two men are shippers over the Intercolonial. One is charged a certain rate, while the other is charged a higher rate-that is, there is discrimination as between the two shippers. Does the minister say that nothing of that kind has occurred ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I explained that it was a uniform .rate, and that was the boast of a government railway. But the hon. gentleman complains that there has not been sufficient elasticity, that shippers have complained that where they had furnished hundreds of carloads of traffic to the railway, they were shown no more consideration than the man who had only three carloads. My information is that if there are-special rates in connection with any product, either natural or manufactured, that special rate is given to all engaged in the business, and it is not given to one man in a town and refused, to another. It is obvious that the railway, being a government road, cannot discriminate.


Andrew B. Ingram: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman make that statement. I do not know whether the Intercolonial has ever discriminated between shippers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In that respect there is certainly no politics. A Conservative can get the same rate as a Liberal, and vice versa. The rates are made regardless entirely of politics, creed, nationality or any other difference.


Andrew B. Ingram: I want to get back to what my bon. friend stated a short time ago. I put the case of shippers over any other line of railway being discriminated against, and the minister says that the commission could step in when more than the maximum rate was charged ; that they never interfered unless more than the maximum rate is charged. The hon. gentleman is not quite correct in that statement as regards other railways.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the same railway 1


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then I withdraw my statement that the commission does not interfere with respect to the maximum rate.
I thought it was a question as between two railways. I understood my hon. friend to put his question in that way ; but he afterwards amended it, and said it was with respect to the same railway, and I then said in that case the commission would interfere if there was discrimination.


Andrew B. Ingram: I want to mention to the hon. gentleman that the Standard Oil Company got certain privileges from railways in this country that the railways would not grant to other interests that were engaged in the oil business, and that the matter was brought before the Committee of the Privy Council and was settled here in Ottawa.
I say it is the duty of the Railway Commission to handle such cases as that. It seemed to me remarkable, when the Railway Bill went through, that government railways were not included in the scope of the commission. I think it 'would be a step in the right direction to give the commission control over government railways as well as others. I would go further, and say that the time has about arrived when we should have an independent commission to manage ali the government railways in this country. When we bring about that change, I am satisfied we will not have $1,000,000 deficit every year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to ask the minister if he remembers making some reference last session of parliament to a superannuation scheme for the employees of the Intercolonial ? I understood that he intended to introduce that scheme last session.
I do not know whether any reference was made to it during the last election. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell us what cost such a scheme would involve to the country, or whether any part of the cost is included in the item before us. Does he [ intend to bring down such a scheme this year or at any time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did bring the matter before the House last year. I am familiar with what has transpired with respect to the pension scheme on the Intercolonial. It was first referred to by the Hon. Mr. Blair, when he was Minister of Railways,
I think, in 1902. He again referred to it in
1903, and when I assumed office in 1904 it was a live question. The officials and the employees all along the line were consulted in regard to it, and they drew up certain resolutions to form the basis of a scheme. These were submitted to me. and are now under consideration. I hoped to introduce the Bill last session, but it was found impossible to go on with it on account of the overwhelming importance of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. I am still in hopes that I will be able to consider this matter, if not at the present session of parliament, certainly at the next session.


George Taylor: I want to ask the minister a practical question regarding a matter that comes under my observation every day. Suppose I am a shipper at Brockville, where we have the Grand Trunk aijd the Canadian Pacific Railway. If I want to ship goods to St. John, to Moncton and to Halifax, can I get a better rate if I bill those goods by the Grand Trunk to Montreal, thence via the Intercolonial to St. John and Moncton or Halifax, than if I billed them by the Canadian Pacific Railway to either of these points ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not able to answer my hon. friend as to the rates between these points by the Intercolonial as compared with the rates over the Canadian Pacific Railway. But I think that is what is called the long haul, and that is a matter that is regulated by this traffic agreement over the railway.


George Taylor: Who makes this traffic agreement for the Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The traffic manager.


