1905-05-17

BILL WITHDRAWN.

[Stage Direction]
Bill to further amend the Railway Act, 1903.-Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Hon.   CHAS@: FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 157) respecting the district of Mackenzie.


Mr. SPROULE.: Explain.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: All the Bills that stand in my name on the order paper, as well as the two Bills which stand in the name of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), and the one Bill which stands in the name of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), are necessary legislation in view of the Autonomy Bills that have just been introduced. I might as well, with the permission of the House, explain all the Bills at the same time. By the Bill respecting the district of Mackenzie it is proposed to erect into a district, with a constitution based upon that of the district of ICeewatin, the territory to the north of the new provinces and extending to the Arctic ocean.
The Bill to amend the ICeewatin Act will add to the present district of ICeewatin (1) those parts of the provisional districts of Saskatchewan and Athabaska which are not included in the province of Saskatchewan ; (2) the corresponding strip of the present provisional district of Mackenzie which is not to be included in the new district ; and (3) the territory lying to the east of the district of ICeewatin as now constituted and extending to Hudson Bay.
_The next Bill is a Bill to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act. This is the same Bill which I introduced yesterday and which I then explained. It is necessary to amend the Controverted Elections Act in order (1) to give jurisdiction to the new pro-


Mr. FIELDING.: vincial courts when they shall be constituted ; (2) in order to provide for the transfer of pending business from the Supreme Court of the Territories to the new courts when the latter are established ; and (3) to make special provision with regard to cases which may arise under the Act affecting elections in the districts which are partly in one province and partly in the other.
The Bill to amend the Northwest Territories Act is intended to carry into effect the proposals of the Bill introduced by Mr. Casgrain in the session of 1904, and also the suggestions made by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). I explained this Bill yesterday.
The Bill respecting the Northwest Territories will provide for the appointment of a provisional liquidator for (the Northwest Territories, with power to get in the properties and assets of the Territories, and to make such distribution of these, including the public records and documents, as may be immediately necessary or convenient, and also to pay out of moneys coming into his hands the liabilities of the territorial government.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 158) to amend the Keewatin Vet.-Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Bill (No. 159) to amend the Dominion Controverted Elections Act.-Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Bill (No. 160) with respect to the Northwest Territories.-Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Bill (No. 162) to amend the Laud Titles Act, 1894.-Mr. Oliver.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 161) to amend the Northwest Irrigation Act, 189S.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. FOSTER.: We are afraid he is going to do something with the Milk river that was spoken of so sympathetically the other night.


Mr. OLIVER.: I am not in a position at the moment to give an explanation of the Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You cannot introduce a Bill without an explanation.


Frank Oliver: I will be prepared at an early date to make a satisfactory explanation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I must apologize to the Minister of the Interior. I prepared the Bill and as it deals with matters in his department I thought I would put it in his name. The Bill is merely formal and it
*

simply transfers the Irrigation Act to the new provinces.


George Eulas Foster: When the Minister of Justice was so kind as to introduce the Bill he ought to he kind enough also to post his brother minister about it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is my fault. All these Bills are necessary as a result of Lhe autonomy Bills.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 163) to amend the Census and Statistics Act.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Explain.
Mr. FISHER.: In the Census and Statistics Act which was passed early in the session there is a clause requiring that the census for the province of Manitoba, with the provisional districts of Assluiboia, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be taken every five years. As the autonomy Bills change these provisional districts into provinces we require to amend the Census and Statistics Act so as to provide that the census of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta shall be taken every five years.


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


Mr. BOYCE asked :: 1.	Has the government constructed, or aided in the construction of, any telephone line or telephone cables ?
2.	If so, what lines have, been constructed or aided, when, and upon what terms ?
3.	If any lines have been constructed or aided by the government, what control is now exercised by the government over each line so aided or constructed ?
4.	Under whose charges or superintendence, on behalf of the government, are such lines or cables now maintained or operated; and at what annual cost for maintenance and management ?
5.	Under what departments of the government were such telephone lines or cables constructed or aided ?


Mr. BOYCE.: I have arranged with the Acting Minister of Public Works to let this question drop.
Question dropped.



POSTMASTER OF THES3ALON, ONTARIO.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE asked ;
1.	Who is the postmaster at Thessalon, Ontario ?
2.	When was he appointed ?
3.	Who were his sureties ?
4.	Who was the former postmaster ?
5.	Why did he vacate the office ?
Hon.  W. S.@: I do not know that I have all the information my hon. friend asks for. The postmaster is .1. B. Dobey, and lie was appointed many years ago before this gov-eminent came into office. If my hon. friend wants the exact date I will get it, but my secretary is ill to-day and I cannot state precisely the date. The postmaster resigned on the 21st of May, 1904, and was reappointed on the 16th of February, 1905. In reference to questions 2 and 3 as to when he was appointed and who were bis securities, 1 will get my hon. friend the information later if he thinks it material.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What about question 5 ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: He cliose to resign.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is that all ?


William Mulock: There was a reason.



SEIZURE OF THE SCHOONER ' AGNES DONAHOE.'

[Stage Direction]
Ou tlie Orders of the Day being called.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I wish once more to bring to the attention of the government the case of the ' Agnes Donahoe,' a sealing vessel which was seized some time ago by the Uruguayan government. I received a letter in April last which contained some particulars that I think I have not yet communicated to the House. I need not read the whole letter but briefly the particulars are these :	The ' Agnes Donahoe ' was seized
for alleged poaching on November 10th, 1904, by the Uruguayan authorities and taken to Montevideo where she is still lieid with a crew of twenty men ; the schooner was several miles from land when she was seized ; she was then under sail with all bauds on board. Proceedings seem to have been taken by the Uruguayan government which made the charge that the ship was then fitted out and on her way to raid seal rookeries belonging to the government of Uruguay. They asked the captain to show his authority for sealing iu the southern seas. Before going on this voyage or any voyage, the owners of the ship had endeavoured to obtain information as to whether or not any sealing license was necessary, and on the 11th day of October, 1900, they received from John Hardie. Acting Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa the following telegram ;
Sealing licenses issue! only at Victoria ancf Vancouver under Paris award. No such licenses are necessary in Atlantic or in Pacific south of 35th degree north latitude.
The owners had a great many communications with the British Consul who thought there was no ground whatever for the

seizure by the Uruguayan authorities. The letter which I have is a little involved in the way in which it deals with the question, but another complaint which the owners make is this :	They started their business
in 1900 and they shipped the skins from Port Stanley, Falkland Islands, to London. At the personal request of the governor of the islands, in order as he said to protect the interests of Chili and Argentine, and in opposition to a petition signed by the people of the islands, a tax of 10 shillings per skin was imposed on all skins shipped from that port by Canadian sealers. This compelled them to give ms that port and to ship from another port, and during the year 1904 Brazil accorded to them the privilege denied to them at a British port. They preferred Port Stanley, the British port, as it is cooler and the skins did not deteriorate there as they do in the port to which access is given to them by Brazil. They were informed, in fact they have a cable from London from persons there wishing to purchase sealing schooners, in which these persons in London state that they have a concession to seal at Cape Horn, and these owners-perhaps without foundation, do not know about that-suggest that the impost of 10 shillings per skin was imposed in the interests of persons in London. Of course this is rather a grave suggestion, and I only mention it because it is emphatically stated by my correspondents, who are members of a respectable firm in Halifax.


Sir   W ILF RID LAURIER@: Would the hon. gentleman repeat that ?


Robert Laird Borden: He says there is an impost of ten shillings per skin if they should ship their skins from Port Stanley, and that it is imposed in the interest of persons in London who desire to go into the same trade. That is a very grave statement. and I only mention it because it comes from very respectable men, engaged m business in Halifax and personally known to myself and also no doubt known to the Minister of Finance. If necessary I will send their names to the First Minister. That is_ the position of these men. Ihey complain of an unlawful seizure, -they complain that their vessel was detained for months, and the information came from the Minister of Marine and h isheries himself that the vessel was detained during this very long period in order that the Uruguayan legislative body, whatever it is, might pass a law for the purpose of dealing with the case. The second complaint is that having gone into the southern seas, upon representation that no license was necessary, their vessel was seized while a long distance out at sea, on the pretense, which they declare absolutely unfounded, that she was engaged in an attempt to poach in rookeries belonging to the government of that country. The tel-'"'hick came to me last evening from Halifax is as follows :


Robert Laird Borden: Captain * Agnes Donahoe ' sentenced three years penal servitude mates one year, crew six months ship confiscated.
If the facts are as detailed by these men, it seems to me that no time should be lost in making the most urgent possible representations to the British government. A Canadian ship was seized on the high seas and held in custody about six months. The captain and crew were virtually detained as prisoners with the result that the ship is confiscated, the captain sentenced to three years penal servitude, the mates to one year, and the crew to six months. Under the circumstances there does not appear any justification for the course pursued by the government of Uruguay ; and it further, appears that whatever representations may have been made by this government to the British government in the matter do not seem to have produced a very profound impression on the imperial authorities. It may be, as my correspondent suggests that the British government thought no further action could be taken until the decision of the courts had been obtained. But now they have the decision of the courts pronounced in a fashion which should stimulate this government and the foreign office into some degree of activity. Nothing so bad as this took place in connection with the seizures in the Behring sea ; and I sincerely trust that whatever representations may have been made in the past, they will be renewed in a still more urgent form, and it may be ascertained whether or not there is some redress.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The case to which my hon. friend has called attention is one, so far as I know, of very great hardship, but it is difficult to see what action this government could take. As I remember, the ' Agnes Donahue ' was seized for a violation of the laws of Uruguay. It was alleged that she was poaching.


Robert Laird Borden: That she was intending to poach.


Wilfrid Laurier: Poaching or intending to poach in territorial waters of the Republic of Uruguay. She was seized under the laws of that country, was tried by the tribunals of that country, and apparently was condemned according to its laws. I have nothing to say, and my hon. friend has said nothing, as to the proceedings of the court; but it seems a very extreme and hard sentence on the Captain that he should be condemned to three years penal servitude. There is just one point which I want to clear with regard to the responsibility of this government. My hon. friend states that the owners of this schooner applied to this government in 1900 to know whether a license was required and they were told that none was necessary south of such a degree of latitude. I do not know what answer was given, but

there seems to have been misapprehension between the owner of the schooner and the officers of the department who gave that information, because the licenses which we issue at Victoria and Vancouver are licenses under the Paris award, passed in 1794, as the result of the Arbitration treaty.


Robert Laird Borden: That is just what the telegram says.


Wilfrid Laurier: This treaty probably does not affect at all the Republic of Uruguay. It is simply a treaty between the United States and Great Britain and affects solely our sealers in our relations with the United States. I do not know that we have any treaty


Robert Laird Borden: He got no license.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have had representations made to us by sealers that they were condemned to pay a tax of ten shillings per pelt when they came from the southern rookeries and landed in some of those south American ports. That was not a measure of taxation, but simply a measure passed -by some of our own colonies in order to protect their own rookeries. It is possible they may have had such a law in Uruguay. Apparently they had. The only thing we know is that the vessel was seized, the crew and captain were made prisoners. If I remember rightly, the crew were set free some time afterwards, but the captain and the mate were kept prisoners. We shall be only too glad to call the immediate attention of the government of Great Britain to this matter. I am in very much doubt what action we can take more than make representation.


Robert Laird Borden: I regard it as serious because the seizure was on the high seas.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a point in controversy, but the court has not passed upon whether it was on high seas or in territorial waters.,
these owners. If they are mistaken, we can find it out. The courts of Uruguay may find the facts otherwise. And I suppose we have to run the risk of a finding by the courts that is not in accordance with the true facts. The mother country may say :	We are
bound by the decision of the courts. _ And the courts, of course, are bound to judge from the facts as presented to them. That is a question to be discussed afterwards. I shall be very glad indeed to know that the right hon. gentleman would take it up at once.


William Stevens Fielding: The subject of the first part of my hon. friend's (Mr. R. L. Borden's) remarks touching the tax levied on the seal skins at Port Stanley in the Falkland islands, I remember, was brought to my notice a year or so ago. It appeared that that tax had been levied by the colonial government, a colonial government not, perhaps of the same rank and position as the government of Canada or Australia, but nevertheless a colonial government ; and they claimed that it was a matter quite within their right to decide whether it was or was not a proper tax. Though we might say it was unreasonable, still, it was claimed to be within the authority of the colonial government. It was found difficult to deal with the matter on that account.


Robert Laird Borden: I can see that there was a great deal in that, provided there was no discrimination against Canadian sealing vessels.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that any such discrimination was alleged. _ It was an obnoxious tax generally, and it was claimed by some to have been done in the interest of some particular parties in England. But still, that was the statement of a rival interest, and it would be somewhat difficult to enter upon negotiations on the basis of questioning the motives of the government of a sister colony.


Robert Laird Borden: We would like the government to obtain definite information with regard to that. Suppose one of our Canadian cruisers) would go. fifteen or twenty miles out of sight of land and seize an American schooner upon the allegation that that schooner intended to go into Canadian waters and fish in defiance of the law, and suppose we sent the captain to penal servitude for three years, the mate for one year, and the crew six months, there would be some trouble about it. It seems to me that it is equally serious from our standpoint when such conduct as that is carried on in the southern seas by this government of Uruguay. It may turn out that the statements of fact are all wrong. I am only presenting the case to my right hon. friend in order that he may place it before the imperial government from the standpoint of the facts given by



JOSEPH NIXON, SUB-AGENT IJO.ulN-ION LANDS, MACLEOD, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

Frank Oliver: A few days ago the hon. member for North i Toronto (Mr. Foster) asked a question with regard to a man named Nixon at Macleod. In reply to that question I beg to say that a sub-agency of Dominion lands was opened in Macleod on the 3rd May, 1899, with Joseph Nixon as sub-ao-ent. From the date of his appointment^ to the 1st April, 1900, he was paid by commission. From the 1st April, 1900, to the 1st June, 1902, his salary was at the rate of $25 a month. From the 1st June, 1902, up to the time of his resignation on the 31st March, 1905, his salary was at the rate of $50 per month. On the 1st Octo-

her, 1901, he was appointed caretaker of the immigration building at Macleod. and land guide for the district, at the rate of $10 per month. This sum was increased to $25 per month on the 1st May, 1904, which rate of pay continued until his resignation.
Owing to Mr. Nixon's connection with the immigration branch as caretaker of the hall and land guide, a good part of his time was employed in outside work, and he left his office in charge of his son. Some time in the month of March, 1905, information was received by the department that there were some irregularities in the conduct of the office at Macleod. The inspector of agencies was immediately wired to investigate and report. His report showed that there was a shortage of moneys which should have been returned to the agent of Dominion lands at Lethbridge to the amount of $499.05. Mr. Nixon's son, who had been in charge of the office, left for parts unknown on the 15th March. This was the first intimation Mr. Nixon had that anything was wrong with his accounts. He immediately paid over to the agent of Dominion lands at Lethbridge the sum of $499.05, the amount found to be short by the inspector's report. He also handed in his resignation as sub-agent of Dominion lands at Lethbridge, and upon the recommendation of the inspector that sub-agency was closed.
The immigration branch of the department required the services of a man as checker of immigrants on the train between Macleod and Fernie, and on the 20th April, 1905, the commisisoner at Winnipeg was instructed to engage Mr. Nixon temporarily for this week. Had Mr. Nixon not been engaged it would have been necessary for us to secure the services of some other man. Before the date at which it was decided to employ Mr. Nixon as checker on the train, the immigration building at Macleod had been closed, therefore, Mr. Nixon's services as caretaker were no longer required. The only salary he receives now from the department is $75 per month as checker on the train between Macleod and Fernie, together with his actual travelling expenses. Fp to the time the report was received in the department as to the above shortage, Mr. Nixon's services as sub-agent were satisfactory, and ns no reflection was cast upon his character by the said report, it was considered that there could be no objection to tlie department employing him again in a different capacity.


George Eulas Foster: Would the hon. minister (Mr. Oliver) bring down the report of the inspector who was sent to investigate the matter and also the correspondence preceding and succeeding that inspection, so that we may have all the papers before us ? My information is a little different from that which the minister has read. I would prefer not to go into the matter until I had all the papers before me. And if the minister


Frank Oliver: will hurry them, I would be glad to look them over before taking it up yet.


Frank Oliver: All the papers ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes-ancient and modern.



THE AUDIT ACT.

Mr.   J.@: (4. H. BERGERON. Before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if it is the intention of the government to ..amend the Audit Act during this session ?


William Stevens Fielding: We have no amendments at present in mind. If anything should arise to show that amendments are needed, we will consider it. But we have no intention of amending the Act at present.



CIRCULATION OF AMERICAN SILVER.

Mr. BERGERON.: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if it is the intention of the government to amend the Banking Act this session ?