George Taylor: The traffic manager enters into a combine with the other railways that rates shall be tBe same from Montreal by the Intercolonial Railway to any point where the Canadian Pacific touches.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Canadian Pacific Railway does not go beyond St. John. The very moment the Canadian Pacific Railway gets that freight to St. John it pays tribute to the Intercolonial Railway and gets mileage. There is no combine. The Intercolonial Railway has a certain mileage down to that point. The Grand Trunk Railway has a certain mileage down to Montreal and that is regulated by the through haul. It is not a combine ; it is only an apportionment according to mileage to the different railways.
Mr.'TAYLOR. When you are quoted the same rates by the Grand Trunk Railway to the point to which it goes and thence by the Intercolonial Railway, the freight being handed over at St. John for points east and the rates being all the same, what is the good of competition in railways ? As long as the government can allow their traffic manager to enter into a combine with other railways and to agree that the rates shall

be the same there is no competition, and yet tile hon. gentleman gets up and tells us that the rates on the Intel colonial are lower than on any other road. I am shipping goods every day and my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell) knows as a matter of fact that he as a shipper cannot get a cent of difference in the rate charged by the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway from Toronto to Montreal or St. John, or Halifax.
. Mr. CAMPBELL. Of course not.


George Taylor: My hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) says ' of course not.' He knows as every practical business man knows that the government railway is in a combine with the other railways.
Mr. EA1MERSON. No.


George Taylor: Certainly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The mileage of the Intercolonial Railway is very much greater than the mileage of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Intercolonial Railway carries that freight at a much lower rate per mile than any other railway, and thus keeps the rate down.


George Taylor: What difference does it make to me as a shipper from the west whether my goods are carried a thousand miles or five hundred miles ? It is the rate that I am after as a practical business man. My hon. friend says that the rate is lower because we have a longer road to haul the freight over. We do not care about that. AVe want our freight delivered at the cheapest ra,te. Yet the hon. minister tells his traffic manager to enter into a combine with these other roads in order to regulate freight rates.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: The rates to Halifax and St. John and other points down there are not in competition with the railways, but they are based upon the competition between the rail and water routes. The time was a few years ago when nearly all the flour that was consumed in Prince Edward Island and along the southern shore of Nova Scotia was sent by Boston, and our own railways did not get a pound of the haul. In the last few years the rate has been lowered so that to-day I do not think there is a single barrel .of flour going to Prince Edward Island or the southern shore, of Nova Scotia via Boston, or if there is it is In very small quantity.


George Taylor: That does not affect my statement.


Archibald Campbell: The rate from Toronto and points in Ontario to Halifax and St. John is necessarily very low. The rate on flour is exceedingly low from Toronto to Halifax. It is only 144 cents per 100 pounds for carrying that flour over the Intercolonial Railway, I suppose about 1,200 or 1,300 miles, and that rate is divided be-Mr. TAYLOR.
tween the Grand Trunk Railway and the Intercolonial Railway. The rate Is the same by the other roads, but the roads have to make that rate in connection with water shipments and they have to make it lower if they want to get the traffic. That is the reason that shippers in Ontario regard the rates to these points in the maritime provinces as being exceedingly low and satisfactory.


George Taylor: Then what benefit is it to shippers in Ontario and in the western provinces to have the Intercolonial Railway operated as a government railway if it does not give us any competitive rates? I am in favour of government railways, but not run by such a government as we have running and managing this one. I notice in the Auditor General's Report that $81,000 was paid for printing and advertising for the Intercolonial Railway and that of this $39,000 was paid to three or four newspapers in St. John-the ' Gazette.' the ' Globe,' the ' Telegraph ' and another.


George Eulas Foster: That is the reptile press.


George Taylor: Would the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway manage their business in this way or throw away $81,000 for printing and advertising ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They pay a great deal more.


George Taylor: I know how they do it. Look what the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway pay in St. John under these heads. Can you find an expenditure of $39,000 a year divided amongst three or four newspapers ? I am in favour of government owned railways, but if we own that railway, we ought to control the rates instead of authorizing our traffic manager to make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, so that if people in the west want to send goods down east it is immaterial which way they bill them. I am in favour of a government owned railway that would bid for the freight, that would not go into a combine but that would put its rates at such an amount as would bring business our way. Such a railway would not have half a dozen elevators built at St. John and along the line standing three or four years idle and never having a bushel of wheat in them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: AA^ho started that business ?


George Taylor: My hon. friend knows all about it. If we had control of them we would have them filled and emptied every week with grain and wo would offer such competition in rates as would bring the grain there. But there is competition now. My hon. friend goes and forms a combine with other railways and then lie fritters money away paying newspapers in St.

*John and Halifax 881,000 without receiving any benefit in return. The railway under his management has run the country millions of dollars in debt every year in place of showing a surplus and paying a dividend to the stockholders as other railways are. My hon. friend gets up and says that the road is no good, that it is never going to be any good and that the people might as well make up their minds to this while it is under the management of the present government. They are asking for hundreds of thousands of 'dollars every year to keep the road running. That is practically the statement which my hon. friend made in introducing his estimates in regard to the Intercolonial Railway the other night. I think that is a humiliating position for the people to be in. Although the people own this railway the government say they cannot manage it without running it several millions of dollars in debt. They have made an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific Railway by which they cannot take freight at a lower rate * than the Canadian Pacific Railway take it. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) pointed out a while ago, that a shipper was charged a cent more on the Intercolonial Railway than on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and if that is so what is the value of the agreement that they have entered into ? Iam in favour of a government owned railway run as a business concern and not as a political machine as my hon. friend has been running the Intercolonial Railway since he came into power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I never suspected that my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) was humorous, but he seems to be qualifying for the distinction when he speaks of what would be done with the elevator at Halifax if his party had control of it. The hon. gentleman wants to make it appear that the Intercolonial Railway enters into a combine as a result of which the rates are too high. Does the hon. gentleman complain that the rates to Halifax and St. John and these points are too high? Will he answer that question.


George Taylor: I know they are very much higher now than were two years ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Than they were two years ago ?


George Taylor: Two or three years ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The rates were originally fixed on the Intercolonial Railway as against the water competition by shipment to Portland and Boston, and by vessels crossing the Bay of Fundy to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick ports. These rates were in consequence made very low. Then the Canadian Pacific Railway came into being, and their rates were under the control of the Railway Commission ; and are now under the control of the Railway Commission from Ontario points to points in the maritime provinces. By reason of the contract entered into between the government of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1881, so far as western Canada is concerned the Canadian Pacific Railway is above and beyond all government and all Railway Commissions, and can charge what rates it likes. The Intercolonial Railway is obliged to carry any traffic it gets at Montreal for St. John, a very much further mileage than the Canadian Pacific Railway, the latter road being shorter ; and yet the Intercolonial Railway cannot charge higher freight rates than the Canadian Pacific Railway, or else the Intercolonial Railway would not get any business. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) gave a good illustration when he said that the Canadian Pacific Railway are charging one cent per hundred pounds lower than the Intercolonial Railway.


George Taylor: In violation of your agreement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In violation of the through-freight agreement, because this freight comes from the western states and there may be half a dozen railroads participating in the rate. That through-rate must be a uniform rate established according to mileage and in accordance with a certain schedule. It seems to me that the Intercolonial Railway is a corrective, but the Intercolonial Railway suffers, because its road being 100 miles longer than the Canadian Pacific Railway it must carry over the greater mileage at the same rate as the shorter routes. We heard the complaint the other day about our carrying grain and corn to St. John and Halifax at a very low rate, and hon. gentlemen opposite condemned the transaction notwithstanding that I was able to show that in consequence of our accepting that low rate we were able to get over the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal a very profitable inland return freight from the steamers at Halifax.


George Eulas Foster: The mass of details in the Auditor General's Report is so great that it is very difficult to make an analysis, and so there are a few questions I want to ask. How does the minister arrange for the supply of oil? We find oil bought from different parties under various prices. I suppose the Intercolonial Railway should know, almost to a barrel, the amount of oil it would require for a given year. Is it bought from Tom and Dick and Harry, or are tenders called for the whole supply to be delivered at certain points in an endeavour to get it at the lowest price ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is lubricating oil. illuminating oil, and linseed and paint oil. They are all purchased by tender and contract. The lubricating is purchased un-

224S
der contract, and the cost is limited to a guarantee of so much per mile of the Intercolonial Railway for locomotives, for passenger cars, and for freight cars. That is to say, the cost of the lubricating oil is guaranteed not to exceed a certain sum per mile. Then, the illuminating oils and the paint oils-


George Eulas Foster: Are they bought at so much a mile too ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No; they are purchased by tender per gallon.


George Eulas Foster: What is the term of the contract ?	'


Henry Robert Emmerson: The present lubricating oil contract is for two years.


George Eulas Foster: Who has the contract?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Galena Oil Company.


George Eulas Foster: The Canadian Oil Company?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No; the Galena Oil Company, an American concern.


George Eulas Foster: How does the minister get at the rate ? Is there competition for the amount of oil used per mile ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it is computed. The contract is for so much per gallon, but the price cannot exceed a certain limit for the whole mileage ; and if the amount at the price per gallon exceeds the amount according to the mileage, then a reduction is made to keep it within the limit of cost per mile. This is the system that prevails in connection with the lubricating of all railways in America.