William Stevens Fielding: A slight amendment of the Banking Act is contemplated, but not a matter of importance. A Bill has been introduced in the other chamber making an amendment, not a very important one, with respect to a particular bank. . I think we had better confine our banking legislation, as far as possible, to general Acts. Instead of amending -the special Act of the bank referred to, we are inclined to introduce an amendment to the general Act, serving the same purpose.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will there be anything in that proposed Bill with regard to the circulation of foreign money in Canada ? There was some discussion of that point at the beginning of the session. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) was not in his Place at that time. But the House was informed that there would be an amendment of the Banking Act and that, in that connection, this subject would be taken into consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that no amendment of the Banking Act would be necessary for that purpose. I take it that what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) lias in mind :is the circulation of American silver ?
Mr..BERGERON. Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: That matter is under consideration. We hope to be able to make satisfactory arrangements to displace American silver to a large extent and substitute Canadian silver.	,



RATES ON THE INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Before the Orders of the

Day are called, I would like to make an explanation with respect to a question raised by my hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in connection with the freight rates on the Intercolonial. On the 27th of April my hon. friend spoke of an alleged increase an these rates. I quote from the hon. gentleman's remarks as they appear at page 4997 of the Revised ' Hansard ' :
Some time ago, I made the statement to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmer-son) that since the Railway Commission was formed we were paying a higher rate on our goods than formerly. He stated that there had been no advance on the Intercolonial Railway.
And he then goes on to read a letter which he received from a gentleman who does business in the city of St. John. I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating that letter. Later on my hon. friend states :
He explained that the rate to Fredericton had been 58 cents per hundred pounds-a pretty round, full rate, I should say. They hilled the goods to Dernoxville, and they went from Len-noxville to Fredericton. But since my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emerson), acquired the Canada Eastern Railway, the Grand Trunk hare instructions to ship everything to Fredericton over the Intercolonial Railway, and the rate to be paid is 66 cents per hundred pounds. If the minister desires to verify the figures, he will find them in Grand Trunk supplementary tariff D. G. M. 4, page 10.
My hon. friend also referred to another case and went ou to state as follows :
We had the misfortune to lose by fire our carriage works at Brockville. We had a contract *with the Nova Scotia Steel Co. for a quantity of tire steel. It happened that a car came immediately after the Are. We could not use it at Brockville, so we instructed the railway people to give instructions to have it forwarded to Gananoque, where the tiring had to be done after the Are. The rate from the works in Nova Scotia to Brockville "was 25 cents per hunderd pounds. The car arriving at Broek-ville was not unloaded, but was simply forwarded 30 miles to Gananoque, and when it arrived there, the rate charged was 37* cents per hundred pounds-or 12 cents per hundred pounds for the 30 mile haul from Brockville to Gananoque. We have refused to accept the car, and the question is in dispute. A few days ago we received a circular headed ' Canadian Freight Association '. It appears that nearly all the railways in Canada and the United States have joined this combine in freight rates. I see that the Intercolonial, under the direction of the Minister of Railways, is a member of this combine for Axing and settling rates.
He then goes ou to read an extract from a circular which was issued by certain railways. I took this matter up with the general traffic manager of the Intercolonial, and desire now to read his answer and to have it placed on record as an explanation, not merely of the charge made that there had been an increase of freight rates on the Intercolonial, but as an explanation
with respect to the tariff charge on the cars from Brockville to Gananoque. The letter I am reading is written by Mr. E. Tiffin, the general traffic manager of the Intercolonial, and is dated 11th May, 1905 :
Dear Mr. Emmerson,
Referring to the revised edition of the House of Commons Debates, Thursday, April 27th, which you sent me, and that part of it having particular reference to the statements made by Mr. George Taylor, M.P., for South Leeds.
I have to say that the statement made by Mr. Taylor as to there being any advance in the Intercolonial rates to Fredericton is not correct in so far as the Intereolonian Railway is concerned. You will remember that the case to which Mr. Taylor refers is one over which a good deal of correspondence took place with the Grand Trunk, Canadian PaeiAe, and Messrs. A. F. Randolph & Co., of Fredericton, and I think a complete answer to Mr. Taylor's statement is contained in my letter to you of January 10th last, in which I inclosed you a copy of a letter which I had written to Messrs. A. F. Randolph & Co. on this subjtcet. and I cannot do better than send you herewith copies of the correspondence referred to, which I think will give a complete answer to Mr. Taylor's statement.
In regard to that part of Mr. Taylor's complaint in which he refers to a shipment of a car of steel shipped by the Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Co., which was consigned to them at Brockville, and was afterwards forwarded to Gananoque, we have nothing whatever to do with it. The property was consigned to Brockville, it was way-billed to Brockville and carried to Brockville, and after its arrival at Brockville I judge from Mr. Taylor's statement that they required the car sent on to Gananoque. This being so, it became a question entirely with the Grand Trunk as to what charges they should make from Brockville to Gananoque, and it being a local shipment purely and entirely subject to Grand Trunk control, the question of the rate of freight to be charged from Brockville to Gananoque was one in which they alone had anything to say, and if Mr. Taylor has any complaint it is against the Grand Trunk Railway and not against the Intercolonial, because on the arrival of the car at Brockville all connection that the Intercolonial had with the shipment ceased.
Again, in Mr. Taylor's remarks he states, in reference to the freight from Nova Scotia to Brockville as against Pittsburg to Brockville that the rate of 20i cents from Pittsburg to Brockville is much less than the rate of 25 cents from Nova Scotia to Brockville, and goes on to say that the distance from Pittsburg to Brockville is less than it is from Trenton, N.S., to Brockville. This statement is not correct, because the mileage from Pittsburg to Brockville is 595 miles, while the mileage from Trenton, N.S.. to Brockville is 931 miles thereby showing that the rate from Trenton to Brockville is very much less, according to the mileage, than is ihe late from Pittsburg to Brockville, inasmuch as the 25 cents rate Trenton to Brockville is equal to 54.-IOO of a cent per ton per mile, while the rate of 20J cents from Pittsburg to Brockville is equal to 77-100 of a cent per ton per mile. You will see from this that the rate : from Pittsburg is much higher per ton per mile than is the rate from Trenton.

In regard to Mr. Taylor's statement as to the circular issued by the Railways addressed to the shippers, I cannot do better than inclose you herewith a copy of the circular, which fully explains the necessity for its issue, and when read altogether as a circular instead 'of taking extracts from it, surely it is not a circular that any shipper who desires to deal fairly with the Railways can object to. In fact, it is a protection to the shipper who conducts his business in an honest, straightforward manner, as against the shipper who does not, and the circular is one which, in my opinion, cannot reasonably be found fault with.
The rest of Mr. Taylor's remarks seem to concern only the acts of Railways other than the Intercolonial, and therefore, I assume, are not matters upon which you desire that I should express an opinion.
Yours truly,



E. TIFFIN.

[Stage Direction]
General Traffic Manager.
Hon.  H. R.@: Emmerson,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.
I will rend the circular letter a little later, placing them all on ' Hansard.' But I will now read the letter referred to In Mr. Tiffin's letter just read, dated 10th January, 1905, written by Mr. Tiffin to myself :
Dear .Mr. Emmerson,

I beg to return you herewith the letter addressed to you by Messrs. A. F. Randolph & ,Sons, in which they attach copy of a letter they wrote me on January 4th relative to the recent advance made in the rates to Fredericton, and in reply to your request for an explanation, I cannot do better than inclose copy of my reply to Messrs. Randolph & Sons under date of January 6-th.
I am certainly at a loss to understand why Mr. Randolph should make any reference to the Intercolonial sanctioning the tariffs, because in view of the letters which have passed between myself and Mr. Raudolph he must have known that we vigorously opposed and did everything in our power to prevent the discrimination against Fredericton. I have written any number of letters to the Canadian Pacific, also to Mr. Loud of the Grand Trunk, in which we protested and protested most vigorously, against the unfair position in which they were placing Fredericton. At one time we thought we had the Grand Trunk won over to our views, but we were disappointed inasmuch as after Mr. Loud intimated to Mr. Wallace that he would not back up the action of the Canadian Pacific, he turned completely around and turned us down In our request for justice to Fredericton.
I cannot do better than inclose you herewith a copy of a telegram which I sent Mr. Loud on the 19th of October, also copy of my wire to him of the 28th October. These go to show that every effort was made that we could make to induce the Grand Trunk to meet our request and not permit of any advance over St. John rates to be made to Fredericton, that is, that wherever rates 'were current to St. John from points west of Montreal should also apply to Fredericton. We, however, failed to get the I Grand Trunk to como in with our views ; had they done so, there would have been no change in the rates, and it simply goes to show the Mr. EMMERSON.
understanding between the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific as to the rates that shall be current from west of Montreal. Where we control the situation ouselves, as we do out of Fredericton on west bound business, we put in the St, John rates flat, and where we control the rates east hound, as we do out of Montreal, Quebec, &c., we made the St. John rates apply east bound ; and the whole trouble is the points west of Montreal reached by the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk from which we were unable to get them to adopt our suggestion and apply the St. John rates.
As. stated in my letter to Randolph & Sons of the 6th of January (copy attached) I do not see what more we can do. If it is as I was advised, that in view of getting flour carried to Fredericton at the same rates as to St. John, they were willing to put up with the advance in the class rates on general merchandise, I think it is rather late in the day now l'or Randolph & Sons to come back at us and find fault with us for sanctioning a tariff which we did not sanction, but which, if I am correctly advised, at the meeting between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Fredericton merchants, the Fredericton merchants themselves agreed to.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) E. TIFFIN,
General Traffic Manager.
I now read from a letter dated 6th January, 1905, signed by E. Tiffin, general traffic manager, and addressed to A. F. Randolph & Sons, Fredericton, N.B., as follows :
Moncton, N.B., 6th January, 1905. Messrs. A.-'F. Randolph & Sons,
Fredericton, N.B.
Dear Sirs,-I have your favour under date of the 4th of January, relative to Fredericton rates, and. you will pardon me if I say that I am certainly very much surprised at its contents.
You have evidently overlooked the voluminous correspondence which we previously had on the subject of the Fredericton rates, more particularly my letter to you of November 3rd and your reply of November 7th.
I can only repeat that at the time the Fredericton rates were advanced over those of St. John, we made every effort possible with our connections, hoth'the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railways, to bring about a result that would have been satisfactory to the Fredericton people. We failed ; both of our connections refusing to agree to our request that Fredericton should on no account be placed higher than St. John. Fredericton being a point on the Canadian Pacific as well as on this line, the Canadian Pacific being the short line have the right to name the rates, and as the traffic originates off this line we have no voice in the matter, excepting that we entered a strong protest against the injusiee to Fredericton. Having done this, we could do no more.
Then, after the correspondence I had with you, I understood that +he Fredericton Board of Trade, or the Fredericton merchants, had a meeting with Messrs. Bulling, Sutherland and Maclnnes of the Canadian Pacific, and that the Canadian Pacific conceded to you that St. John rates on flour and grain would apply to -Fredericton ; and I was advised ihat this concession on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway was satisfactory to the Fredericton people. I

understand that at this meeting the question of rates on class freights was discussed and that there was only one of the staple commodities, namely, sugar, and it was found not to be affected because the sugar was shipped from Halifax. I further understand that at this meeting it was fully explained that from the Canadian Pacific standpoint any change in the proposed class rates would affect them seriously, and that the Fredericton merchants or the Fredericton Board of Trade were satisfied to allow the difference in that class of rates to continue.
Now then, if this report of the meeting which was held between your people and the Canadian Pacific is true, how can you now complain of your being charged higher rates from Toronto to Fredericton than from Toronto to St. John ? If you will permit me to say so, I think you made a mistake, if I am correctly informed, when you agreed to allow the discrimination to continue in so far as the class rates are concerned. As the best evidence in the world that we did not permit that discrimination to points -which we actually controlled, I would say that we insisted upon the Moncton rates (which are the.same as St. John) applying to all intermediate points on the old Canada Eastern. This,
I understand, was objected to by the Canadian Pacific Railway, but notwithstanding their objection we carried our point. We could not, however, carry it to Fredericton because, as stated above, the Canadian Pacific Railway are the short line and therefore have the control of the rates. The Intercolonial Railway, therefore, should not be blamed for the existence of a condition which they could not control, but to prevent which they did all in their power to meet what I consider a fair and reasonable proposition, that is, that the St. John class and grain rates should apply to Fredericton.
I have looked up Mr. Wallace's letter of the 7th of November to which you refer, and while I admit that it is perhaps ambiguous, yet I do not take from it the inference that you do, that is, that had we asked our connections to make St. John rates apply to Fredericton, it would have been granted, because you must know from the previous correspondence we had that we made an urgent and imperative demand that the St. John rates should apply to Fredericton. ,
In view of the fact of it having been stated that your people agreed with the Canadian Pacific representatives that if you obtained the same rates on flour and grain as were current to St. John for local delivery, you would noty press the question of the class rates, I do not see how I can again approach the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific with a view of having this discrimination removed, and in fact if you have agreed with the Canadian Pacific as it is stated that you have, that the class rates to Fredericton may be higher than to St. John, it seems to me that you have taken the ground from under your feet if it is the intention to apply to the Railway Commission for relief.
I would like very much to have gone to Fredericton to discuss this matter with you and with your board of trade, but as I am obliged to leave for Montreal early next week, I regret that I will not have the opportunity of doing so.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) E. TIFFIN,
General Traffic Manager.
Now, to show that a protest was made by the Intercolonial Railway, I will read the following telegram of the 19th October,
1901, signed by E. Tiffin, our traffic manager, and addressed to Mr. J. W. Loud, who is the general traffic manager of the Grand Trunk Railway at Montreal. It reads as follows :
Moncton, 19th October, 1904.
J. W. Loud, Montreal, P.Q.
I have already advised you that there was no agreement as between myself and the Canadian Pacific Railway on Fredericton rates. As the traffic originates on your line and the Canadian Pacific west of Montreal, the usual custom is that it rests with yourself and the Canadian Pacific Railway as ro what the rates shall be. We protest against any advance to Fredericton over St. John rates. This is all we can do. What I would like to know now is inasmuch as you have not put in advanced flour rates, if you propose to advance them, upon what date does the advance come into effect.
(Sgd.) E. TIFFIN.
The2 other telegram between the same parties and which bears date the 28th October, 1904, reads as follows :
Moncton, 28th October, 1904.
J. W. Loud, Montreal, P.Q.,
Your telegram date re Fredericton rates. I still consider as a matter of justice and right that Fredericton rates should be on the basis of St. John and not any higher, in view of local changes made by Canadian Pacific from St. John and Fredericton; and in view also of the reduction in their flour rates to their points North of Macadam Junction, this advance to Fredericton can have no other effect than that of crippling Fredericton as a distributing centre. We still protest against the action of the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific in regard to Fredericton rates.
-	E. TIFFIN.
My hon. friend made reference to a circular sent out by au association which he refers to as an association or a combine betweeln the; Canadian railwayjs and United States railways. This association is known as the Canadian Freight Association and as I understand it is purely a Canadian organization.
f


Mr. SPEAKER.: I presume the hon. minister intends to conclude with a motion?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am making this statement in answer to a statement made by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor). This is simply information.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I shall move the adjournment of the House if he does not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: With the permission of the House I simply wish to give this information. I think it is fair to the members. fair to my hon. friend and it certainly is something that is due to the business'interests of the country.


George Eulas Foster: That is all right, but the minister must recollect that there will be a right of reply. He is taking up arguments made in a previous debate by the
(ill 9

lion, member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) ; be is controverting these arguments.


Wilfrid Laurier: Me has only read letters so far.


Mr. KM.MEL SOX.: I am merely reading letters, not arguing.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not make any difference whether the hon. gentleman makes the argument himself or does it by reading letters to this House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: These are simply statements of fact giving information with respect to the freight tariff of the Intercolonial Railway in answer to an inquiry made by an hon. member of this House. This circular letter reads as follows :
To shippers, consignees, agents, or whom it may concern:
The railway companies regret to say that they find the practice of false classification, false representation of the contents of packages, false report of weight, &c., continues unabated. It is therefore thought desirable that the attention of shippers should be called to the provisions of the law on the subject. Section 279, subsections two and three, of the Railway Act, 1903, are as follows:-
2.	Any company or any officer or agent thereof or any person acting for or employed by the company, who, by means of false billing, false classification, false report of weight or by any other device or means, shall knowingly, wilfully, or shall willingly suffer or permit any person or persons to obtain transportation for goods at less than the required tolls then authorized and in force on the railway of the company, shall for each offence be liable to a penalty of not exceeding one thousand dollars nor less than one hundred dollars.
3.	Any person or any officer or agent of any incorporated company who shall deliver goods for transportation to the company, or for whom as consignor or consignee the company shall transport goods, who shall knowingly or wilfully, by false billing, false classification, false weighing, false representation of the contents of the package or false report of weight, or by any other device or means, whether with or without the consent or connivance of the company, its agent or agents, obtain transportation for such goods at less than the regular tolls then authorized, and in force on the railway shall for each offence be liable to a penalty 6f not exceeding one thousand dollars nor less than one hundred dollars. The board may make regulations providing that any such person or company shall, in addition to the regular toll, be liable to pay to the company a further toll not exceeding fifty per cent of the regular charge. The company may, and when ordered by the board shall, open and examine any package, box. case or shipment for the purpose of ascertaining whether this subsection has been violated.
The practice of false classification, &e., not only deprives the railway companies or revenue to^ which they are justly entitled, but places shippers who do not adopt such devices, and who are averse to defying the law, at a most unfair disadvantage. The railway companies hope it is only necessary to bring this Mr. FOSTER.
matter to the attention of shippers to have the abuse entirely discontinued.
H. R. PATRIARCHE, Sec.-Treas. Western Lines, Winnipeg.
JOHN EARLS, Sec.-Treas. Eastern Lines, Toronto.
Issued April 3rd, 1905.


Mr. HAGGART.: Is there a joint tariff arrangement between the Intercolonial Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, and is that tariff arrangement under the control of the commissioners ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I am advised there is no such tariff arrangement. The Intercolonial Railway makes its own rates with respect to its own portion of the line, but it is bound to accept the joint arrangement which exists between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway on freight originating west of Montreal, * the western terminus of the Intercolonial.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember the Act that joint tariff must be approved of by tiie commissioners. I knew that the Intercolonial Railway tariff was not subject to the commissioners, but the joint tariff or the tariff which either of the roads could charge was subject to the approval of the commission. I cannot understand how it is that these railway companies vary outside of the tariff which is approved of by the commission.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I understood that the hon. minister intended to conclude with a motion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought I was simply giving information to the House which was asked, and that under the rules of the House such departmental information could always be given at tliis stage of the proceedings of the House. I may be incorrect in that belief. I think perhaps, instead of making a motion I should apologize for taking up the time of the House.'


Robert Laird Borden: You ought to do both.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think that in order to have the proceedings of the House properly in order the hon. minister should conclude with a motion.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I bow to the Speaker's ruling and I will conclude with that motion.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Mr. Ennnerson moves that the House do now adjourn.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


George Taylor: I would like to inquire from the premier through you, why it is that the members of the opposition should not be entitled to the same courtesies that ministers expect for themselves. If a

member of the opposition brings up some trivial incident a minister will squeal like a little pig and say : I did not know it was coming up. The Minister of Railways brings up a matter here affecting as he says the bon. member for Leeds and this is the first; intimation I had that he was going to bring it forward. I am not going to complain, I think I shall give him a Roland for his Oliver before I sit down. The disc'ussion he referred to took place on April 27, and was a general discussion for the benefit of railways in general. During that discussion I referred to a case in point and expressed the hope that the Railway Commission which the government have established would look into the matter. The case in point was the shipment of our goods from Gananoque to Fredericton. Until the hon. gentleman acquired the Canada Eastern Railway our rate via Lennoxville junction by the Canadian Pacific Railway, to Fredericton, was 55 cents per 100 pounds. Yet, when the Canada Eastern is acquired, the goods go to Lennoxville just the same and then over the Intercolonial Railway and we are charged 66 cents per 100 pounds. The Minister of Railways could not contradict the statement I made in reference to that. He told me he would get the information and let me know, and I thought we would have a talk about it, but instead of that for half an hour he reads these long documents and circulars which are not pertinent to the question, and he does it for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House. I challenge him or any one else in the employ of the railroad to contradict my statement. For years I shipped goods to Fredericton for 55 cents per 100 pounds, and now when they go over the Canada Eastern we are charged 66 cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He explained that they all went into a combine.