George Eulas Foster: Who applies the oil ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The company. It is under their control, and it is in their interest to avoid waste. They have inspectors to follow the engines and the cars. This is the system that prevails on the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway and on all the great American systems, and it has saved to the Intercolonial tens of thousands of dollars in comparison with the system that formerly prevailed, of purchasing the oil at so much per gallon. This system was introduced, I think, in 1897.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister know how the cost per mile on the Intercolonial compares with the cost per mile on the Grand Trunk ror Canadian Pacific IRail-way ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not in a position to state that, but I think the contract entered into is in effect that the rate charged to the Intercolonial is guaranteed to be not one cent higher than the rate charged to any other railway in Canada. Under the contract referred to by my hon. friend, the Mr. EMMERSON.
cost per thousand miles for locomotives is $2.72, for passenger cars 20 cents and for freight cars 12 cents.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that these figures are similar to those of the contracts-made with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. The contract guarantees them to be no higher than the rates charged to any other system in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: When the contract expires will new tenders be called for ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Who has the contract for illuminating oil ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the Imperial Company.


George Eulas Foster: Is that yearly ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes ; TO ask for tenders yearly.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does this same contract apply to paint oils ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; they are purchased under the stores' contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is it not a fact that the government railways have car oilers who are paid by the government:, and that the company employs inspectors to see that the oils are not unduly wasted ? Do I understand that the government pays so much per gallon for each class of oils, and that in no case is the cost to exceed a certain price per mile ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: With respect to locomotives, when in transit, the engineers and firemen apply the oil. With respect to cars, the duty of oiling them is attended to by certain men, who are paid by the government, at the terminal or divisional points where the trains stop. The company furnish the inspectors paid by themselves, and they go along the line and supervise the application of the oil.


George Eulas Foster: Is there a contract for the supply of all paint oils over the whole system ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I find numerous places in which you will find different charges made by different parties.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The purchase of stores for the Prince Edward Island Railway is separate from the contract on the Intercolonial Railway.


George Eulas Foster: The contract is one contract for all paint oils required for the Intercolonial Railway outside Prince Edward Island ?
* Mr. EMMERSON. Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Who has the contract for the paint oils on the Intercolonial Railway ?


George Taylor: I will give my hon. friend the page in the Auditor General's Report. On W

159 he will find purchased from A. M. Bell & Co., Halifax, boiled oil at 53 cents and raw oil at 50 cents. And on page W-109, he will find purchased for the Prince Edward Island Railway from Finlay & Chandler, raw oil at 72 cents and boiled oil at 75 cents-being a difference of 23 cents a gallon over the Halifax prices. Evidently there is a nigger on the fence somewhere.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Findlay & Chandler are a firm in Charlottetown and they were the lowest tenders. No one will charge them with being in any way connected with any dark individual upon any fence.


Mr. LENNOX.: They would take all they could get.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No doubt, but their tender was the lowest.


George Taylor: If my hon. friend tenders for the same supplies for the Intercolonial Railway at Halifax at 53 cents a gallon, would he not see that a tender of 75 cents at Charlottetown was altogether too high ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I notice that the prices rule higher on the Island than elsewhere.


George Eulas Foster: There should not be that difference.


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


George Eulas Foster: Are the tenders for the Prince Edward Island supplies confined to the Island or do you advertise for general tenders ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think they have always been confined to the Island. The people of Prince Edward Island claim that they are isolated, and to use a well known phrase of my hon. friend it is a case of splendid isolation for them when they are furnishing supplies for the Prince Edward Island Railway. I do not think that these gentlemen are affiliated with the party to which I belong.


George Eulas Foster: We are not asking about the party.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, but my hon. friend made an insinuation.


Haughton Lennox: In saying I supposed the contractors would take all they can, I did so because the hon. minister frequently has told us that he would hardly assume certain gentlemen would take more than was right. Well, we all know that any contractor will get as high a price as he can. and it is for the government to see that they only pay a reasonable price.


George Eulas Foster: There are charges here for suit cases. Is the department in the suit case business ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: These are square boxes used by the general manager and the-officials to carry their papers when they go out over the line. They must have all their papers. Practically they carry their office with them. They take all their papers affecting contracts, culverts, stations and so on, and these are leather boxes called suit cases.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister himself any personal interest in these rail benders that bear his name ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, I did not know there were any.


George Eulas Foster: I find an item if $120 for Einmerson rail benders.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are Emmersons and Emmersons.


George Eulas Foster: It is not your patent ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


George Eulas Foster: In the city of St. John
there is an immense amount of iron supplies of all kinds purchased from the Mc-Avitys. How are the prices fixed ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: A notice is sent to dealers in the trade. It is the same practice which has been followed for years on the Intercolonial Railway. In addition pur-t chases are made from time to time from McAvity when the goods are needed urgently. My hon. friend knows that in the city of St. John there are two leading hardware establishments, one of which is W. H. Thorne & Co. I believe that previous to 1890 they got a great deal of the patronage on the Intercolonial Railway.


Richard Blain: Did they not tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not sure, but McAvity & Sons have the contract now.


George Eulas Foster: Are the specifications publicly advertised ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are sent to-dealers in the trade.


George Eulas Foster: Generally.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, but not to all. They are sent to dealers in Toronto, Hamilton, Guelph, Montreal, Quebec-in fact all over Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, because in all these cities there are gentlemen who belong to the political party opposite. Will my hon. friend not be frank and say that he sends those circulars very carefully to supporters only of the party in power ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a certain list prepared. I think my hon. friend is familiar with the system. In his day he had

a list. I do not think that exactly the same list that was used by him is used to-day. There have been changes. I am free to confess that the names usually favour the party that is in power to-day. I know that some on the list do not favour the present government.


George Eulas Foster: -It might be possible to find them with a microscope.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are plainly to be seen. My eye strikes them in going over the list.


Albert Edward Kemp: Referring to the charges of $31,449.13, of Messrs. McAvity, I do not think that any other hardware firm in St. John appears in the Auditor General's Report for this same class of supplies. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that such a firm as W. H. Thorne & Co., would not have an opportunity to tender ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think their name is not on the list. But there are other reputable firms, the Burpee firm, McIntyre, Kerr and Robertson, James Robertson & Co., and others.


Albert Edward Kemp: In the case of such a large amount of supplies-thirty or forty thousand dollars-would it not be well for the minister to set politics aside and call for tenders more widely, and so save money for the country? Would he not be able to save -thousands of dollars?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think so.


Albert Edward Kemp: I am satisfied he could.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am satisfied that it would not. I say unhesitatingly that the purchases made by the Intercolonial are made at very low prices and that competition is widespread. It is not confined to St. John or Halifax, but extends to Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and throughout eastern Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Opinions differ, but if I were asked to give my opinion I would say quite the opposite. I would say that in these matters to which reference has been made there is absolutely no competition. In the ease of Messrs. McAvity & Sons, tor instances, they charge their own prices. The minister takes good care that there shall not be competition, and, I suppose, for the best of reasons. Now, in the advertising business, what is the rule? I find in the Auditor General's Report three or four pages devoted to accounts for advertising in papers. Occasionally, but not often, I catch the name of a Conservative paper.
Mr. EMMERSON". The same rule is applied as used to be applied.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the minister says that Conservative papers do not circulate, and he must use papers that reach the public. But he considers this advertis-Mr. EMMERSON.
ing is economical. Take for instance, a charge here for the back page of the Quebec ' Telegram,' $323.50.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The prices in these matters are regulated by the King's Printer.


George Eulas Foster: This was an advertisement in the Christmas number. What was the minister advertising that really did any good to his railway to Justify the payment of* $323 in this case ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is very difficult to calculate exactly the returns you get from any kind of circulation. But it all brings to the notice of the public the advantages of the Intercolonial. This was a special number, and, I assume, circulated very widely.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose that the way it came about is that this paper was issued as a Christmas number and got the Intercolonial as one of its advertisers, not as a matter of business but as a matter of favour.
Mr. EMMERlSON. I find that in cases of that kind submitted to me, the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Railway take a certain space, and the Intercolonial Railway is compelled to do the same. We must not hide our light under a bushel. IVe want to be known and read of by all men, and so we advertise as much as our means will permit.	,


George Eulas Foster: On the same principle, I suppose, the Toronto ' Globe ' had a Christmas card inserted by the hon. gentleman for which he paid $400.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not a Christmas card.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, in the Toronto 'Globe.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: I suppose a Christmas greeting.
Mr. FOSTER, I see items here for couplers and knueklers last year amounting to $49,590.87. These are bought almost entirely from the United States. I suppose they are patents, or they have specialties there. I low are these bought ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: By tender.