George Taylor: The Minister of Railways referred to a carload of steel and he corroborated my statement in every particular, because the rate to Brockville was 25 cents, but when it came 30 miles further we were charged 12 cents extra or 37 cents in all. I want the matter to go before the Railway Commission so that we may know why, if the Intercolonial Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway can haul from Nova Scotia to Brockville for 25 cents per 100 pounds, we should be charged 12 cents extra for hauling it on the same car without unloading, only 30 miles further. I did state that we received a car from Pittsburg, Pa., at 20i cents per 100 pounds, and that I thought that was a lower rate than 37 cents from Nova Scotia to Gananoque. So it is. I was mistaken in thinking that the distance from Pennsylvania was further than from Nova Scotia^ but at all events the 37 cent rate from Nova Scotia is higher in proportion. We have another case in dispute with the 195
Grand Trunk. We got a carload of lumber the other day hauled 10 miles on the Grand Trunk Railway and 3 miles on a branch line, and they charged us $19 for hauling that car of lumber. In view of such outrageous charges the Railway Commission should at once deal with the matters which were brought to the attention of the House on the 28th of April by the report of the Agricultural Committee. The statements I made on that day were intended for the Railway Commission that they might take action with regard to the hardships that shippers are subjected to. The Minister of Railways has not given a particle of eyi-ence to the House, that the Intercolonial is not charging 66 cents per 100 pounds for delivering goods from Gananoque at Fredericton, whereas before the Canada Eastern was acquired the rate was only 55 cents. He has not been able to deny my statement that this car of steel coming from Nova Scotia-intended for Brockville but ordered on-was hilled 25 cents to Brockville and for the 30 miles west an extra 12 cents or 37 cents in all. The minister got on ' Hansard ' a circular issued by the railway companies, not for the purpose of protecting shippers but for the purpose of protecting themselves, whereas the railways have their own protection in their own hands. In my opinion that circular is an insult to the shippers of this country. If you ship a parcel of goods and bill them to the railway companies at a certain weight, the railway companies have the scales and can test that weight, and my experience is that they generally charge more weight than there actually is. In the case of a carload of steel which came to us a short time ago, they tried to charge us for 1,940 pounds more freight than we actually paid for the number of pounds of steel which was weighed at both ends. We had that weight tested


Mr. LENNOX.: That's a steal.


George Taylor: It is a steal on the part of the railway people who charge more than the actual weight. The Minister of Railways presented this statement as a government statement to-day without moving the adjournment of the House, and he said he Avas simply making a statement of fact, but while the letters he read may be a statement of fact they are not facts, and he has not been able to contradict nay assertion. I want these matters dealt with by the Railway Commission, and it is for that reason I spoke the other day so that the Railway Commission may get down to business some time and see that there is a proper classification of freight and a proper charge made under it. X do not think the Railway Commission will allow the railways to charge 12 cents for a short haul of 30 miles and 25 cents for a long haul of 1,000 miles.


Mr. CROCKET.: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways if the statement is true,



that the freight rates from points west of Montreal to Fredericton, via Intercolonial, are higher now than they were before the government acquired the Canada Eastern ?


George Taylor: Certainly they are.


Henry Robert Emmerson: To Fredericton, so far as the Intercolonial is concerned, they are not higher.


Oswald Smith Crocket: My question was : are the rates now higher from points west of Montreal to Fredericton via the Intercolonial and Canada Eastern than these same were before the government acquired the Canada Eastern ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are from points west, because the arrangement was made before the Canada Eastern was acquired. That is not true with respect to the period since the Canada Eastern was acquired, because this change took place just previous to the acquisition of the Canada Eastern. My statement would be misleading if I said that this occurred since the Canada Eastern was acquired.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This discrimination which is complained of as against Fredericton has taken place since the government acquired the Canada Eastern.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. Just previous to that the arrangement was made by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. We took charge of the Canada Eastern in October, I think, and the arrangement I referred to was entered into in July or August of that year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It was announced that the Intercolonial Railway was to take the railroad over on the 1st of September and all arrangements were made for taking over the road at that date ; in fact the cars were all ready and the Intercolonial Railway officials were there to take the road over. It was during that time as I understand that the announcement was made that the freight rates were to be increased, and it seems strange to me that the Canada Eastern should be able to procure a lower freight rate from points west of Montreal to Fredericton-the same rate as applies to St. John -and that the Intercolonial Railway, since it has obtained control of the Frederiction connection, has not been able to get as low a rate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The rate was fixed by the western railways, when the Canada Eastern was owned by the Alexander Gibson Railway and Manufacturing Company. The rate that now exists to Fredericton over the Canada Eastern portion of the Intercolonial Railway was fixed at that time, previous to the acquisition and operation of the Canada Eastern by the Intercolonial Railway and the fact of the Intercolonial operating the road is in no way connected with the fact that the freight


Oswald Smith Crocket: rates were increased ; it is due to an arrangement entered into between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to understand definitely from the Minister of Railways if that rate was agreed upon by the Canada Eastern Railway Company before the government acquired the road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot say that, I do not know. I do not think it was, I do *not think they were called upon to do it at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me the government had it all in their hands with the commission. The commission had control over the tariff rates of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway, and if they had made an arrangement that was too high all that was necessary was to appeal to the commission and have them revise the tariff. Now if that lay with the government and they found the rates too high when they took over the Canada Eastern it was in their own hands and they could have reduced the rates. So I think they are practically responsible for it no matter who is at fault whether it was the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific or the government railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know that anybody is very seriously at fault in connection with the matter. The rate has been continued through to Fredericton because of an agreement entered into between the .Fredericton Board of Trade or the merchants of Fredericton and the Canadian Pacific Railway. They got certain concessions along another line whereby they were led to agree to these rates. That is the situation as I understand it. The tariffs have been filed and the Board of Trade of Fredericton could apply or application could be made by the Intercolonial Railway before the next tariffs are filed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the shipping public ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The shipping public can file a complaint also, but the Fredericton merchants and the Fredericton Board of Trade who are agreeable to this and who have apparently consented to it are not complaining and therefore action, I presume has not been taken.


Mr. KEMP.: Did I understand the Minister of Railways to say that the Gibson firm went into this arrangement previous to the time the government took over the Canada Eastern ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not state that,
I said as a matter of fact I did not know whether they were a party to the arrangement or not, that it was an arrangement between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, but I was not

iaware that the 'Canada Eastern nr the Alexander Gibson Company were party to the arrangement.


Albert Edward Kemp: The fact of the matter, as I understand the debate, is that the rates now are higher than they were some time ago, and higher than they were previous to the time the Canada Eastern was taken over by the government. If that is the case the Intercolonial Railway must have been parties to it because no freight could go over the Canada Eastern to Fredericton from points west of Montreal unless it went over the Intercolonial Railway.
Mr. EMM'ERSON. Whatever change was made in the rates to Fredericton was made previous to the acquisition of this road by the Intercolonial Railway, and therefore the Intercolonial Railway could not be a party to it because it did not own, operate or control the Canada Eastern at the time this arrangement was entered into.


Albert Edward Kemp: The Minister of Railways does not understand me. This discussion is with regard to freight originating west of Montreal. That freight has to go over the Intercolonial Railway in order to reach Fredericton by the Canada Eastern ; it has to go over the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to the junction point between that road and the Canada Eastern and therefore the Intercolonial Railway must have been a party to this advanced rate.
Mr. EMMBRlS'ON. No it was not ; the Intercolonial Railway as I have stated, protested against their entering into the agreement. I have shown the telegrams from the traffic manager of the Intercolonial Railway, I have shown his statement wherein he protested and showed that he was not a party to it.


Albert Edward Kemp: To my mind he did not go far enough in these protests or he would have prevented the firm of Gibson & Sons from making such* an arrangement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Intercolonial Railway gets no more for its portion and has not increased its rate.


Robert Laird Borden: That may be but the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Kemp) is perfectly correct in this that you cannot have a through rate over four roads by reason of the concurrence of only three of these roads in the rate. There were four roads, the Canada Eastern, the Intercolonial Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, and the Canadian Pacific Railway. You cannot get a through rate over four or three of these roads without the concurrence of all the roads interested. There is another observation to be made in that connection, that it seems a remarkable thing that the Canada Eastern, after it had actually agreed to convey its road to the government, after the terms had been arranged 1951
with the exception of some trifling details, should undertake to enter into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway just on the eve of the sale of that road t<>
the government. it is to me absolutely inconceivable that the Canada Eastern Railway Company would have undertaken to assent to that alteration without the concurrence of the officers of the Intercolonial Railway, because I cannot think that the Company when it was about to part with the beneficial interests in that road undertook to enter into an agreement binding for a considerable time as to these through rates. 1 would think that notwithstanding the somewhat lengthly explanation which the minister has made to-day, he should give a fur ther explanation on that point and if necessary again move to adjourn the House.
Mr. EMM'ERSON. I have stated that I do not think that the Canada Eastern was a party to this arrangement. The arrangement was entered into between the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, it inures to the advantage 'of the Canadian Pacific Railway, because clearly the traffic will not go by the Intercolonial Railway to Fredericton when it could go at a cheaper rate from Montreal direct to Fredericton by the Canadian Pacific Railway and certainly the Canadian Pacific Railway would not be a party to an arrangement that would work against its own interests. Therefore there is no such arrangement to-day. The Alexander Gibson Company was not a party to it, the Intercolonial Railway was not a party to it, but the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway in the carrying out of their western proposition, for what purpose I know not, have entered into an arrangement whereby the Intercolonial cannot get this western traffic from points west of Montreal and carry it at a rate as low as the Canadian Pacific have agreed to carry it.


Robert Laird Borden: If it is a through rate embracing the carriage of goods over a number of different railways, does it not come within the definition of what is called a joint traffic arrangement between these railways ? The hon. gentleman may say, so far as the Intercolonial is concerned, it is not subject to the provisions of the Railway Act, but if he takes the position he has taken just now, that it is solely due _ to the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, certainly they are subject to the Railway Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Now you are on correct ground.


Robert Laird Borden: I have been on correct ground all along. If any one is on unsound ground it is the hon. minister from the time he began until he moved the adjournment of the House. Has the increase

of rates been approved by tbe Railway Commission in respect of tbe Canada Eastern Railway Company ? Was all this done on the very eve of the transfer of that railway to the government, and was the government asleep while all this was being done, although it knew that railway was going into its possession and would be operated by it in a very few days or1 weeks at the outside ? These are matters worthy of consideration, and if the minister this afternoon had given his attention to some of these matters rather than indulge in a very elaborate criticism of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), the House would be in a much better "position to come to a conclusion. I do not think the report was in very good taste. It is not usual to have the language of any member m this House, used in debate, made the subject of a somewhat controversial report issued by a departmental officer. But putting that consideration aside for the moment, the Minister of Railways ought to investigate this question a little further and find out whether this increase was made under the provisions of the law, and ascertain also whether or not it was made with the concurrence of the Canada Eastern Railway. He is not able to state to-day whether that is the case or not. And in particular, he should inform the House why it is that the rate which prevailed for a great number of years, while the Canada Eastern was operating that line, cannot prevail to-day when the government is operating lx. That, after all, Is the whole matter in question. The rate was a moderate and apparently a paying one, and was not increased while the Canada Eastern was operating the line, but upon the eve of the acquisition by the government of that line it is increased, and increased under circumstances the precise nature of which has not yet been imparted to this House.


Mr. STOCKTON.: 
Robert Laird Borden: This is the way in which the public have benefited.


Mr. A. CAMPBELL.: This debate, it seems to me, is a great ado about nothing. In tbe first place, there is no grievance suffered by the merchants of Fredericton. That is shown by the fact that they have agreed to this extra rate in return for some consideration that they have obtained. We have had no complaints from the board of . trade or the merchants of Fredericton against the extra rate. As a matter of fact, I know that the rates oil flour are lower to-day in the maritime provinces than they have been, and the rate to Fredericton is lower than it was some time ago and the same to-day as it is to St. John.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think that tile hon. member has overlooked entirely the correspondence read by the Minister of Railways. The letters he read contain very vigorous protests from the merchants of Federicton against the increased rate.


Archibald Campbell: Everybody knows that tbe rate to Halifax is lower than it is to Fredericton, because at St. John you go right into water communication and have to compete with the water rate. The Canadian Pacific Railway can send its freight entirely over its own iline to Fredericton, and need not send it over the Intercolonial Railway at all. They have their line right there ; and if they and the Grand Trunk Railway agree to charge a certain rate to Fredericton, how can the Intercolonial Railway interfere ? (If they hand it over to the Canada Eastern, and the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway choose to exact from the Intercolonial Railway a certain rate to the terminal point, that is their own business, and the Intercolonial Railway cannot interfere. Wbat tbe minister has made ciear is that the Intercolonial Railway is charging no more than before ; and if there is more charged on certain commodities, that is done by the Grand Trunk Railway and tbe Canadian Pacific Railway, who are controlling the rate for freight to St. John. But there does not seem to be any great hardship, because the merchants of Fredericton have made no complaint at all. W'ith reference to what the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) says regarding the freight from Brockville to Gananoque being twelve cents a hundred, that, I think, is an excessive rate. But the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) quoting the rates from Trenton to Gananoque as 37 cents a hundred compared with 20+ cents from Pittsburg, should have quoted from Trenton to Brockville 25 cents, and 12 cents additional are charged toy the Grand Trunk Railway, and was another contract altogether. For myself, it is an extraordinary rate-it is too high. A.s a shipper, I know that the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific

Railway both are charging altogether too much for short local hauls.


George Taylor: Is the hon. member aware that a great portion of the goods shipped to Fredericton from Ontario are sold delivered, the shipper paying the freight ? Therefore, it is the shipper and not the merchant who has to complain.


Archibald Campbell: We sell goods delivered, and if the freight is higher we charge more. If we could have them carried for nothing, we would sell our goods that much cheaper. There is a lot of work cut out for the Railway Commission. I believe that the local rates from one point to another in Ontario especially, are altogether too high. And I am sure that the Railway Commission, now that they have got into working order-I believe in giving them time-will investigate this matter and bring the railway to a more reasonable view.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) seems to think that the government have nothing to do with this that we have given virtual control of the railroad and the fixing of tariffs over to the Railway Commission ; and that, that having been done, the government may let things drift as they like. The argument is that the Intercolonial has not changed its rates but that the change in rates was by agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) will pardon me, I will point out that the change was with regard to Fredericton alone-there is no change in freight rates on the Canada Eastern or any other portion of the Intercolonial. The change is only with respect to Fredericton, and there it is because the Canadian Pacific Railway controlled this situation and had secured that rate. The result is that the Intercolonial does not get the traffic to Fredericton.
iMr. HAGGART. The observations of the Minister (Mr. Emmerson) are not pertinent to the argument I am making. I am answering the hon. member for Centre York (Mr. Campbell) who said that this increase was by a private arrangement between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway. Does not that hon. gentleman know that a joint traffic tariff must be filed with the commissioners 1


Archibald Campbell: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Then, this tariff must have been filed with them. What we want to know is by what authority the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific changed their tariff ? To make any tariff legal, they must have the consent of the commissioners to it ; and we ought to be informed, here in this House, by the Minister of Railways and Canals, whether consent has been given to this freight rate, and, if so, for what reason ?


Archibald Campbell: I suppose that a tariff is filed with the commissioners and that, unless there is something radically wrong about it or unless some person enters complaint, it is approved as a matter of course.
I suppose that in this case nobody objected.	.


John Graham Haggart: All railway tariffs must be approved, formerly by the government, and now by the Railway Commission. Joint tariffs must be approved like any other. There was a joint tariff with the Intercolonial before the acquisition of the Canada Eastern. Under this joint tariff a certain rate was charged. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) excuses the government on the ground that the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific have entered into an arrangement to raise the rate. Why is it that the government, or the commissioners as the case may be, have consented to anything of that kind. ? We have given the Railway Commissioners control over these rates, and one of the conditions we insisted on was that all tariffs should be approved by them. What we want to know is whether the commission approved of this joint tariff by which this higher rate is charged ?


Robert Laird Borden: May I suggest to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) that when he brings down to read to the House, a long statement such as this containing correspondence which is likely to be the subject of discussion, it would be a very desirable thing-especially when he has given no notice-that he should have two copies made, so that one can be utilized on this side of the House. I sent in just now to asecrtain whether it is or is not true that the merchants of Fredericton assented to this. I find that a large part of the statement the minister read has gone to the Printing Bureau. But the fragments that remain seems to indicate that some of the merchants are vigorously protesting against it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This firm of Messrs. A. F. Randolph and Sons, whose letter the minister read protesting against discrimination against Fredericton is, I believe, the largest importing house in the city of Fredericton, and the members of that firm are hearty supporters of the present administration. It is news to me that the merchants of Fredericton have assented to the increase of the rates. I do know that there was a vigorous protest in the city of Fredericton when the announcement was made that these rates had been or were to be increased. And the announcement of the increased rate was made just at the time the road was taken over by the government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) allow me to ask whether, subsequent to the protest that was made, an arrangement was not entered into by the board of trade, the merchants of Fredericton, with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company whereby the flour rates should be lowered, and whether Messrs. Randolph, who are the chief dealers in flour and large distributors did not accept that along with the other merchants in consideration of some other thing? I am not personally familiar with the facts.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not in a position to say whether that is the fact or not, but the fact is that Messrs. Randolph did object, and I think that the protest that the minister read was subsequent to the conference to which he has referred.