George Eulas Foster: Are tenders publicly called for iu the United States?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that, as a rule, the United States concerns dealing in these things have agencies in Canada, and the agents receive notice and put in tenders in the name of their principals, and the purchases are made in that way.


George Eulas Foster: How does it come that these purchases are nearly all from United States firms ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Because they are cheaper.


George Eulas Foster: Are there no manufacturers of tliese things in Canada ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Intercolonial found it necessary to use steel couplers and, until quite recently there was no manufacturer of these things in Canada. There is now the Montreal Steel Works, but I believe that it is recently established, so that until recently purchases had to be made from American manufacturers. Formerly they were all of cast iron, that is the information I have.


George Eulas Foster: I suppdse these are a superior coupler to the cast-iron ?
Mr. EMMBR'SON. Yes ; all the railways have recently adopted steel couplers.


George Eulas Foster: Links and pins seem to go in the same way to the United States manufacturing concerns, page W-185.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The bulk of those are furnished in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, by W. P. McNeill & Company. Of the Gould Nickle pins, we bought $280 worth in New York from the Gould Coupler Company. They wore not purchasable elsewhere. Wo also had to purchase the 12-inch pins.


George Eulas Foster: On page W-180 I notice a payment to Joseph A. Lightly, St. John, for wood ; is that under contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is for southern pine, which Mr. Lightly imports. That is all by tender.


George Eulas Foster: There seems to be a large expense in the King Edward hotel at Toronto and the Toronto city office. There are two rentals-one in the King Edward hotel and the other in the Provident Investment Company-one for $900 and the other for $733. Then $2,110 was spent by the Intercolonial on the hotel office. Do you rent in part and then tit up the office "besides ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We rent offices in the King Edward hotel, and had to tit them up at a considerable expense. We paid two rentals for a time because, in going from one office to the other, we had necessarily to take the King Edward at a certain time or else not get it at all, while we were at the same time paying rental in the old office.


George Eulas Foster: You put over $2,000 in permanent improvements in the office ; who gets that ?	-


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is provided for in the lease.


George Eulas Foster: There must be some consideration surely ?
__ Mr. EMMERSON. I apprehend that is done by the departmental management here.


George Eulas Foster: I think it is a good place I for an office, probably the best place ; but I
it seems to me that is a pretty large expense for fitting up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will get a memorandum of that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister give me the name of the president and manager of the Galena Oil Company ? I see he purchased from them last year $33, * 182.66 worth of oils of different kinds. It is represented that the Galena Oil Company have a station in Toronto.
Mr. EMMERSON! The Galena Oil Company is an American concern. I think the president is a Mr. Miller, away down in Pennsylvania.
' Mr. ARMSTRONG. The Auditor General's Report shows a purchase frbm the Galena Oil Company of $33,182.66, out of the total of $65,000 worth of oil purchased.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Toronto is their Canadian headquarters, where they have a warehouse.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I want to draw attention to the fact that we have only two refineries in Canada to-day, one the Independent Refinery and the other the Imperial Oil Refinery, and I notice that in all these contracts the Independent Refinery have not received one dollar's worth. Can the minister say whether they were asked to tender for all these contracts ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were not for lubricating oils.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Independent certainly make all kinds of lubricating oils, and the very best quality. That is a Canadian oil refinery.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I know tenders were asked for in respect to lubricating oils. I am quite certain they had an opportunity to tender. I am speaking for the contract for this year. I cannot speak with respect to the contract of 1904.


Mr. CLARE.: Who has the contract this year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Imperial Company, I think.


George Eulas Foster: With respect to parlour, dining and sleeping cars-are those owned by the Intercolonial ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: All owned by the
Intercolonial.


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister give us an idea as to the net profits coming from these cars ?*


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that on the dining ear service over the whole system we lose each year about $5,000. Although there is a direct loss from that service, it is necessary in order to secure passenger traffic that we should supply these conveniences.


George Eulas Foster: I am not finding fault with the convenience ; I wanted as a matter of fact to know how they panned out.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I want that explanation to go down, because, while my hon. friend might recognize that, perhaps it would not suggest itself to the minds of others.


George Eulas Foster: When you say that you lose about $5,000 on the dining cars that does not take into account interest on cost of the car itself ? That is for the furnishing, the food and the running of it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: How does it run in reference to the parlour cars ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no loss on the parlour cars.


George Eulas Foster: And of course on sleeping cars there is a large profit.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know that it is very large. I think the parlour and sleeping car services pay.