George Taylor: Do I understand the minister to say that the merchants of Fredericton were willing, in consideration of the tariff on flour having been lowered that the rates on other things should be increased ? The reduction on flour may have been a benefit to my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Campbell), but I do not know that that fact will be regarded as compensation by the other manufacturers the rate on whose goods has been raised.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was the question I asked of the representative of the constituency. I am not personally familiar with the facts.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT.: In trying to put my hon. friend from South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in the hole the hon. minister has given the country some valuable information, and that information is that the acquirement of the Canada Eastern by the Intercolonial has led to an increase of rates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) allow me ? The increase affects the city of Fredericton alone. Right opposite, at Gibson, or at Marysville, on the line of the Canada Eastern, there is no increase on the Intercolonial.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the hon. minister say that this applies only to the city of Fredericton and that there is no increase at Marysville 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is no increase at Marysville or at any point on the Intercolonial, except at Fredericton, where there has been an increase by the two railways, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific which made this arrangement.


George Taylor: That was my argument.
'Mr. COCKSHUTT. It appears clear that there has been an increase. Even if that increase affects Fredericton alone, the question arises who is pocketing the increase ?
I understand the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) to say that the


Oswald Smith Crocket: Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway have done it. But, surely the Intercolonial is a party to it, for it carries the traffic for a part of the distance. I would like to know whether the Intercolonial does not or does get a part of it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Intercolonial is not in receipt of any portion of that increase.


William Foster Cockshutt: Then, it would seem that it goes to the short road. I presume that it is pocketing all the increase, though It is not entitled to it. This makes it all the more serious. If the Intercolonial can afford to do the hauling at the old price, it seems strange that the others cannot do so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Hear, hear.


William Foster Cockshutt: If these railways say that this increase is justifiable why is It that the Intercolonial, which does part of the hauling, gets no part of the increase ? The minister's explanation does not seem to explain. Instead of putting my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) in the hole it seems to me that the hon. minister's department is put in the hole before the country, because the people see that the amalgamation of the two roads has led to an increase of rate. The minister says that that is not the cause of it, but we see that the practical result is an increase of rates.
Now with regard to the argument of the hon. member for York, who says that when goods are delivered you can put up the price and let the manufacturer pay the increased rate-the hon. gentleman may be satisfied with that line of argument, but it is not satisfactory to the merchants and the manufacturers that are shipping these goods from points west of Montreal. Allow me to state to the hon. member for York that frequently these contracts may reach a year or two ahead, the manufacturer has given that contract at a set discount off price list that cannot be changed when the railway puts up the rates, the manufacturer takes the risk of that change, and if the change is made while the contract is running he has to continue to pay the increased freight rate until the contract expires. He has no recovery against the railway or against the party himself. Manufacturers sell at a discount off list to stated points, manufacturers of agricultural implements in particular. Large shippers to all these points give a set discount off list. When that discount is fixed for a year or more they have no redress, they have simply to pay that increased rate. I think it is very unsatisfactory to find that in face of a Railway Commission having been appointed, and in face of the high rates that have been charged already, this amalgamation that has taken place between these roads has directly or indirectly resulted in increased cost on freights to certain points in the maritime

provinces from points west of Montreal. I think the explanation the minister has given is highly unsatisfactory, and will be so considered by the manufacturers and large shippers of goods in the west.


Hon.  W. S.@: LOGGIE (Northumberland, N.
B.). I would like to add a word to this discussion as I am more or less interested in the subject. I realize the circumstances that led up to this difficulty with the Canadian Pacific Railway. In fact I understand from their own agents that they were not satisfied with the former rates charged to Fredericton. They claim that Fredericton was not a competitive point, as St. John was, and they proposed raising the rates on flour and provisions, also the rates on commodities such as dry goods and general merchandise. This protest having been entered, a compromise was made, as I understand it, by which the previous rates should stand good on flour and commodities of that class, whereas on dry goods, textile products and so on, the rates were to be increased, above those they were giving to a competitive point, namely, St. John, New Brunswick. For that reason the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk entered into a traffic arrangement concerning local traffic, bv which they charged on commodities other than cereals, an increased rate. That agreement, or traffic arrangement, I have no doubt was confirmed by the Railway Commission at Ottawa, who, I suppose, con sidered it a reasonable one. But we must not forget that in freight arrangements it is very difficult to make rates that do not work hardly in some sections of the country. For example, let me point out to this House that to-day although Chatham is within nine miles of Chatham Junction, and Fredericton is within about 100 miles, yet freight is carried over the Grand Trunk and over the Intercolonial to Fredericton at a less rate than it is to Chatham. Now I wish particularly to state that that remark applies only to flour and that class of goods. Although is is hauled only nine miles from Chatham Junction into Chatham, we have to pav a higher rate than when it is hauled into Fredericton. Now the railway authorities answer us in this way, they say that B ieder-icton is nearer the point of production, and is a competitive point, and therefore we have not a right to the same rate that Fredericton has, because of our situation and our not being adjacent to the city of St. John. I can understand why the Fredericton merchants should claim the same rate of freight on heavy goods. But the difficulty in case seems to be that two great railway corporations have made a joint taritr on local freight which tariff has been confirmed by the Railway Commission. Now the question at issue is this : Is it a justifiable action on the part of the Railway Commission to confirm such a tariff which charges those extra rates ? If dry goods,
for example, can be hauled from the city of Toronto for 55 cents a hundred, and pay three roads out of that rate, why should two roads Charge 66 cents, 11 cents extra . Now we have to consider whether it would not be in the interest of the producer in the west and of the consumer in the east that the commission should revise that tariff and place Fredericton, so far as local trade F concerned, on the same basis that she was before. As I say, we have to pay on heavy goods coming into Chatham more freight than we pay on the same goods to Fredericton. although the haul is only nine miles from Chatham Junction to Chatham whereas it is over a hundred miles to Fredericton.


Mr LALOR.: I understood the minister to say that the freight rate had been changed to Marysville, a point near Fredericton. Might 1 ask which point pays the higher freight, Fredericton or Marysville .


Mr EMMERSON.: I think the papers which I read show that these points get uniform rates, all points from Chatham Junction through to Fredericton are given a uniform rate. If I mistake not, that rate is fixed on the basis of Moncton, and the rate to Moncton would be less than the rate to Fredericton because Moncton and St. John are placed on a par, that is to say, the rate which applies to St. John applies to Moncton. The contention of the Intercolonial was that the same rate should apply to Fredericton, while the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway act to the contrary. But where the Intercolonial have the control, that is up the river St. John to Gibson and Marysville, they continue the rate that had existed previously, that is, the same rate as the Moncton and St. John rate.
Motion, (Mr. Emmerson) to adjourn, negatived.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY-SURVEY OF ROUTE.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the government whether or not they have any information as to the success which has been met with in locating the route of the Transcontinental Railway from Moncton to Winnipeg. I observe in an editorial of the ' Globe ' of yesterday the following intimation :
The news which comes from Ottawa that_ the surveys for the Transcontinental Railway have been6 able to locate a route from Moncton to Winnipeg with a maximum grade of four-tenths of one per cent is the most important piece of intelligence that has come from the capital in many a day.
If there is any information of that kind I think it should be laid before parliament at the earliest possible moment. It may be that the very regrettable illness of the chairman of the commission has pre-

rented any report being made, but there are three other commissioners, and if they are able to give information of this character to the press they should be equally able to prepare a report giving, with a little more exactness, that information to the government who would lay it before parliament. I called the attention of the right hon Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on one or two occasions before to statements of this character which I did not have before me at the time. I would like to ask whether the government has any information and if not how it is that an intimation of this character, apparently founded on information proceeding from the commission, should appear in the public press.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I have found it very difficult to check the press, and I have found it very difficult to trace the sources of information. Sometimes the information is accurate and sometimes it is not accurate. 1 am informed that reports have.been received from the engineers by the Railway Department as to the character of the route that is now being tentatively surveyed and I may say to my hon. friend that at the present time I myself do not know what the character of this information is except from what I have read in the press. I understand, however, that the report is very favourable and that the engineers have been enabled to locate a line which will be very much of the character given in the press. But, I must acquit the government of any suggestion that they have given away this report. These things get out, my hon. friend cannot say how and I cannot say how, but as soon as the information is completed it will be brought down to the House.
" r]t 6as been issued for the election in North Oxford and if not what is the intention ot the government as to the date which shall be fixed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No writ has yet been issued for North Oxford, but if my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) renews his question within a reasonable time I think I may be able to give him satisfaction.


Robert Laird Borden: What would mv lion, friend regard as a reasonable time ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Within a few days.



REPORT OF RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speak-ev i ^ouIcl like to ask tlie non. Minister ?/ IIa11 way s ^ aud Canals (Mr. Emmer'son) n the report that was promised a long time ago from the Board of Railway Connnis-yet ?6en Placed on the table of the House . I have taken occasion to ask the clerk of the House and I understand that it has not. When I was making an inquiry as to. this matter at least turn months ago, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals informed the House that 'it would be brought down within a very short time. It is important we should have the report and I think sufficient time has now elapsed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would say to my non. friend (Mr. Lennox) that the report has not been laid before the House and that the department is not in a position to place such a report upon the table, but as soon as I am in a position I will submit it to the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not objecting to the information getting out, but what I am objecting to is that it is not given to parliament in the regular way.
'Sir WILFRID LAURIER. It is not in a position yet to be given in the regular way.
ill1. R. L. BORDEN. Perhaps that is the case. If the information is sufficiently exact and sufficiently important to be communicated to the press and to be referred to by the press in this way, it would also seem that it is sufficiently exact and sufficiently important to be communicated by the commission to the government and by the government to parliament.
.Sir \YLLFRID LAURIER. If the information is of the character mentioned by the press there will be no hesitation at all to bring it to the attention of parliament.



VACANCY IN NORTH OXFORD.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inqmre of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether or not any Mr. R. L. BORDEN.


Haughton Lennox: I do not understand what the hon. minister means by saying that the clepaitment is not in a position to lay tlie report before the House. Probably the hon. minister will inform the House as to whether he has received such a report. You win remember, Mr. Speaker, that there war a difficulty about this matter. The statute did not provide for a report and the House ought to know just in what position it stands in regard to the matter. If there is any serious difficulty or any objection to making a report wo should pass a statute making the report available at once. It is time it was bere. When I asked the bon. minister about the report, I understood him to say that it would be down almost immediately. It is important that he should inform the House definitely what he means by saying that the department is not in a position to bring it down. Has the report been handed to the department, or what is the difficulty ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon. friend must be under some misapprehension as to any assurance that I gave him in respect to the placing of such a report upon the table

of the House. I said that I would exercise due diligence in endeavouring to get that report and that X had been assured by the railway commissioners that such a report would be prepared. I have not received such a complete report. I was mixing up the two commissions. You are asking in respect to the Railway Commission ?


Haughton Lennox: The Board of Railway Commissioners.


Henry Robert Emmerson: X have not received that complete report yet, but I am expecting it.


Haughton Lennox: If I may be allowed to call the bon. minister's attention to the matter so that we may not misunderstand each other, I think I recollect quite distinctly what occurred as to that. I was pressing the hon. minister for an answer as to whether he had interviewed the Board of Kailway Commissioners to get such information as would enable him to promise this report to the House at an early day. I understood the hon. minister to say definitely that he had taken those steps and that he would be in a position to bring down a complete report such as we indicated when we were discussing the estimates and when the question arose to which I have referred. If it is necessary I shall take occasion to look up the reference to it and refer to it again, but aside from that verbal discussion it is time that this report was brought down. The hon. minister again is indefinite when he suggests that he has not a complete report. Either it is a sufficient report or it is not, and if it is not, steps should be taken to have it supplemented in such a way that it would be sufficient to be brought down.



SEIZURE OF SCHOONER 'AGNES DONOHOE.'

Mr.   WM@: ROIOHE 'Halifax). Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to call the attention of the government to one or two new phases which have occurred in the case of the unfortunate captain of the schooner ' Agnes Donahoe.' I have just received the following telegram :
Halifax, N.S., May 17.
Wm. Roche, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Montevideo agents cable : Ryan condemned ; sentenced three years penal servitude ; mates one year ; crew six months ; ship cargo confiscated ; we have appealed ; enforce claims immediately. Have Canadian government act with vigour and despatch ; answer.
(Sgd.) E. DONAHOE & SON.
That is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, but a more serious matter is this, that in so far as it relates to the crew-


Wilfrid Laurier: We have already had this matter up to-day.


Mr. WM. ROCHE.: Then all I have to say is that the second phase of this question is a more serious one, as it affects our sea-faring population. Part of the crew of the 'Agnes Donahoe' took refuge on board an American man-of-war, and they, having been taken to a port in the United States, obtained their release and came to Nova Scotia. The serious part of it is this : Does the British flag protect British seamen as the American flag protects British or other seamen ? If our seamen obtain the idea that they have a protection under the American flag" that does not exist under the British flag, it will strike a blow at the prestige of the British flag.
GRAND TRUiNIC PACIFIC RAILWAY-APPROVAL OF LOCATION.
A. C. BOYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) if he has yet approved of the plans of the Grand Trunk Pacific terminus at Port Arthur and Fort William ? In this connection, I would draw his attention to a report that appeared in the ' Daily World,' of Vancouver, of April 27th, which reads as follows :


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I assume that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) intends to conclude with a motion.
Mr. BOYCE, I am simply asking a question.


Wilfrid Laurier: The House will be moved into Committee of Supply during the day, and if my hon. friend has a statement to make he may proceed then.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend only wishes to ask a question.


Wilfrid Laurier: If he only wishes to ask a question, I have no objection at all.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am only asking the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals if the following statement that appeared in this newspaper is correct:
Port Simpson and the Terminal.
Ottawa, Ont., April 27.-(Special)-Hon. Mr. Emmerson expects to approve the Grand Trunk Pacific application for terminals at Port Simpson and Kaien Island, some ten miles south, to-day or to-morrow. He has already approved of the terminals at Fort William and Port Arthur.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Minister of Railways has approved of the route to Port Arthur and Fort William ; that is of the location of the route of the Grand Trunk Pacific branch line of railway from the main line to Thunder bay.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Are these the plans that were sealed up ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No; these are the location plans. The other plans as to the terminals have not been approved.



G139 COMMONS REPORT OF RAILWAY COMMISSION.

Mr. R. BLAJN.: I have taken the trouble to look up the statement of the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals in respect to bringing down the Railway Commission report. At page 602 of the revised ' Hansard,' my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) asks :
When will we have the railway report ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not received the report from the Printing Bureau. It was promised for to-morrow.
I understand my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals to say that has not been brought down yet.
Mr. EMMERSON, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) is referring to the report of the Department of Railways and Canals.


Richard Blain: Yes ; I apologize.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 132) to amend the Government Railways Act.-Mr. Emmerson.
On section 1,
Henry Robert Emmerson: There are some slight amendments to be proposed to this section, most of which are merely intended to improve the wording and in order to make the meaning clear. The section as amended will read as follows :
The minister shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have for the purposes of and in connection with the business and traffic of any government railway in his charge or direction by virtue of the Government Railways Act, running powers over the whole or any portion of the lines of Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada between Montreal and Coteau Junction and over all or any of the lines and tracks of the system known as the Canada Atlantic Railway system extending from Coteau Junction to Depot Harbour and _the Georgian bay, as the said lines and tracks, including the said line between Montreal and Coteau Junction, now exist or as they are hereafter constructed, reconstructed, or extended.


Robert Laird Borden: In the discussion that took place on the first reading, this Bill seemed to be regarded as merely an option to the government to exercise or not to exercise running powers over this railway. It may be that in one sense the government may not be bound to exercise those running powers, but this section expressly and explicitly says that the government shall have running powers. Now if you enact a statute of that character will you not, by the very circumstance that the government is placed in the position to enter at any time and to exercise running powers, place the government and the country in the position of having to pay compensation to the Grand Trunk whether those running powers are exercised or not ? For example the property of the Grand Trunk Company subject to a


Henry Robert Emmerson: power of that kind which may be exercised under statute by the government would be a less valuable asset possibly to the company than it would be if it were subject to no such rights. It seems to me that the government by this legislation is doing something more than was suggested by the Prime Minister upon the introduction of this Bill and also by the Minister of Railways himself, and I would like to have a little more definite statement as to exactly what the result of this statute will be in this regard. Suppose this statute is passed and nothing more is done ; is it suggested that the Grand Trunk Railway whose property is made subject to this right will have no power of enforcing compensation against the government ? I would think that the opposite result is one which might be regarded as a fair result from the wording of this statute.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Or course my hon. friend is asking a legal question as to the legal consequences. My own view of the matter would be that the Grand Trunk Company couid not by any possibility have any legal, moral or equitable claim against the government of Canada. This is the parliament of Canada, it is the supreme power, it is the highest court in Canada, and it has power to deal with these matters and it enacts with respect to certain property that the government can, if it chooses, shall if it will exercise, and have the right to running powers and of course that section is to be interpreted in connection with the other clauses of the Act and no possible damages can accrue to the Grand Trunk Railway or to the other company, reading the whole Act together.


John Graham Haggart: Have there been any negotiations, or correspondence, verbal or otherwise with the Grand Trunk or the Canada Atlantic as to the passage of this Act either before the acquisition by the Grand Trunk or the Canada Atlantic or since, and what is the effect of those negotiations and what is the purpose you intend to carry out under the Bill ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I may say to my hon. friend that there were no negotiations with the company. Representatives of the company have been here when this Bill was before the committee and I think they addressed themselves to members of the Railway Committee when their Bill was before that body and this other proposition was spoken of. I think they are not disposed to favourably view this matter ; certainly they objected to the delay that resulted by reason of the desire which I expressed to have time to determine as to the character of the legislation that should be brought in giving running rights to the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: Then you have no idea as to what meaning Sir Charles Rivers-Wilson had when he was addressing the stockholders in London, and said that he was
sorry he could not take them all fully into his confidence because there were some negotiations and correspondence going on connected with this bargain which it would be impossible for him to disclose at the present moment, but they must take his word and rely on it entirely that these negotiations and this correspondence were in the interest of the company ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not seen the remarks to which my hon. friend refers. I am speaking for my own department; there have been no negotiations, there is no bargain. I thought it was in the interest of the Intercolonial Railway that this Bill should be introduced, I obtained the consent of my colleagues, the Bill was prepared and is now before the committee, but not as the result of any bargain or any negotiations with the Grand Trunk Railway Company.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. gentleman has said that so far as his department is concerned there have been no negotiations.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will make it wider, and say that so far as I know no negotiations of any kind were conducted with the government. I was speaking for myself and I was surprised when my hon. friend mentioned the remarks he did. I had not seen the remarks and I know of no negotiations with any other, member of the government. Certainly there were none with me nor were there any with the Department of Railways and Canals and I assume that is where negotiations would be carried on.


Mr. INGRAM.: Do we understand the minister to say that when the Canada Atlantic Railway Bill was before the Railway Committee,'the government having in view the insertion of a clause in the Canada Atlantic Railway Bill and now foregoing that and introducing this Bill, there was no conference between the Grand Trunk Company and the government with respect to the conditions to be attached to this Bill?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was asked with respect to correspondence. I said there was no correspondence, but I stated that when this matter was before the Railway Committee there were some verbal expressions against the proposal which I had suggested to the committee. It did not take the form of negotiations ; it simply was an expression of opposition on the part of solicitors to the proposal which I had suggested to the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is to say that any clauses put in the Canada Atlantic Bill would affect the interest of the Grand Trunk Company in the matter of raising money and for that reason they did not want that class of legislation placed in their Bill. But apart from that I understood the hon. gentleman to say that neither verbal nor written communications nor conferences have taken
place with the Grand Trunk Company. Now
the minister says there was a verbal-


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh no, I qualified that before.


Andrew B. Ingram: I did not so understand from the minister's answer to the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) and it seems to me a rather strange thing that there would be no conference or anything of that kind in reference to those Bills.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason that I suggested the construction which I thought might be placed on the words of this Act is this : You have under section 1 a right created in this government-in respect of a railway owned by a private company. There is no ambiguity about the terms of that section. I shall omit the immaterial work : The minister shall have for the government railway running powers over that portion of the Grand Trunk Railway between Montreal and Co-teau Junction and over all the lines and tracks of the system known as the Canada Atlantic Railway system. Then section 5 provides that the terms and conditions and the payment or compensation subject to which the said running powers may be so exercised shall be determined by the Board of Railway Commissioners. If you put those two provisions together, it seems to me that the Grand Trunk Railway will have the right to recover compensation against the Crown for that easement created in favour of the government over the property of the Grand Trunk Railway. For that reason I thought the Minister of Railways should be able to give us the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as to the effect of these two sections. The First Minister, on the first reading of the Bill, suggested that this was merely the creation of a right which might not be exercised for a long time, and which involved no obligation on the part of this country to pay anything. I am now stating it as my opinion that the converse is at least fairly arguable. I would like to know whether or not the minister has taken the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon the construction of these two sections. If you create an easement and say that it shall be paid for according to the arbitrament of a certain tribunal, do you not permit the party against whom the easement is created to make application on its own initiative to the tribunal for the purpose of determining that compensation and incidentally the terms and conditions upon which this right shall be exercised. That seems an important question to be considered because you will find in the end that it is not the intention which the government may put into the Act, but that which is to be read in the words of the statute which will have effect and be carried out.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As was stated by the right hon. the First Minister at the first

reading, the exercise of these rights is not imperative. These rights need only be exercised when the government sees fit, and then the compensation will be determined by the Railway Commission. The question stated by my hon. friend was submitted by me to the Department of .Justice. That department drafted the Bill in accord with the expressed policy of the government. I would not presume to give a legal opinion upon these sections, but, as an individual. I would read them very differently from the way my hon. friend reads them. I would take into consideration the whole Bill and not pick out a word here and there in the different sections. According to the fifth section the running powers shall be subject to the terms and conditions to be fixed by the Railway Commission : but it is evident that the exercise of these powers is purely discretionary, and I cannot see how the Grand Trunk Railway could have any claim legal, equitable or moral against the government for the non-exercise of these powers and privileges, the exercise of which is discretionary with the government.


Robert Laird Borden: I stated that I was omitting the immaterial words, and I did not observe in any of the other sections anything which at all cuts down what is contained in the words I did read. This seems to me to be a statutory expropriation of an easement in respect of the Grand Trunk Railway lines between Montreal and Depot Harbour. The Bill contains also provisions for compensation. Would the Minister of Justice give us his opinion, if he has had the opportunity of examining the different sections of the Bill ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The Bill was originally drafted by the Railway Department and sent to the Department of Justice for consideration. It was sent back to the Railway Department and they amended it again, so that the form in which it appears before the House is not that in which it left my department.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If lion, gentlemen will have a little patience, they will hear something more. While the draft Bill was being considered, i thought it well to consult the solicitor of the Grand Trunk Railway in connection with the matter. I sent for him and we considered the point together. The conclusion to which we came was that this Bill gave to the government the right to exercise running powers over that portion of the Grand Trunk which extended from Montreal to Coteau and over the Canada Atlantic Railway and its branches from Coteau to Depot Harbour. I may say that, incidentally, my advice was that the Bill should be drafted in the way it is rather than have the measure appear as a clause in the Canada Atlantic Railwav Company's Act. This Bill gives the govern-Mr. EMMERSON".
pent power, which it may only exercise in the dim and distant future, there is no immediate connection between the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Intercolonial which must run over the Grand Trunk from Montreal to Coteau Junction. I am old enough now in the profession to be willing to see an error, if there is one. in anything I ah) connected with. Edit; I'may explain that the object was to provide that the government should have running powers, and that those powers should not be exercised until two things had been settled by the Railway Commission. The first of these to be determined would be the terms and conditions under which this power should be exercised ; and, after the terms and conditions are settled the second would be to fix the compensation-because it is clear that the compensation must depend upon the conditions under which the power is exercised. That was the object, and this provision. it seems to me will carry out that object. I entertained no doubt about it, until some doubt was suggested by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). If there is any doubt, it is our duty to make the thing absolutely clear.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has said. Two points occur to me. The first is that the mere creation of an easement which may or may not be exercised, would afford ground for compensation. For instance, if a right of way is created which may never be exercised, but which the party is free to exercise if he chooses, that may be a subject for compensation. True, that compensation might be small. The second point is that if you enact legislation of this character, and if the view which the Minister of Justice has suggested be the correct view, would it not almost necessarily follow, that the Grand Trunk Railway company, owning property which is subjected or might be subjected to the easement, would have the right to go to the Railway Commission to have the terms settled and the compensation fixed ? There might be that view of the situation. That is to say, the courts, it seems to me. would refrain from putting the Grand Trunk Railway in the position of having a right created against it in the shape of an easement so that its property would remain subject to that right for an indefinite period in the future without giving the company the right to have compensation or without giving the company the right of its own initiative to have the terms and conditions settled and the matter closed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: To settle the terms and conditions, it would be necessary to know the extent of the user which the government may make. That is a preliminary step. To settle the terms and conditions of the user to lie made, you would need to know what the dominant party, as we call

It under our civil law, is going to do. In this case, the dominant party is the government, and we would need to know whether the government is going to exercise the right it undoubtedly will have if this Bill passes. No doubt my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has considered the matter. I cannot, on the spur of the moment, suggest the wording to meet his view. But. if I have correctly stated his position, I will make it clear.
on the Grand Trunk Railway, and, on the Canada Atlantic down to Howick Junction and thence by Grand Trunk Railway to St. Lambert. In the latter case the freight would go on straight by the Intercolonial without passing by the city of Montreal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will consider the suggestion. Of course, the section is allowed to stand.


John Graham Haggart: This section 2 reads :


Robert Laird Borden: I simply suggest that it is a thing capable of being made clear and that it ought to be made clear.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I agree.


Mr. B. L. BORDEN.: Of course, we may give our considered opinion here in the House, but after all we cannot thresh out these matters as thoroughly and closely as they would be threshed out in the courts if the matter should come up for adjudication.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We do not want to get into the courts anyway.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEiN : No. But I would consider the matter sufficiently important and sufficiently doubtful to justify the government in making an amendment of this clause.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Clause 1 stands.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) is agreeable.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In view of the opinion of the keeper of my law conscience, I will certainly defer. If he thinks the clause should stand, I am quite agreeable.
On section 2-running powers defined,


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I was not here when the discussion on this Bill commenced. I understand that clause 1 stands. But I would like to make a suggestion to the government relating to that section. If I understand the matter, the object of the government in obtaining running powers for the Intercolonial over the Canada Atlantic Railway to Depot Harbour would relate principally to freight traffic. The Canada Atlantic Railway, as we all know, crosses the St. Lawrence, at Coteau. I would suggest, that, instead of only obtaining running powers from Montreal to Coteau and thence to Depot Harbour, it would be well to obtain running powers from Coteau on the Canada Atlantic Railway to Howick Junction in Chateauguay, thence by Grand Trunk Railway to St. Lambert. This will be a shorter distance for traffic, and also it would serve at least three counties in which there is a good deal of traffic

Beauharnois, Chateauguay and La Prairie. As the clause has been allowed to stand I would throw out the suggestion for consideration, whether we could not take these running powers over the two lines from Montreal to Coteau
Such running powers shall consist of the right, perpetuity or for such period or periods from time to time as the Governor in Council determines.
And so on. What does the government intend to do-take it in perpetuity ? Or are they going to exercise the option for such times as the Governor in Council from time to time decides ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The right would be to take it in perpetuity. But when the moment arrives when it shall be determined as to the question of the exercise of the right, it is at the option of the Governor in Council for that time to decide as to whether it should be in perpetuity or whether it should be for a shorter period or series of periods.


John Graham Haggart: Then the Governor in Council decides it. As I understand, the Governor in Council can decide whether they take it in perpetuity or for a -short time. If they exercise it for a short time, they cannot have power to exercise it for another time under the Act.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think they could. I think they could exercise it for a short time, and if, at the end of that period, they wanted to extend the time, I think they could do so. The Act says ' or for such -period or periods from time to time as the Governor in Council determine.' As the Governor in Council determines from time to time, I think would be a reasonable rendering.


Robert Laird Borden: What about the practical working out of this arrangement as regards, for instance, the running of trains over the line from Montreal to Parry Sound ? Will you not have practically to operate the line, to create divisions of the train crews, and so forth ? How will it work out as a matter of practical operation of this railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would have to be determined at the time. It could be worked out in the way we worked out the running of the Canadian Pacific Railway trains on the Intercolonial ; that would be one method of doing it. It could be done in the same way as we have the right to run our trains over the portion of the Grand Trunk between Ste. Rosalie and -the terminal at Montreal, as we now operate that section.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a much longer section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not tliink the question is affected by the length of the line. Our men take charge of the trains that *come off the Drummond section at Ste. Rosalie, they continue on those trains, but those trains are subject to the despatch and control of the Grand Trunk. Our train hands have to take their orders from the despatches of the Grand Trunk Railway. We are running over their track, we are subject to their direction.


John Graham Haggart: Oif course, it must be operated by the owning company.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So with respect to the line between Hamilton and Toronto-the Grand Trunk, I think, own the line and the Canadian Pacific Railway have running rights over it.


John Graham Haggart: Under that arrangement the minister made provision as to the amount we will have to pay to the officials along the line of the road each year for the user. It was paid according to the user on a train basis. You paid your contribution for terminal facilities for the use of the line to the officials along the line of the road. There is no provision for anything of that kind here.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think this could be determined by the Railway Commission. They can put the compensation in any form their judgment suggests, that is under clause 5. It need not necessarily be a lump sum. It can be put in any form, as long as there is a consideration given. I think their powers are ample in that respect.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 4,


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I always understood that the Intercolonial Railway did not come under the control of the Railway Commission. As a matter of fact would not this section give the Railway Commission control over the Intercolonial Railway to the extent that the Intercolonial Railway has running powers over this line ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the first reading of this Bill I explained this clause. It would not be fair to the other railways running west of Montreal that they should be obliged to have their tariffs determined by the Railway Commission, while the Intercolonial Railway could use these very same tracks and adjust their tariffs at their own sweet will. While I objected to the freight tariffs of the Intercolonial Railway proper east of Montreal being subject to the Railway Commission, I felt that in the common interest it was only just that the rates west of Montreal should be approved by


Robert Laird Borden: the Railway Commission as in the case of other railways.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the practise on the joint section between Ste. Rosalie and Montreal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My impression is that we have no local freights between Ste. Rosalie and the Montreal terminals.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I presume that if there is any freight taken by the Intercolonial Railway there, it would be through freight ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, and we do not submit our through freight rates to the commission.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But you would carry through freight from Depot Harbour to the maritime ports ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: ,It would be under the commission only so far as that portion of it west of Montreal is concerned.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: But you purpose doing a through freight business ?


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand the minister to mean that the railway companies may make a joint tariff arrangement between themselves, and against the Intercolonial Railway as one of the railways affected, which does not need to submit its rates to the Railway Commission ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The companies can admit a joint tariff but it is subject to the approval of the Railway Commission. The leader of the opposition stated on a former occasion that the Intercolonial Railway, in proposing to do a through business should be subject to the same authority as the other railways are with respect to the through business west of Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think I said exactly that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is my impression.	.


Robert Laird Borden: If I remember correctly, I said that it seemed very anamalous that the Intercolonial Railway carrying through freight from the Georgian bay to the maritime ports should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission in respect to a portion of the distance and not in respect: to another portion of the distance. I did not see exactly how it could be worked out, because it seemed to me that the Railway Commission in determining a through rate must have regard to that portion ' of the line which is excluded from the provisions of the Railway Act. I confess that I do not yet see exactly how it can be worked out.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We propose to do a through freight business and a through and

local passenger business. It is proposed that the tariffs west of Montreal shall be subject to the Railway Board in order that there may be uniformity, and in order that the government railways should not be in a different position from the other railways. This would seem to be just and equitable when we are carrying freight over a railway belonging to a company which is under the Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: Then the commission would have jurisdiction from Georgian bay to Montreal on the freight that is carried on the Intercolonial Railway. That would be determined by the local rate, but the other railways would have the right to make a through rate and the Intercolonial Railway will not under this arrangement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That through rate is subject to the supervision of the Railway Commission.


John Graham Haggart: The through rate on the Intercolonial Railway is subject to the supervision of the Railway Commission ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It certainly is under the Railway Act.


John Graham Haggart: Not at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Surely my hon. friend will not dispute that ?


John Graham Haggart: The Railway Commission has no jurisdiction at all over the rates on the Intercolonial Railway. Where do you give them jurisdiction over the through rates from the Georgian bay to' St. John or Halifax ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Let me explain. We are not allowed to do any local freight traffic on the leased line. Section 3 says :
In exercising any such running powers the minister shall have the power to do a through freight and passenger business and a local passenger business.
We have not power to do a local freight business. Section 4 says :
The minister shall submit tariffs of the tolls to be charged for the carriage of traffic upon the said line and track to which said running powers extend, to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
The tariff so submitted must of necessity be a through tariff because the Intercolonial Railway can do no local freight business on the leased lines. The Intercolonial Railway would be compelled to file its tariff on that section with the Railway Commission just the same as the other companies.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Let me understand the matter. Take a freight train of the Grand Trunk Railway, starting from Depot Harbour for St. John or Halifax and passing over the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Intercolonial Railway, would the freight on that train be subject to the Railway Commission for the entire journey, although it would be running for the greater part of the way on the Intercolonial Railway which is not subject to the Railway Commission. Is that what I am to understand ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They could not do a local freight business on the Intercolonial Railway.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Whether it be through traffic or local traffic, it would be subject to the Railway Commission upon the Intercolonial Railway, a railway which is not under the Railway Commission. It might be a difficult thing to fix rates under such conditions.


Albert Edward Kemp: Will the Minister of Railways explain what ' through ' and ' local ' traffic mean ? Does the minister bold that local traffic means freight gathered on the lines between Depot Harbour and Montreal and destined for points in the maritime provinces? Can the Intercolonial Railway gather freight on the Canada Atlantic Railway fines between Depot Harbour and Co-teau or on the Grand Trunk Railway lines between Coteau and Montreal for points on the Intercolonial Railway in the maritime provinces, and would that be considered through traffic ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is my understanding of the term ' through traffic.'


Albert Edward Kemp: I understand from the discussion that through traffic meant traffic from the lakes to points in the maritime provinces, but I am now told that through traffic also means traffic originating at various stations on the Canada Atlantic and destined for Intercolonial Railway points in the maritime provinces.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is my understanding of through traffic.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Local traffic is the traffic from one station to another.


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the leased lines that is local traffic.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say the Intercolonial Railway can gather up freight where they have running rights on the Grand Trunk Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For points on its own line east of Montreal, but it could not take traffic along the leased lines or the operated lines to Montreal or to any intervening points.


Albert Edward Kemp: Do I understand the word ' traffic ' in clause 4 includes passenger as well as freight traffic ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: Well then if ' traffic ' in clause 4 means only freight traffic then

the Kailway Commission has no control over passenger rates. Is that what that clause means ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, it is only as to freight.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then the Board of Railway Commissioners will have no control over the passenger rates to be charged ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: Why is that not included ? In clause 3 it refers to passenger and freight business but in clause 4 the minister says that the word ' traffic ' only relates to freight traffic and not to passenger traffic and that the Board of Railway Commissioners will have no control over passenger traffic. I do not understand why the discrimination is made.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That certainly is the case as I remember. 1 do not see the same necessity for bringing the passenger traffic under the supervision of the Railway Commission.


Albert Edward Kemp: Why ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well for the reason that passenger traffic is not so much a subject of revision by the Railway Board. That is governed more by usage. Take for instance the passenger rate between St. John and Montreal. Necessarily that rate is governed by the shortest route, that is to say, the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have to take passengers from St. John who are destined for Montreal to Moncton by the Intercolonial Railway around up to Levis, and on to Montreal, and that passenger rate is governed by the passenger rate of the Canadian Pacific Railway from St. John direct through Maine to Montreal.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The charge is the same although the distance is longer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The rates are identical and that is a recognized principle that the short haul governs the longer.