George Eulas Foster: How long has the sleeping car service been a distinctly Intercolonial Railway service ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For a long number of years.


Andrew B. Ingram: The bon. gentleman states that there has been a loss on the dining cars ? Have you many refreshment rooms that would interfere with the dining car service ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As far as possible the refreshment rooms have been abolished although we find it necessary to have refreshment rooms at certain points, for instance Truro and Moncton. We have lunch counters at these places so that people are not compelled to go into a dining car and pay 75 cents for a meal. When they want to get a little lunch the train stops for five minutes at Truro and at Moncton and they can run out and get a sandwich and a cup of tea. Of course that interferes with our dining car service, but the rights of the public in that regard must be respected.


Andrew B. Ingram: That would interfere with the profits of the dining car service, but there can be no complaint as to that because there are certain classes of the public who would prefer to patronize the lunch counters rather than pay for the more expensive meal in the dining car.


Angus Alexander McLean: Are these dining rooms regulated. Who regulates the prices that are charged at Truro, for instance ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We rent the privilege.


Angus Alexander McLean: I understand that there were complaints about the charges made at Truro.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: When this dining room was established at Truro they were in the habit of giving a full meal. The price was regulated at 50 cents and it is still fifty cents. The same is true of St. John. But the major portion of their business is the furnishing of lunches and there have been no regulations as to those.
I think from my personal knowledge the prices asked are very reasonable. There have not been any complaints and the matter has never been the subject of inquiry by the management as to what they should charge for a sandwich and a cup of tea.


George Eulas Foster: But you have a supervision over them ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, we rent these privileges subject to Icertain supervision on the part of the Intercolonial Railway.


Andrew B. Ingram: I suppose at terminal points where you have a large number of employees there is a certain rate for the employees and that it is required to be lower than the rate for the travelling public ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, that is regulated.


George Eulas Foster: How does the hon. minister buy his stationery ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is bought through the Stationery Department here at Ottawa.


George Eulas Foster: Not all ; there is a certain amount bought outside-not a very large amount. I suppose these are special things that probably they did not have in the stationery office here, but it is the rule of the department to buy its stationery through the Stationery Department here ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, it is a matter of very serious complaint, but it is the rule. The Auditor General will not, I think, as a rule, audit bills outside of his department.


George Eulas Foster: I notice at page W-200 that there are $40,741 spent for travelling expenses of officials. That seems a very large amount. What officials ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The general manager, the traffic manager, the chief superintendent, chief engineer and others. The items are all given. These are officials in the department who are compelled to go out over the line. They are paid their actual expenses. They are required to furnish vouchers and the matter is- regulated in that way and the accounts are audited from that standpoint.


George Eulas Foster: Some of the amounts are very high. I notice that our old friend A. E. Killam has travelling expenses running way up to over $1,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Killam is out on the road travelling practically all the time examining bridges from Ste. Rosalie to Halifax, from Sydney to Truro and Pictou,

over the short line and in fact over the whole system. He is necessarily travelling from place to place and is obliged to foot it in many instances.


George Eulas Foster: Are all these officials of the road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: These are all officials. There are none outside of officials. Of course, there are the travelling passenger agents, the solicitors for freight and passengers and the travelling auditors.


George Eulas Foster: Do you pay them a mileage allowance or do you pay them just what they pay out and do they have to give vouchers for everything ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Tlieir actual expenses only and they have to furnish vouchers.


George Eulas Foster: Of course there are no fare expenses ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No fares.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the meaning of ' travelling picture display ?'


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Intercolonial Railway in connection with its advertising department started out a car containing exhibits, paintings, and engravings and that -car travelled all over Ontario visiting the large cities and through the New England states. It is now at the Sportsmen's Show at New York.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How much has been expended on it during the year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: ?1,039,76.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That would not cover i,t all ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This was the expense outside of the salaries of those in charge of it. There is Mr. Barton and Mr. Lindsay.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who is Mr. Barton ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He is now connected with the advertising department of the Intercolonial. He , was a clerk in the general manager's office and was transferred from that position to the one he now holds.


George Eulas Foster: Where did they operate chiefly ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the New England states, at Boston and at the principal points wherever they thought they could best attract the attention of tourists with the idea of encouraging summer travel.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is that car taken over other Tailroads free ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is some arrangement under which they charge a very reduced rate, it is a matter of courtesy between the railroads.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understand there is a tremendous number of applications for free
transportation over the Intercolonial Railway, and that passes are given to those who are not entitled to them. Have any new rules been laid down ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There have been no new rules. I think we rigidly adhere to the regulations. The number of passes issued by the department is proportionately very small as compared with those issued by private corporations. We have to be governed by certain principles and to depart from these would make the life of the minister a burden.


George Eulas Foster: What are these ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a regulation that the wives of members coming to Ottawa get a special trip pass. The members of the press get trip passes. The annual passes are confined to exchange and to members of parliament.


Albert Edward Kemp: There are lots of ' specials.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think it.


Albert Edward Kemp: Not so far as your knowledge is concerned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have got used to saying ' no,' and it is very unpleasant at times.


George Eulas Foster: Do you always say no.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hardly ever say yes, outside of a certain rule.


George Eulas Foster: There ought to be rules and they ought to be strictly adhered to. This railroad is paid for by the country and one man has as good a right as another to travel free as a matter of grace. If there are official and legal reasons it is all very well, but outside of that they ought not to get passes. How many private cars are there.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I gave that yast year.
Mr. FOSTER, We do not know what changes may take place in a year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There have been none.


George Eulas Foster: I was not here last year and I have to get it once more.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is car T09' assigned to the Minister of Railways and usually used by him ; car * 75 ' used by the general manager ; car ' Ottawa ' assigned for a number of years in connection with the Deputy Minister ; car No. '28 ' a spare car not assigned to any one in particular ; there is the car used by the general traffic manager.


George Eulas Foster: That makes how many ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Five.


George Eulas Foster: Is that all the private cars on the system?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is the Governor General's ear.


George Eulas Foster: That is used exclusively for the Governor General's use.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. There is the Railway Commissioners car ; but of course that is not controlled by the department.


George Eulas Foster: Has that other Railway Commission a car ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: Has it applied for one ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have had no application.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are the Intercolonial Railway sleeping and parlour cars run on other railways?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are all used on the Intercolonial Railway, except that to facilitate the tourist traffic between New England and points in the maritime provinces there is a special train known as the Boston train which takes the sleeping car on the Canadian Pacific Railway as far as Vanceboro' so that the passengers may not have to get up too early.


Andrew B. Ingram: I notice that the price of uniforms varies from $18 to $23.50 per suit. Will the minister state the reason for the difference, and whether the employees pay any portion of the cost of the uniforms V


Henry Robert Emmerson: The employees pay no portion. I think the prices are uniform. The goods are generally submitted to the consideration of the different brotherhoods, in order to give them the class and style of goods they want.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are tenders asked for in the matter of price ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; tenders have not been asked for.


Mr ARMSTRONG.: Will the minister be good enough to state the total number of employees on the whole system ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Between 8,000 and 9,000.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the minister be good enough to tell us the exact number at the next sitting ?


George Eulas Foster: Before the item passes I think I ought, in justice to my hon. friend from York, N.B. (Mr. Crocket), to read the report given by the minister's speech at Fredericton by the out-and-out Liberal sheet, the 'Herald.'' The idea seemed to be left with the committee that the report in the other paper was a wrong report, because it was not favourable to the minister. That paper has been favourable to the Liberal cause for years. The hon. gentleman may not have known it.


Mr.   POSTER@: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; I have never had any evidence of it.


George Eulas Foster: But it is the fact, without a doubt. The Liberal paper thus reports him, speaking of the Grand Trunk Pacific:
This new road is bound to mean the development of our industrial life and the exploiting of the natural resources of the country. If there was any man so blind to his own interests as to cast a vote against the Laurier government on this question, he is not worthy of citizenship in Canada.
So that my hon. friend's own party supporter must have been under the same hallucination as the ' Gleaner.'


Henry Robert Emmerson: What I said was that no man would he a good citizen who would oppose the construction of another transcontinental line of railway across this continent.


George Eulas Foster: And the minister still adheres to that, does he ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do. While there might be differences as to the way it might be built, I said that a man who opposed the construction of another transcontinental, line across the continent was not a good citizen, and I will stick to that.


Samuel Hughes: The minister did not endorse the present policy of building. Hoes he stick to the old policy which he was in favour of at first ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stick to the policy I have always stuck to.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FITZPATRICK moved the adjournment of the House.


George Eulas Foster: What is the business for to-morrow ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will go on with supply, taking up the estimates of the Minister of Railways and afterwards those of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and HQUse adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Fkiday, March 10, 1905.