Albert Edward Kemp: The point I wanted to make is this. On the present Intercolonial Railway there are some advantages which the Intercolonial Railway gives to passengers which the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway do not give. The rates per mile are higher on the Canada Atlantic Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway than they are on the Intercolonial Railway for certain classes of passenger traffic. According to the reasoning of the Minister of Railways if this Bill came into effect, if the bargain was made, the Intercolonial would be fully justified in adopting the same schedule on the 'Canada Atlantic Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway which is leased as they do on the Intercolonial Railway at present, thereby reducing the passenger tolls if they saw' fit and the Board of Railway Commissioners could not interfere with such a movement as that.


Albert Edward Kemp: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is the way it stands.
'Mr. BARKER. I perhaps misunderstood something the minister said. I understood him to say that the leased line traffic would be local traffic. Is that what the minister said 1 Does he mean by that that there is no local traffic except the traffic of the leased line ? Take traffic arising on the leased line of the Canada Atlantic Railway from some middle point to another middle point, what is that ? That is local traffic.


Henry Robert Emmerson: For any middle point where-


Mr. BARKER.: I am not talking of traffic going to St. John, take traffic going from some point on the Canada Atlantic to another point on the Canada Atlantic not to the termini, but to any intermediate point, never touching a leased line at all. Is that not local traffic ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: When I say a ' leased line ' I mean a line over which we would acquire running rights. We call that local traffic. That is to say we could not take traffic at any point along the present system of the Canada Atlantic or the Grand Trunk between Coteau and the terminal at Montreal ; we could not engage in that freight traffic. That is what is called local freight traffic ; that is what I would term local freight traffic.
Mr. BARKER, The hon. gentleman uses the words ' leased lines.' What did he refer to when he used that expression ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was referring to' lines over which we had running rights as distinguished from the line of the Intercolonial Railway as owned and controlled by it. Properly speaking of course, it is a misnomer because there is a portion of the line from Ste. Rosalie to Montreal which is a leased line properly so called, but I do not wish to be understood as including that in the term. It was not an expression taken from the Bill here ; a more correct expression would have been ' those lines over which we had running rights,' the running rights included in and given by this Bill.


Samuel Barker: That is on portions of the Canada Atlantic.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And a portion of the Grand Trunk as far as Montreal.


Samuel Barker: You are not dealing with purely local traffic upon either of those lines if it is freight traffic but you are dealing with it if it is passenger traffic ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: And you' are dealing with all through traffic whether passenger or freight ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If you are carrying passengers from Depot Harbour down to St. John or Halifax that does not fail under this Bill. If the privilege enjoyed by the Intercolonial Railway of not coming under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission applies here, you could for instance carry passengers a great deal cheaper than the Grand Trunk Railway would and I think in that way you could take away the passengers from the other lines. What would prevent you from doing that ? The hon. gentleman would have the right to do so if he chose.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I grant that, just as there is nothing to prevent us to-day from carrying passengers from Montreal to St. John for one-half the Canadian Pacific Railway rate.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Except that the deficit might be much larger.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We might have a great influx of passengers.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: On the other hand, on the part I am talking of it would not be the same thing at all; even carrying passengers much cheaper might be good business.


John Graham Haggart: The a trouble about this Bill is that you give the Railway Commission jurisdiction over what you say are through rates, but by the Railway Act they have no jurisdiction over the Intercolonial Railway at all. Then the only jurisdiction they have is from Georgian bay to Montreal. Would the Railway Commission fix a different rate, having no jurisdiction over the Intercolonial Railway than what they would allow to the Canada Atlantic or the Grand Trunk ? In other words, not having jurisdiction over the Intercolonial Railway they could only fix the rate from Georgian bay to Montreal as they would fix it for the Grand Trunk Railway. In that case you would be terribly handicapped because the Grand Trunk Railway may have a through rate a great deal lower than what you would have on the Intercolonial Railway. For this reason the rate from Georgian bay to Montreal would be the same rate as would be attached to the Grand Trunk Railway. Not having jurisdiction over the Intercolonial Railway, the Railway Commission need not take that into consideration at all in fixing through rates. Then what would the commission have to decide upon ? They would only have the fixing of the rates between Georgian bay and Montreal, and they make them the same as over the Grand Trunk Railway. But the Grand Trunk Railway may have a through rate to St. John which is a great deal lower than from Georgian bay to Montreal. If the Railway Commission should take that into consideration, then they have the right to take into consideration what are the rates on the Intercolonial Railway in fixing the rate from Montreal to 196
Georgian bay, if they are to fix a through rate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I fear that we do not understand each other. At present the Intercolonial Railway ends at Montreal and its rates are not subject to the determination of the Railway Commission. If this Bill should become law and the powers given by it be put into execution, the Intercolonial Railway would then have running rights clear through to Depot Harbour. Now the Bill as proposed makes it necessary for the Railway Commission to determine the through freight rates, that is the freight rates for any traffic originating on the Intercolonial Railway and going to any point along the line over which we had acquired running rights. Or if we, in the exercise of our running rights, gather up freight on the Canada Atlantic system destined for a point in the maritime provinces along our own line, we could not arbitrarily fix a through rate to those points. Although we have the power to fix our local rates as between points on our own original line, we could not fix through rates which would be subject to the determination and judgment of the Railway Commission, without at the same time fixing through rates for the Grand Trunk Railway and also for the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is presumed that the same principle which now applies and fixing those through rates would be applied under those circumstances and that there would be uniformity. It is required now that the freight tariffs shall all be filed at a certain date, whether local freight or general freight. All tariffs must be filed at a certain date. If the commission takes no action with respect to those freight tariffs thus filed, the railways are entitled to collect the rates fixed by them. But if the commission decide that these tariffs need to be revised, they would necessarily frame a uniform tariff applicable to all railways.


John Graham Haggart: "Where do you give the commissioners the right to fix a through traffic from Georgian bay to St. John or Halifax or any point on the Intercolonial Railway ?
Mi-. EMMERSON. In the Railway Act there is such a power. Every railway running from Georgian bay or any other point in the west is compelled to file its tariff on a certain day each year or at certain stated intervals, and that through rate-I do not care what it may be-is subject to the revision of the Railway Commission.


John Graham Haggart: If it passes over the Intercolonial Railway, the Railway Commission will have no jurisdiction.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We propose by this Bill to make it subject to that jurisdiction.


John Graham Haggart: Under what clause ?
Mi-. EMMERSON. , By the fourth section of this Bill we are obliged to submit tariffs of the tolls to be charged for the carriage



of traffic upon tlie side lines and tracks to which such running powers extend.


John Graham Haggart: That is not the Intercolonial Railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It must be because we are not allowed to carry local traffic over those lines. Therefore the traffic, with respect to which we must submit a tariff, is traffic that extends over the Intercolonial Eailway.


John Graham Haggart: It is confined entirely to the said lines and tracks to which such running powers extend.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: No doubt the Railway Commission has no control over the Intercolonial Railway freights purely aud simply ; but are we to understand that if a through freight rate is made between any other road and the Intercolonial Railway, the commission then has control over the Intercolonial Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The commission has control over the rates of traffic which would be gathered on these lines and be carried over the Intercolonial to any point on it.


John Graham Haggart: Why do you not say so ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: What other meaning can you get from that fourth section if you consider it in connection with the third section ? Under the third section the minister, in the exercise of such running powers, shall have the power to do a through freight and ] atscnger business and a local passenger business. He is not given the power to do a 'oca' freight traffic over those lines, and therefore any tariff he would submit could not relate to rates on local traffic over those lines.


Samuel Barker: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: Excuse me. The Intercolonial can only carry the traffic to a point on the Intercolonial, and that must include the carriage of traffic over these through lines ; and, in so far as the whole traffic is concerned, the board must determine as to the tariff. That is to say, the board can regulate the tolls to be charged and collected originating on these lines and carried by the Intercolonial over these lines to Montreal and to any point on the Intercolonial.


Samuel Barker: It does not say so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The section before us refers only to lines over which running rights are acquired, and does not speak of the Intercolonial at all. As the minister says, they will not carry any local freight, he must intend this to refer to through freight. It means, I imagine, grain coming from Depot Harbour


Henry Robert Emmerson: We will not refuse anything.
Mr. BERGERON-and going to St. John.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Halifax as well, or Sydney.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Of course, the Grand Trunk Railway will carry grain from the same place, and so will any line that has running powers over the Grand Trunk Railway. What will happen if inducements are given toy the Grand Trunk Railway in the way of cheaper rates, to send the traffic to Portland ? What is taken into consideration hy the commission in fixing the rates ? Is it the distance ? If it is, the Intercolonial from Montreal to St. John would be at a disadvantage. According to this clause there is nothing to say what rates should be charged on the Intercolonial.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the clause, as it reads, covers what the minister (Mr. Emimerson) holds it covers. The expressions ' through and freight and passenger business ' and ' local passenger business ' in clause 3, apply to the lines of the Grand Trunk Railway from Montreal to Georgian bay, and ' through freight ' means the carriage of freight from Georgian bay to Montreal, I should think. That is the only interpretation that could be given to section 4. Now, how is this to be worked out in practice? The Intercolonial is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission so far as its lines east of Montreal are concerned. The Intercolonial, operating this line from Montreal to Georgian bay, wiil be subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission so far as concerns the tolls in respect of the business it is authorized to do. The minister has in his mind through freight from Georgian bay to maritime province ports.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not necessarily maritime province ports, but any points on the Intercolonial.


Robert Laird Borden: They are all in the same category, I used that expression merely toy way of illustration. If you propose to create a through rate from Georgian bay to St. John or Halifax-which again I use by way of illustration-you may probably go to the Railway Commission to fix the proportion of the rate which shall be charged from Georgian bay to Montreal over this line. But, so far as the remainder of the freight rate is concerned, that part which is to be charged by the Intercolonial

in respect of its lines east of Montreal, the Railway Commission surely will .have no jurisdiction under this Act or under the Railway Act. But you may, in the end, establish a through rate by adding these two together, the result being that, so far as one part of the rate is concerned, the Railway Commission has nothing to do with it; and, so far as the other portion is concerned, the Railway Commission may perhaps exercise control over it. That, it seems to me, is the only result you can get out of this Bill from the standpoint of the government.


Samuel Hughes: There seems to be a little doubt even in the mind of the minister himself, and there is very decided doubt on the part of members on this side, as to the proper interpretation of this section. 1 would like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmenson) if they consulted as to this interpretation ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The terms used here are technical terms ; and I consulted with the general manager of the Intercolonial, the general traffic manager of the Intercolonial and the deputy minister and chief engineer.


Samuel Hughes: Not with the Minister of Justice ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Bill was submitted to the Minister of Justice. While I recognize the Minister of Justice as a very eminent authority in matters of law, he is not considered an authority on the technical terms used on railways. I consulted the experts who were available to me-Mr. Pot-tinger, Mr. Tiffin and Mr. Sehreiber.


Albert Edward Kemp: Perhaps we could get at this better by illustrating it in another way. The Bill is passed in view of a bargain with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canada Atlantic Railway to give business to the Intercolonial and to direct business to St. John, Halifax and other maritime province ports. The Minister of Railways tells us that the through rates from Depot Harbour to St. John or Halifax will be controlled by the Railway Commission. At Depot Harbour traffic will be delivered to the Intercolonial in the shape of grain from Duluth, Fort Arthur and Fort William ; and the minister says that, so far as concerns the freights to the sea-board over the Intercolonial, that traffic will be governed by the Board of Railway Commissioners. I would point out to the minister that the Grand Trunk Railway, owing to their arrangements for the handling of through traffic, are not wholly controlled by the Board of Commissioners. If the board settled upon a rate of freight from Depot Harbour to St. John or Halifax, immediately after it was settled and when the Intercolonial could not reduce its rate the Grand Trunk Railway would be at liberty in re-1964
spect of its through freight, which goes by way of Sarnia to Portland, to make a slightly lower rate and get the business.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They cannot do that.


Albert Edward Kemp: They could do it under the clause made by the minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My interpretation was entirely different.


Albert Edward Kemp: Will the hon. minister dispute what I say ? He admits that the rates from Depot Harbour, on the freight to which I have referred, are to be controlled by the Railway Commission. I submit that the through freight rate by Sarnia and Portland is not controlled by the Railway Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is where I take issue with my hon. friend. I say where there are two railways passing through Canada the tariff must be subject to the Railway Commission, and any discrimination that is found to exist as respects its through rates in comparison with Canadian rates can be revised and can be controlled by the Railway Commission. There are two or three clauses in the Act enabling the Railway Commission to control that very matter.


Albert Edward Kemp: I never heard of it. I do not believe the Grand Trunk Railway ever considered the Board of Railway Commissioners with respect to its through traffic to American points.
Mr. EMME{RSON. Then they are not conforming to the law.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not think there is, anything in the Railway Act in respect to traffic originating in the United States for shipment through Canada to Portland, giving the Board of Railway Commissioners any control over it whatever. But they will have control over the same kind of traffic that the Intercolonial propose to take, under this law.


John Graham Haggart: Section 209 seems to give all the control that is required over traffic that comes from a foreign country passing through Canada into a foreign country, by compelling them to file the tai'iff.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And if they do not conform to it in a case of that kind, they can be made to pay duty.


John Graham Haggart: But there is no control of the kind over the rates. They file the tariff with the Railway Commission, but there is no control by the commission.


Hon.  H. R.@: ,L. BORDEN. I think the minister is mistaken about that, I think that only implies where traffic originates in Canada and is carried through Canada to foreign points. il do not see that we could control a foreign corporation



GJ.59 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
operating a railway in the United States which happens to make connection with the railway of a Canadian company. We might attempt to do it hy some similar provision to that whieh has been made available in the case of traffic originating in Canada and going through a foreign country into Canada.
Henry Robert Emmerson: When it reached (Sarnia, for instance, what would we do ?


Robert Laird Borden: You might apply the same principle, and say that freight originating in a foreign country and coming into Canada, which was brought into Canada by a railway not conforming to tbe regulation of the board, should pay fifty per cent more customs duty, or something of that kind. But you have not done that, you have no penalty or means of enforcing any control over a foreign company which takes traffic in the United States for the purpose of bringing it into (Canada. My hon. friend says they may be obliged to file a tariff, but there is no means of enforcing any regulations made by the hoard in respect of that tariff, so far as I have been able to examine the provisions of the statute. There is of course a provision to which the minister has called attention with regard to traffic originating in Canada, brought through a foreign country and delivered, at its destination in Canada-there you have the provision that customs duties will be charged upon it unless the company or the companies conform to the regulations of the board.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When it is only one company like the Grand Trunk coming from the States and passing through Canada into the States, what will he the effect 7


Henry Robert Emmerson: In that case there are two companies, one an American company operating in Michigan and the other a Canadian company.


Samuel Hughes: That point was up a few days ago, and that was the interpretation that the minister and the government placed upon it, namely, that the .Grand Trunk, although it runs from Chicago to Portland, was virtually two companies, if not three, one in the western end, .one in Canada and one at (the Portland end. Therefore it comes under this clause 233 of the statute.


Henry Robert Emmerson: [I will read section 273 so that the members of the committee may have it in their minds :
Joint tariffs shall, as to the filing and publication thereof, be subject to the same provisions in this Act as are applicable to the filing and publication of local tariffs of a similar description ; and upon any such joint tariff being so duly filed with the board, the company or companies shall, until such tariff is disallowed by the board, charge the toll or tolls specified therein ; provided that the board may except from the provisions of this section the filing


Robert Laird Borden: and publication of any or all passenger tariffs of foreign railway companies.
Now the second clause of this section is the one that is pertinent to this question :
2. The board may require to he informed by the company of the proportion of the toll or tolls, in any joint tariff filed which it or any other company, whether Canad'an or foreign, is to receive or has received.
They can regulate and control in accordance wlith that.


Albert Edward Kemp: That does not cover the '*point we are trying to make. The board requires them to file these tariffs and requires them to make public what they charge for the haul through Canada. But this does not compel them to charge any more or less (than, the rate they make them-iselves.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The board would then have power to .disallow their tariff.


Albert Edward Kemp: But (section 269, I take it, covers what we are discussing, and that is the only section that refers to the question before the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: What I mean is this :	The subsection to 'which the hon.
gentleman has referred does not give the slightest control to the board over a foreign corporation. Suppose you are bringing goods from (Chicago to Ottawa. The ;Rail-way Commission declares that the proportion charged by the foreign country shall be seven cents and tbe proportion' charged by the Canadian company shall be eight cents, the total rate being fifteen cents. Suppose .the foreign company says, We won't do anything of the kind, we will charge ten cents-what is the Railway Commission going to do about it 7 Under the present provision they cannot do anything. Even if they could do anything, about it under section 2, that would not affect the 'Intercolonial, because that is a railway owned by the Crotwn. The Crown is not affected by any act unless it is specially mentioned. In addition, there is an express provision in the Railway Act that none of its provisions shall relate to the Intercolonial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are provisions a!s respects discrimination in favour of American ports.


Andrew B. Ingram: Since confusion has arisen between the minister and hon. gentlemen on this side, I am bound to say I do not understand it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hope you will settle it.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: I think my hon. friend is agreeing with me.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do really agree with the hon. minister in this case and I may be wrong. I am in the minority and minorities rule just now ; therefore I am willing to rest my case with the minority.
On section 5,
The terms and conditions, and the payment or compensation, upon, for or subject to which the said running powers may he so exercised shall, subject to this Act, be determined by the Board of Railway -Commissioners for Canada upon the application of the minister in accordance with the rules of procedure of the said board, subject to the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mr. BARKER, I would like to call the hon. minister's attention to what he is going to pay for. The right he is taking is to run through freight, through passengers and do a local passenger business. It is quite possible that he may find it contrary to his best interests to do a through passenger business or a local paseuger business, but. as this clause is drawn, he will have to pay for that right or privilege whether- he afterwards chooses to exercise it or not. He will have to pay for the right. I think that a railway company would take the option to exercise al'l or any of these rights, and agree to pay for whatever portion of the rights * they should from time to time exercise.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The very definition of the word ' compensation ' refutes the argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Barker). When it is determined that this right may be exercised the minister may make application to the board setting forth the powers which he would, in the interest of the railway, require to be exercised. Upon that statement the board of Railway Commissioners would determine and decide what the compensation should be. Compensation for what ? Not for all the possible rights which the minister might exercise under (this amendment, but simply compensation for the rights which he asks to be exercised. If there were no passenger business done then certainly the board would not take into consideration compensation for the permission to do a passenger business. It is only to the extent that the powers
given by this Act would be exercised that compensation would be determined. That is my rendering of the meaning of the section and it seems to me that it would be a very strained interpretation indeed that would give it any other meaning.


John Graham Haggart: When the point was up for discussion some time ago the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) made a promise to the House in regard to how far the country would be bound in reference to this question. The clause seems wide enough to give the power to the board of Railway Commissioners or the Supreme Court to fix the value which might be paid in a lump sum or an annual allowance just the same as they do with the Grand Trunk Railway Co-pany for the user to-day. On the basis of a joint ownership they fix the amount paid for the right of user by both railways. But this goes a great deal further. It gives to the board the power to fix the compensation. How would you arrive at the compensation for the right of the user of that railway the extent of which is to be determined by the minister in future 1 The only fan- way to do it in the interest of the country is to agree to a payment of so much per mile for each car running upon the road. There should be no compensation in the shape of a payment for the property itself. The compensation should be fixed in the same way as was done in reference to the user of the Grand Trunk Railway bridge and terminal facilities at Montreal. If you give this wide power to the Board of Railway Commissioners or the Supreme Court to determine the value, they will do as is done in every other case where there is a joint user by different railways. A joint user means common ownership. If you have common ownership then you have to pay jointly half and half, as we do in reference to the terminal facilities and the bridge at Montreal. I understood from the right hon. leader of the government and from the hon. Minister of Justice that they would carefully guard against any payment of a lump sum or any annual allowance for the user of this road, and that it would be decided entirely on the basis of the use the Intercolonial made of the road or that they should pay for the use of this road on a mileage basis. This clause gives a greater power to the commissioners than that. I understood further that the compensation would be fixed on the same line and on the same basis as the Railway Act provides for one railway company using another railway company's property. This clause goes further.


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is the point in regard to which an objection was raised by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) previous to the adjour-rnent and I then said, of course, subject to the better information of my hon friend

the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson), that it would be well to see if we could not frame some amendment that would make the point absolutely clear. That would not affect this section that we are dealing with now, that would be an amendment which should be inserted in section 1 which was held over for that purpose. I understand-of course speaking offhand and without intending to commit the government in any way-that we are not paying for the option, but that we are merely taking the option and what we are to pay for is the use that we make of the option hereafter.


John Graham Haggart: Yes, but when you exercise that option the word ' compensation ' is broad enough to mean payment for joint ownership.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think we are all at one in regard to that point and that it might be made clear.
Mi-. HAGGART. By an amendment.


Samuel Barker: I would suggest also to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals that it would be proper in this fifth clause to provide for the fixing of the compensation for short periods, say, for five years. This is a very common practice amongst railway companies, because it is usually found that errors are made and if you fix the compensation for a longer period you might find that you have been paying as the result of a mistake.


Albert Edward Kemp: One of the reasons why I object to this kind of legislation is that we do not know what kind of a bargain will be made under it. It is a peculiar way of proceeding for the government not to bring down an absolute bargain which they have made and submit it to the House.
They evade that mode of procedure and they say that the Railway Commission will fix the compensation and make the bargain, and that if either party feels aggrieved he can appeal to the Supreme Court. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmerson) if he thinks the Grand Trunk or the Canadian Pacific Railway would be willing to make an agrees ment between themselves based upon legislation of this kind and submit it to the Board of Railway Commissioners or the Supreme Court to determine what compensation should be paid. Why is it that the government will not state in exact terms what compensation they wish to pay for this Privilege ? Why was it necessary to bring this Bill in upon which to base a bargain that will be decided by the Railway Commission or the Supreme Court. I imagine the country will get the worst of it in a matter of this kind. All sorts of evidence will be produced as to the cost of the roadbed and other facilities of the leased lines,


Charles Fitzpatrick: and from the experience we have had of the Drummond County agreement we ought be very careful. I think the Grand Trunk Railway got the better of that bargain ; it was more advantageous for the Grand Trunk Railway than for the people of Canada, and if a bargain is made under this legislation the country will get the worst of it too. I do not think this procedure is business-like ; I think the government ought to be competent to make a bargain irrespective of the Railway Commission or the Supreme Court.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am sure it is not because of any want of ability that my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) has failed to grasp the intention of this Bill. He says, that it is not good business to not have a bargain prepared by the government, and then he says, that the bargain made by the government some years ago in connection with another, railway was an improvident bargain, and that the government always gets the worst of it.


Albert Edward Kemp: Did you admit what I said to be true ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend is arguing both ways. The intention of this Bill is that we shall now reserve the right to exercise running powers, and I think that is a wise precaution. If it is deemed necessary in the public interest that we should take running powers then the question of the compensation shall be referred to an independent tribunal, and if the conditions imposed by that tribunal are unsatisfactory either party can take it to the Supreme Court. We all have confidence in our courts, especially in the highest court in Canada, and we need not feel any alarm as to what they may do.


Albert Edward Kemp: When I spoke of the Drummond County deal il had in my mind that this administration has been in power for several years since that bargain was made, and having had experience they might perhaps be better able to make a good bargain for the country in the future,


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend said that no matter what bargain was made the government always got the worst of it ; he took the pessimistic view that no matter what course we took we would be worsted.


Albert Edward Kemp: My remarks applied to the Drummond County Railway deal. This section 5 is very indefinite, and the interests of the country would be better guarded if we had the terms of the bargain before us.
Progress reported.


Robert Laird Borden: If the Minister of Justice concludes that any amendment is necessary to the first clause, would he be good enough to send a copy to us as my
hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) would like to see it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Certainly.
MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR *	GENERAL-SUPPLEMENTARY



ESTIMATES.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
Grey.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending 30th of June, 1905, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act of 1867, the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House.
Ottawa, lTith November, 1905.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the message of His Excellency together with the supplementary estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House went into Committee of Supply.
Experimental Farms, $100,000.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is the usual item.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Is that all the information we are going to get on this big item ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall be happy to give the hon. gentleman any explanation that is required.


David Henderson: It would seem that the Minister of Agriculture has adopted a new role. Formerly he gave a great deal of information, sometimes more than we thought necessary, but now he seems to think it sufficient to say that this $100,000 is for experimental farms. Where is the money to be spent ? The Minister of Agii culture might at least devote ten minutes to an explanation of this item.


Mr FISHER.: 
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would the minister give the amount received at each of the experimental farms ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The amounts received were as follows :	At Agassiz, $392.23 ; at Brandon, $873.57 ; at Indian Head, $502.27 ; at Nappan, $585.67; at Ottawa, $3,074.64, a total of $5,828.38.


Mr. BARR.: It is important for us to know the profit or loss on each experimental farm. I can understand where there is an agricultural college that there would be a deficiency, but where there are purely experimental farms we should know the deficiency on each farm.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course the receipts are comparatively nothing in comparison with the expenditure. The receipts are practically from sales of surplus and what is left over from the experimental work. I do not call it a deficiency ; it is the difference between the expenditure and the receipts. It is not a question of balance at all, because the expenditure has nothing whatever to do with the receipts in most cases.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it the intention of the department to establish and operate a farm in the Grimsby district or has that been considered ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That question has come up not infrequently. I have been asked from different sections of the country to establish other branch farms. The statute defines the number of branch farms and I would have to change the statute ; I have no authority to establish or to spend any money on any branch farms beyond the four that are already in operation. I have had a great many applications from different parts of Canada for additional branch farms, but I have never seen my way clear to acceding to those requests. A good deal the same argument might be applied in probably as many as fifteen or twenty different parts of Cana c as in any one part, and if I should once extend the system I think it would be likely we would have to extend it very considerably for the reason I have just mentioned. I therefore felt it would be a very serious new departure which I have not been ready to recommend. I take it for granted that in the near future a new farm will have to be established in one of the new provinces; in the west. The system as outlined in tne

commencement was that there should he one farm for the maritime provinces, one here in Ottawa for Ontario and Quebec, and one in each of the three divisions of the west, one in Manitoba, one in the Territories, and one in British Columbia. Now that the Territories are to be divided into two provinces I rather think that we will have to look forward to the establishment of a new farm in the province of Alberta, which would otherwise have no farm, and which certainly is large enough to justify the establishment of another branch farm. But that is a little different from the question of establishing such a station as my hon. friend alluded to in the Niagara peninsula. That would be of a different character, for a specific purpose, just as in many other eases I have been asked to establish branch stations for particular purposes in particular localities.


John Barr: Has the government taken into consideration the opening of a farm in the Temiscaming district ? We are told that there is in that country millions of acres of clay. There is no part of the Dominion so little known, and consequently no place where an experimental farm would be more desirable. We have reports that that clay belt is very productive and, on the other hand, we have contrary reports ; and I think it is very advisable that we should have exact information on the subject. No doubt it would be advantageous to have an experimental farm in the new provinces, [DOT]but there the nature of the soil and the climate is much better known than in New Ontario. Now that railways are going into that country, large numbers of immigrants will follow, and the government should be in a position to give these immigrants reliable information. That would save a great deal of difficulty in the future, should it turn out that the climate and soil of that clay belt are not what they are represented.
" e believe that there are greater possibilities m that country than anybody realizes, but these possibilities can never be tested until we have there a properly directed experimental farm. I hope the government will give this suggestion most careful consideration.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would urge on the minister the necessity of investigating more closely still, not only the Niagara district, but the western peninsula. They are seriously in need of an experimental station in one of those directions for the benefit of the fruit industry. My hon. friend realizes that the fruits and other perishable products amount to a very large sum in those districts, and the experimental farm at Ottawa is not very closely in touch with those dis-
Mr FISHER, if i were to undertake to establish a branch station of some kind in the Niagara peninsula, it would also be demanded that I should establish one in the western peninsula, and there are about Mr. FISHER.
twenty other places which have asked for similar stations. With regard to New Ontario, just as soon as we can obtain information to justify us in the selection of the site, 1 think we ought to take steps to establish some kind of branch farm in that country. I have had that in my mind, but we have hardly reached the point when that can be done satisfactorily this coming year. That country has been pretty well explored ; we know the character of the soil in a gene-lal way ; but until the location of the railway is absolutely fixed and we know where settlement is going, it would be a little premature to fix on any one poin t. Of course, if anything of that kind is done, there will have to be an additional vote. We could not carry on the present experimental farm efficiently and do extra work of that kind on the present vote. Very likely in the supplementary estimates for next year I may ask for a small amount which would enable me to take action with regard to that very matter, not only in the clay belt, but also in the northern parts of the country further west, and in the province of Quebec as well as Ontario. The new railway is going to open up a lot of new country. I believe that immigrants will pour into it during the construction of the railway, and there will be a great demand for agricultural products. If we can do anything which will help the settlers going in there, the money spent will be well spent. I have, however, not quite formulated any plan, but hope to be able to do so before the close of the session, to a certain extent, and it is possible that we might be able to extend stations to the older parts of the country, but that would mean a very considerable vote in addition for experimental purposes. Whether I could justify the asking such a vote, I am not yet in a position to say.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am very glad to hear the minister at last give reasonable consideration to the suggestion to establish another experimental farm. I would suggest that he might possibly establish experimental stations, which would not be so extensive or expensive as an experimental farm.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Any such stations would have to be on a small .scale and much more limited than an experimental farm. I would not consider myself justified in expending anything like $8,000 or $10,000 a year on such stations.


Mr. DANIEL.: I understand the department has been making experiments with regal'd to the introduction of fruit trees into Manitoba and the Northwest. Can the minister state whether the experiments so far induce him to expect that there will be some success attained in that line in the near future ? As I understand it, the kind of fruit so far attempted has been in the nature of the crab apple, and I would like to know

whether the hon. minister has had any other give hope, have not yet resulted in auy-kinds of fruits tried or not.	thing positive.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is quite right. We have been doing most excellent work with regard to hybridizing apples in the hope of .getting an apple tree that will produce a useful fruit and will Stand the climate of our Northwest. Professor Saunders, who is .an expert in these matters, takes as a basis what is known as the py-rus baccata, the wild Siberian crab, which is perfectly hardy in Siberia and in our Northwest, and has cross-fertilized that with pollen froim a large number of better apple trees, with the result that, while the pyrus baccata i.s about the size of a small cherry, we have produced from it apples as large as the largest cra'bs, as large as some of the small varieties of good .apples. These trees have been bearing for about four or five years in various places in the North-' west A number of them have been placed in the hands of people who wished to try them. This was about three years back and the trees have lived and borne fruit. The experiments are still going on. We hope to make further improvements .and ultimately to produce a fair-sized apple of good, fail" quality which will be absolutely hardy in our Northwest Territories. I need not explain how valuable an addition this will be to the resources of the settler there, perhaps not for export or anything of the kind, but for home use. Any apple that wall make jelly or jam, or that can be used in cooking will be of .the greatest value to the people there who are entirely dependent, for apples for cooking purposes, upon fruit brought from a long distance, and, therefore, pretty expensive. There is no doubt in my mind, nor, 1 may say, in Professor Saunders' mind that, in the near future we shall be able to distribute to the people of the Northwest a large number of trees which will bear a good, useful apple for ordinary household purposes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: 
Sydney Arthur Fisher: 'Not altogether. One parent is a good apple, though the other is the pyrus baccata. And then it is graded up by cross-fertilization. The product partakes to a certain extent of the character of the true apple, although it has also a part of the .quality of the crab. I would say that at page 8 of the Experimental Farms Report for 1904, there are illustrations showing the pyrus baccata and the apples that have been produced from it.


John Barr: Has the minister made experiments with any other fruit, such as plums ? If so, what have been the results?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have been working on the same lines with regard to plums and cherries. These experiments, while they


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. I would remind the minister of the petitions sent down from the west signed by the ex-Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the Northwest Territories and others pointing out the necessity of the establishment of an experimental farm in Central or Southern Alberta and showing how the farms at Brandon (and Indian Head fail to serve .that section of the country. I would point out to the minister that with a country of .the extent and with the variety of climate and soil of the Northwest Territories, ,it is impossible that all parts can be served by one experimental farm. In Southern Alberta we have a condition of soil and climate entirely different from that existing at Indian Head, where the farm is located. The petitions I have referred to were sent down last July, and at least some hope ,was held out .to the people that the matter would receive the early attention of the department. I might say that the petition was submitted to the minister .through the then representative of Alberta the present minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). In reply to the ex-Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the Northwest Territories, he .says :
Yours of July 20th to hand regarding the establishment of experimental farms [DOT]* ith copy of memorial inclosed. I am very pleased to forward my eijdorsation to the minister. .
.	. I regret to say that the reception which
the estimates of the Department of Agriculture has received at the hands of the opposition during this session is such as to discourage the minister from making any new proposals of expenditure.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Who wrote that ?


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. It is signed ' Frank Oliver.' Has there been any opposition to such an undertaking ? I think not. I should regret if .anything were to tit and ,in the way of the establishment of an experimental farm in that part of the country where it .is sc much needed. I would again urge upon the minister the necessity of an early investigation 'that he may ascertain for himself that it is impossible to serve that part of the country by the experimental farm at Indian Head.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is another evidence of what I said a few minutes ago to my hon. friend from Lamb ton (Mr. Armstrong). The portion of the Northwest Territories to which my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. M. iS. McCarthy) has referred has been asking for an experimental farm, just as the northern portion of Alberta and also the territory of Saskatchewan have been. I would not like to detain the House by going over all the different places that are asking for the same. As I have said, there are fifteen or twenty of them. It is hard to discriminate-the arguments in the case

of one are about as good in the ease of another.


Mr. HERRON.: 
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would not line to ask the minister to incur the great expense of establishing so many experimental farms as my hon. friend from Elgin (Mr. William Jadkson) has just suggested ; that is perhaps going a little too far. But if we had one in the western part of Ontario and another in the eastern part, dealing with the products that are raised in those districts, I am sure they would be vastly more beneficial to the people than a matter of $100,000. I think tile minister will find members on this side of the house ready to assist in passing estimates that will be of advantage to the farming industry of our country.


Andrew B. Ingram: At one of our meetings of our Agriculture Committee I advocated the distribution of grain in larger quantities so as to meet the idea expressed by mv bon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. William Jackson). I found that grain is distributed in such small quantities that the farmers do not think it worth while to experiment with it.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I find on page 487 of the Experimental Farm report that the minister is paying $3,377 in wages for taking care of cattle and stock, including the salary of the herdsman. That seems to be a large amount.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That includes the salary of the herdsman who has entire charge of the barns, an experienced and successful man. He gets this year, I think, $650. That includes the men who have charge of the barns, piggeries, sheep pens and horse stables.


Uriah Wilson: Can the hon. minister tell us bow many there are and the wages paid at the different places ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that these men get from $40 to $45 per month. I think there are six of them.


Uriah Wilson: May I ask the hon. minister to give us a statement of tfhe stock that is kept at the central and other experimental farms ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman will find at page 77 of the report of the Central Experimental Farm the live stock inventories. On the 30.th June, 1904, there were 19 horses, 79 cows, bulls and heifers, 22 steers, 66 sheep and 260 swine. On page 78 there is a istatement of the cost of labour in connection with the care of horses, cattle, sheep and swine, as follows :
herd, although we sometimes sell heifers, too. We sell the hulls to the farmers at prices which are generally well within the reach of the ordinary farmers of the district for the improvement of their stock. We also feed a certain number of steers every year at the Nappan farm.	1


John Barr: Do you purchase or raise these steers ?	,
Herdsman	
Two men at $480	
Three men at $432	
Extra help, teaming, &c..
$ 660 00 .	960	00. 1,296 00 .	461	40
3,377 40
In the report of the branch farms the same kind of information appears.


Uriah Wilson: Are the same kinds of experiments carried on at all the farms in reference to cattle ?


Mr FISHER.: Not altogether. At Agassiz there is very little stock yet and very little experimental work being carried on in regard to stock. That farm is chiefly devoted to experiments in fruit culture ; and while there is some stock kept, there is not a very large amount spent for that purpose. At Indian Head there is a certain amount ot stock kept, chiefly Shorthorns ; and at Brandon there are some dairy cattle and Shorthorns kept. At the Central Experimental Farm we have a large dairy, with thoroughbred and grade cows, and we raise young stock for the purpose of replenishing ,tlie herd.


Uriah Wilson: Perhaps the hon. minister, when he is telling us about the different farms, will tell us whether these cattle are kept for dairy purposes or for feeding, and will give us the particulars in regard to them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, I could go into the details of these experiments by looking up the report of each farm.


Uriah Wilson: Take up the one in Nova Scotia, for instance.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The farm in Nova Scotia is largely a dairy farm. At the same time we do feed some beef animals there every winter, but the farm is chiefly devoted to dairying.


Uriah Wilson: How many cattle have you ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: From 20 to 25 cows are milked there, and then we get some young stock to replace the animals ,in the dairy herd. In doing that, as some of these animals are thoroughbred, we also raise their bull calves and sell them for breeding purposes to the farmers of the province.


Uriah Wilson: When you get good stock, do you not raise the heifer calves, too ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes ; we raise the heifers for the purpose of replenishing our own


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a general rule, we buy them in the fall.


John Barr: Do you purchase these animals that you raise for breeding purposes ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A few years ago I went to England and bought quite a little importation. We have bought a few pigs and sheep since, but no cattle have been imported for four years. We made an importation of 27 head of thoroughbred animals at that time. We sometimes buy thoroughbreds in this country, although, as a general rule, we are able to keep our herds replenished. At Nap-pan and at the experimental farm here we have been increasing the number of thoroughbreds and decreasing the number ot grade stock. We have also bought a small herd of French Canadian cows to test them along with the others ; and, of course, we have bought these in the province of Quebec.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I notice that at the Central Experimental Farm $44,456.91 has been expended for wages and supplies. Are tenders asked for these supplies r


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No ; I do not think so. These supplies are small items, as a general rule, and we buy them on the market at the market price, whatever it may be.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I notice t]mt certain firms appear very frequently in the list.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We try to buy them from the best firms.


Mr BARR.: I notice in connection with each 'one of these farms a very large item for the services of veterinaries. Have you had much disease amongst these cattle For instance, here is the sum of $205 foi the Central Experimental Farm for drugs, Ac.


Mr FISHER.: I do not think that is a very large charge for 100 head of cattle and 2U horses.


Mr BARR.: If the farmers throughout the country paid at that rate for veterinary services and also for wages, they would find that they would be very much in debt at the end of the year.
Mr FISHER, That is one item, I am sorry' to say, most of the farmers do not pay. It is for -the testing of cattle. We test our cattle at the end of every year, and we have to pay a veterinary for doing it. This probably accounts for the greater part

of this expenditure at the Central Experimental Farm.


Uriah Wilson: I see an item of $4S0 for feed for stock. Was that raised on the farm and just credited ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At Nappan we did not raise nearly enough grain to feed the stock, and I am sorry to say that last year the hay and straw crop were short.


Uriah Wilson: How large is the farm ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have a considerable area of land, but not a large amount cultivated.


John Barr: Is it poor land ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Very poor land.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I thought you had marsh land there.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: I always understood the land was good round there.


Mr. P. H. McKENZIE.: Not always in time of failure. We frequently buy grain to feed our stock in addition to what we produce.
Mr. BARR, is that usual ?
,, P- M. McKENZIE. We find it profitable or we would not do it.


Uriah Wilson: The ordinary tanner tries to raise grain enough to feed his stock and sometimes he has more than enough for that purpose. I do not know where they would get money to buy feed if they could not raise it on their own farms.


Peter H. McKenzie: Some of the most successful farmers in the old country buy their stock and their feed too.


Uriah Wilson: That is not regular farming ; it is speculating.


Peter H. McKenzie: We farmers like to speculate a little too.


Uriah Wilson: I am sorry the hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane), is not here because this is a pan ticular hobby of his and he would be able to describe that kind of farming in better language than I can.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Our marsh land is very good but the other is poor.


Uriah Wilson: It is not a good example to farmers to keep more stock than you can feed from the land. That would be a poor experiment to follow.


Mr. DERBYSHIRE.: You have to have the animals there to show what they are like.


Uriah Wilson: It is not much use to have them if you cannot produce enough to feed them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hay crop all through Nova Scotia was very short last year.


Uriah Wilson: The ordinary farmer would make arrangements to produce a substitute if he thought the hav crop was likely to be short.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The ensilage and the root crop were also short.


John Barr: You bought $115 worth of fertilizers for the Brandon farm, is it usual for farmers to have to buy manure on a farm of that size ?
Mr. DERBYSHIRE, to get the best results.
Yes, if they want


Peter H. McKenzie: I may say that we farmers in Ontario often find we cannot glow enough feed for our stock and we find it piohtable to buy something in addition to what we grow.
Mr. URIAH WILSON, failure of the crops ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In time of the


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister explain what experiments are being carried on at these different farms ? Have we been branching out into new lines, and if so, what new lines ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you give data of all these in the report ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. We have our orchard experiments at the different farms and at Indian Head and some other farms we are experimenting with trees and shrubs, and with fruit specially in British Columbia. We have 6a acres of an arboretum at Ottawa in which we have practically every known Canadian tree or shrub that will grow in this climate. We have a variety of small fruits and vegetables in connection with the orchard. Mr. Saunders just reminds me that we have been studying very carefully for some time the inoculation of the soil and the seed of clovers. The growing of clover is one of the most crucial agricultural questions, and the successful growing of clover is I may say almost a basis of successful farming in most provinces. We have made careful investigation by the chemist as well as by the outside men on the farm as to what can be
.0377

done to improve clover culture, and lately we have been inoculating, as it is called, the soil and the seed and the results have ibeen on the whole very satisfactory. We have been experimenting also as to whether the crop succeeding a clover crop was better than a crop succeeding other crops than clover, or where other grasses were sown in the place of clover. These are very important experiments and the results have been very extraordinary, as I think I! might call them, and very much to the credit of the clover crop. In regard to fruits we are trying different varieties of apples, plums and cherries, but we do not try pears here ; we have not been successful with pears at Ottawa. At Nappan we have tried them as well as apples to a certain extent, and in British Columbia of course to a large extent. We try varieties of small fruit, strawberries, raspberries, black currants, &c., and we also try different methods of culture, the results of which are published in bulletins. We experiment a good deal with fruit at Nappan and Agassiz but very little at Brandon and Indian Head although there we are doing a good deal in the way of propagating hybrids which it is hoped will supply the Northwest with an apple good for household purposes.
I have been explaining what might be called the outdoor work. Apart from that we have the indoor experimental work in the way off feeding and dealing with animals. We have dairy cows here and at Nappan, a few at Brandon and very few at Indian Head, and just enough at Agassiz to supply the farm with milk, not really enough for experimental purposes at all. At Nappan, here and at Brandon and Indian Head we every year fatten some animals, experimenting with the different methods of fattening, different feeds and with animals of different ages. The most exhaustive of these experiments are carried on here because practically the feeding of an animal indoors is much the same wherever the feeding is done. When it comes to outdoor work it is a little different. The results of these experiments serve practically for live stock men all over the country to a great extent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in understanding that you are not carrying on any experimental work in regard to butter and cheese on the farm ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not as to the making of it. We are experimenting all the time in regard to the production of milk, but as far as the making of butter and cheese is concerned we make no experiments here at all. We make up the milk at the Central Experimental Farm into butter and the same is done at Nappan. At Brandon and Indian Head there is just enough to supply the farrp hands and people like that to whom it is sold, but there is not a dairy kept there for ordinary purposes, nor is there at Agassiz. Then of course we do experimental work in the fattening of pigs and sheep as well as cattle and also some experimental work here at Ottawa in regard to the feeding of farm horses so as to try and develop some method of feeding which will be more economical than the ordinary method of feeding farm horses on Canadian farms.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I would like to ask the minister how many years the present experimental farms have been in operation and whether it would not be possible to expend less money on some of these outlying stations and thereby be able to establish others without a very great deal of extra expense ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The farms have been established since 1886, about 17 years ; this is the 18th season I think. My hon. friend suggests that a good deal less money might be spent on these branch farms. The establishment of course was made years ago, and I have not seen my way at all clear to reduce it at any of the farms. The expenditure is increasing a little all the time owing to the increase in the rate of wages and increases of salary to men who have been a long time in the service. There has also been some little increase in the staff because we have been doing a little more work at each farm. We have also an immense amount of correspondence at all the branch farms as well as at the Central Farm which has to be handled and dealt with. The distribution of seed grain involves a very large expenditure which is constantly increasing. Then we have the sending out of the bulletins, &c., which costs a great deal and is constantly increasing.


Andrew B. Ingram: The circulation of the bulletins in connection with these experiments is very limited. I know I have had some inquiries about this and I drew the attention, I think, of Professor Shutt to this matter and got a copy of the experiment, but I think the bulletins ought to be circulated more freely and more fairly than they are.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have now a mailing list of over 60,000 and every bulletin is sent to 60,000 people the moment it is published and any farmer or any one else in the country who applies, has his name put on the mailing list perfectly freely, willingly and gladly.


Uriah Wilson: Is the evidence taken before the Agriculture Committee sent out on the mailing list ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, that evidence goes to the members of parliament and the department have nothing whatever to do with it, except that each officer who gives evidence is granted the favour of having 500 copies for his own personal distribution to his friends or anybody who applies.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot help feeling that since it is eighteen years since these

stations were established, and since they have not grown very materially in that time, the necessity of establishing new stations, at least small stations, in different parts of our country is certainly a matter that deserves the serious consideration of the hon. minister.


William Foster Cockshutt: I notice large amounts at the various farms are expended for the purchase of implements, tools, &c. I would like to know if these are bought by open competition or on what system the orders are placed. There is no information on that subject.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are placed on the judgment of the officers as to where they can get them best, as a general rule. Not infrequently, however, people send in implements and ask us to try them and then they send the bill afterwards and expect us to pay.
Mr. COCIvSHUTT. Are they always accepted in that way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If we use them we cannot very well refuse sometimes.


William Foster Cockshutt: If we send a few from Brantford, I hope they will be accepted in the same way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Send us good ones and we will use them.


Mr. BLAND.: Would the minister say whether the live stock on the government farm pays or not ? I would also like to know whether he proposes to experiment in the breeding of horses. Some time ago an imperial army officer was over here to see whether he could get in this country different classes of horses required for the British army, including horses for cavalry and artillery. For serviceable horses to suit the different branches he would pay from $125 to $150. At present we can breed light horses, but many of them do not come up to the standard required for fancy horses. When the South African war broke out this country was flooded with horses for which there was no demand, but we shipped them over to South Africa. If the government would establish a remount depot here and give the farmers an idea of the kind of horses to breed, and if the government would bring in sires for use by the farmers in improving their stock, that would be a benefit to the agricultural community all over the Dominion.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The breeding of military horses is a matter entirely outside the experimental farm. I am glad to know there are in Canada some officers seeing what they can do in the way of purchasing horses for the War Office, but that is a matter which could not be handled in connection with experimental farms. There are other ways in which it could be dealt with more satisfactorily. The hon. gentleman asked if the live Mr. ARMSTRONG.
stock of the farm paid. If he will look at page 78 of the report he will find a full statement. The central farm showed a profit of $1,060 last year. The year before it was a little higher.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you get at the increased value of animals in your account?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: An inventory is taken on the 1st July each year and the valuations are made by the superintendent, Mr. Drys-dale, who takes the market price.


David Henderson: Certain stock is kept for feeding purposes and others for breeding purposes. Is the hon. gentleman able to show that the keeping of stock in the farm can be done at a profit, leaving outside altogether the profits that may be made by importing and selling cattle for breeding purposes?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In general terms, without exception, we have bought steers in the fall, fed them through the winter, and sold them in the spring for more than they cost including cost of feed.


David Henderson: Has the hon. gentleman calculated the labour and then given credit for the manure?


Mr FISHER.: I am informed that a careful estimate has been made of the value of the manure, and an accurate account kept of the labour, and taking those into account the balance is still more in favour of the animals. In a rough way manure is considered to pay for the care, but an absolute careful account has been gone into and the result has been still better than when the rough way was taken.


Leonard Thomas Bland: Would it be a fair margin to create a profit after the winter's feeding?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course that varies very much according to the prices at the time of the sale. We just sold a few the other day at the rate of six cents a pound. Eight weeks ago we sold at five cents a pound. We have still more to sell and do not know what we will get. Those cost all around 4-25 cents in the fall.


Leonard Thomas Bland: Some years, I suppose, the experimental farm, like a private individual, makes no profit on the stock it feeds ? I havie bought and sold at all prices. Sometimes, there has 'been a balance on the 'wrong side.	[DOT]


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have done that myself. It is true of the experimental farm alsio. In 1903, we did not make any profit, but I think that is the only year sincte I have had charge in which a profit was not made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: .$9,992.90. Against this . expenditure are charged for meal, hay, straw, cost of labour and so on. The results d<o not show very much profit made out of the stock, because the farm is obliged to credit itself with 1.100 tons of manure at $1 a ton which .would be regarded by the ordinary farmer .as a^ very big price. If farmers were Pay-tug 50 cents a load for manure they would (think they were paying a pretty good price, not to speak of paying $1 a load. Now may *you not have put these things too high to make up the account and bring it out on the right side? I take it that the aim is to show the farmers that the things he is doing from year to year can be done in a better way so as to bring in a better return. But I respectfully submit that with reference to stock this does not show a very profitable return. In saying that, I make due allowance for the fact that a great deal of labour must be put into the care of stock, into measuring and weighing the grain every day, and that increases the expense of keeping the stock.
Mr. DERBY,SHIRE. The men that are employed have to be first-class men in order to do their work accurately.


Richard Blain: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that you . have a mailing list of 60,000 that you supply from the farm. When and how is that list revised ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is being revised all the time. We ask the postmasters to return to us anything that is not asked for. And we do get back a certain number. The names of the persons to whom these are addressed are struck off the list. Of course, we are always adding to the list as a result of the request of people to be put on the list. Hon. gentlemen in the House have frequently asked me for the list of those in their counties who were receiving it, and very frequently they have gone over the list and they have been able to say that so-and-so was dead or so-and-so had removed, and we struck off those names. We add any other names that members ask us to add. I have not called upon members to do that regularly, but those who take an interest in it d<5 so as a rule, and we are always glad of their assistance.

Mx-. SPROULE. That was the course followed years ago, but, as far as I can remember, there has not been a list submitted to us for revision for many years.
I know that when I went over the list for my own county I found that there were names of many men on the list who were dead or who had moved away, and it was to my mind perhaps not entirely a waste of literature because it might fall into some one's hands


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was since the time of that revision that we asked the postmasters to return any unasked for mail and it has made a great difference.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do I understand that the postmasters are instructed to return this literature?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, we ask them to do this. The request is printed on every envelope.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would make an improvement, no doubt.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It made a great change.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest that from time to time these lists be. submitted to members of parliament who can look over them, revise them and perhaps add other names, because there are always new men coming to the front. This would make the list a more valuable one to the public.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If members would take the trouble to do it we -would be very glad to submit the list to them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not been to the Central farm for the last year or two, but I would like to inquire if there have been any buildings put up lately or if there are any in contemplation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have added one or two small outside buildings for poultry, costing $100 or something like'that, but no other buildings.
.Mr. SPROULE. It occurred to me when visiting the farm that it would be very desirable. especially when the weather was inclement, to have some place where the people could have shelter and where they eould sit down, if they had their baskets along with them, and take a meal. I remember being out one day when it was raining, and the only places that the crowd of people, including men and women, could get into were the barns, stables and sheds. It occurred to me that we might be able to put up some cheap building that people could get into and have a little comfort and at the same time shelter from the inclemency of the weather.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is evident the hon. gentleman has not been there for some time, because five years ago, when we had to rearrange and rebuild the root cellar, we built over it an implement shed and above 197
that again we provided a large open space with tables where excursionists can arrange for having their lunches and where people can go in large numbers when it is raining. There is room for several hundred people. In connection with the dairy building we have quite a large room, with conveniences where ladies can go. From 50 to 100 can get in there. Besides that there are the farm offices, laboratory and greenhouse where people can go.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not at the farm last year or this year, but previously I had been going over the farm every year, and I did not suppose there was much change. It occurred to me that it would be desirable to have such a building. If it has been provided I am glad to know it. It is not intended out of this vote, of course, to do any extensive building?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there were any buildings to be erected they would be provided for by another vote?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, out of the vote of the Public Works Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that for some time there have been experiments carried on in regard to fruit by hybridizing and otherwise. The present director, I know, has conducted a good deal of work in that line. We have not had any information in regard to Ids s- cess.
Mr. FI ;;JER. I gave a full explanation before my hon. friend came in to-night.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought I was only out a few minutes and that I would not miss very much.	/


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend from Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) told me last night that I was learning better and I have been giving my explanations more concisely


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to merely ask in regard to these experiments-
Mi'. FISHER. If my hon. friend will examine the report he will find a complete statement oi>these experiments with pictures of the fruits we have produced.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I might go home and take the report with me and thus save asking any questions on the floor at all. But we shall continue to ask questions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, but it was because I had already given the explanation to the committee that I made that suggestion to the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to know if the director's experiments have been the same as those of that man in Califoria, and if he has been able to demonstrate that we are able to cultivate plums without stones I and apples without seeds?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, we have been trying to do more practical work. We have been trying to produce apples as good as other apples, but we have not tried to produce seedless apples or seedless plums.
Some resolutions reported.
A1 >
.1 OF I IN ME NT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.


Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House. .
*Mr. iSiPBOULE. I would like to inquire from the leader of the House what the government intend taking up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think we will, if the House consents, proceed with supply, and I 'would ibe glad !ilf lion gentlemen would give their attention to the estimates for *the (current year (which 1 brought down tonight. The notice is short, but some of the departments are in need of money very 'badly and if there is anything which is not (controversial we will endeavour to obtain .the assent of .the committee to these estimates to-morrow. Of course, if they are objected to .they cannot go through.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is for the civil service ?


William Stevens Fielding: These estimates are for the .current year. I.f there is anything that is controversial we cannot proceed. Some of the services in connection with the House are out of money and unless we are enabled to secure an early, vote it may be embarrassing to some of our officers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.15 p.m. x
[Stage Direction]
Thtjesday, May 18, 1905.