1905-06-14

PACIFIC BANK OF CANADA.

Mr.  W. A.@: GALDIHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 175) respecting the Pacific Bank of Canada. He said : The reason why this legislation has not been presented to the House before this session is that it was thought we would be able to make arrangements so that it would not be necessary to secure the passage of the Bill. We find, however, at the last moment that we cannot do so, and I therefore ask leave to introduce the Bill.


Mr. D. HENDERSON.: When are we going to cease introducing Bills ? How long does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galliher) expect this session is going to last ? If we continue as we have been doing we may be here until next winter. There is certainly no necessity for this Bill at the present time, because nobody claims there is any need for new banks. This charter might j ist as well lie over until another year, and we would be saved the necessity of passing Bills out of order continuously, practically violating a well established rule of the House. I only rise to protest against this, and I hope that those in charge of the legislation of the House will take note of it, and that no further legislation will be introduced this session, with the view of concluding the session as soon as possible.
Woilfville wharf, $6,000.


Mr. BRODEUR.: This is in King's coun ty. It is to replace the present pile worl structure at Wolfville by a wharf of solic crib work strong enough to withstand mov ing ice fields and heavy seas. This is ex pected to be the total cost.
"iarmouth harbour-retaining walls, $10,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for buildinlg levees and bulkheads to retain dredged materials preparatory to season's work of new suction dredge.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. BRODEUR moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What business will be taken up to-morrow.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Two Bills of Mr. 1 refontaine's will be taken up and then I will make a statement in connection with the Kentville rifle range. After that Sup-piy, either of the Railway Department or a continuation of Public Works, probably railways.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Mr. GALLIHER.: If I were making this request in connection with a Bill that had not already been before the Standing Orders Committee this year and passed by that committee, and if the rule in connection with the introduction of Bills had not been suspended, there might be some justification for the observations of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson). But for that I would not be making this motion to-day. All this has been done, and, as a matter of fact, I think I am quite within my rights in presenting the Bill even now, because once the motion is passed for the suspension of the rule there is nothing to prevent me from introducing the Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 174) to amend the Grain Inspection Act as regards the selection of cornmer-cal grades and samples.-Mr. Fisher.

[Stage Direction]
Louis Auguste Carrier, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Levis, introduced by the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hon. Wm. Paterson.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 176) to amend tlie Inland Revenue Act. He said : The maiu object oi the Bill is to harmonize the different sections of the Inland Revenue Act. Several amendments have been passed since the consolidation of the statutes in 1886, and in some eases we have still in the law clauses, which are not in harmony with the principle adopted when these amendments were made. The main object of the Bill is to incorporate these changes in the Act in order to harmonize the law, and in order that these amendments may be incorporated in the new revision of the statutes. There are, however, some other amendments of greater importance. We provide in the Bill, for example, that the bonds which are to be given by licensees shall be given by guarantee companies instead of being given by individuals. We also provide that distillers who are using malt in their distilleries, instead of being bound to manufacture the malt themselves, may get it in bond from the malting houses. We provide that malting process, instead of being carried on from eight in the morning until six in the afternoon, may begin at seven in the morning. It is also provided that spirits may be de-naturized, not only with wood naphtha, but also with all other material that could produce the same result. We provide that snuff may be sold in packages of one-twelfth of a pound.


Mr. BERGERON.: Are these changes all going into the proposed Bill 7


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


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


Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	When was the post office established at Hamilton Cove, Ashuanipi, Saguenay County, Quebec ?
2.	How often do mails arrive and depart, from what point are they forwarded, and in what manner ?
3.	What other post offices have been established in Ashuanipi, Mistassini and Abitibi, of the province of Quebec ?
4.	How many letters were received and despatched from Hamilton Cove during the last four years ?
5.	What was the revenue collected and the expense incurred in connection with the Hamilton Cove post office ?


Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (for the Postmaster General) :: 1.	The Hamilton Cove post office, which is in the district of Chicoutimi and Saguenay, and not in the Ashuanipi district, was established on the 1st June, 1883.
2.	Hamilton Cove is served tri-weekly from Les Eseoumains by horse and vehicle.
3.	There are no post ofiiees in any of the districts mentioned.
4.	As no record is kept of the mail matter received and despatched, the information asked for cannot be furnished.
5.	The revenue of the post office at Hamilton Cove and the salary of the postmaster during the past four years are as follows :
Revenue. Salary.
1901	$ 51 92	$ 34 001902	
50 00	34 00 [DOT]1903	
63 16	42 001904..-	
103 54	64 00
The service between Hamilton Cove aud Les Eseoumains, including three other post offices, costs $356 per annum.



ELECTORAL LISTS IN THE NORTHWEST.

Mr. AMES asked :: How many names of qualified electors appear upon each of the lists used on November 3rd, 1904, for the electoral districts of Alberta, Calgary, Strathcona and Edmonton ?


Rt.   H@: Number of electors
Electoral district.	on lists.
Alberta	 3,473
Calgary	 7,951
Strathcona	 8,786
Edmonton. .	  6,477



CONTRACT, LAOHINE CANAL, MONTREAL.

Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	To whom was awarded the contract for the building of the bridge over the Lachine canal at Atwater street, Montreal ?
2. What was the price fixed in said contract ?
3. What was the date fixed in the said contract for the delivery of said bridge ?
4.	Why were tenders called for a second time in connection with the said work ?
5.	Who was the lowest of the first tenderers ?
6.	Who was the lowest of the tenderers after the second call for tenders ?


Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals)) :
1.	Messrs, Rogers & Taylor are the contractors for the substructure.
2.	It is a schedule price contract, which monied out on approximate estimate to $35,495.
3.	The date fixed in the contract for completion of the work is August 1, 1905.
4.	Because the first tenders were not acted on, on account of insufficient notice.
5.	Mr. IV. H. Davis, $38,244.
6.	Messrs. Rogers & Taylor



HALF-BREED SCRIP.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the Day are called I would like to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior, who is hack from his wanderings, battered and torn, but still looking in bis

right mind, to the fact that we have been waiting anxiously for those papers from his department with reference to scrip. I hope my hon. friend has not forgotten all about it. I would like him also to bear in mind that the session is so far advanced that it would be well if we could get these as quickly as possible. I hope my hon. friend will have them for us certainly this week.


Mr OLIVER.: The papers asked for are in course of preparation, some of them could be presented now. They cover so large an amount of ground that the work of preparation is very great. But they will be presented as fast as they are prepared, some of them I will present to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: I hope we will get them in a day or two.



THE BY-ELECTIONS.

*Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE.: Before the Orders of the Day are called I wish to congratulate the hon. members for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and South York (Mr. W. E. Maclean) who are back from their wanderings. May I congratulate also the hon. member for South York that he did not fulfil his boast of resigning his seat to contest the election for Edmonton, and later on to contest the elections in London or North Oxford. Now I think it is up to him to resign his seat for South York and try to get elected in his own constituency.


George Eulas Foster: There is nothing before the House.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I want to know if he has tendered his resignation.



VACANCIES IN THE JUDICIARY.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to inform my hon. friend the Minister of Justice that I have observed some intimation in the public press, and I have had some private advice, that there are two vacancies, one on the judicial bench of Ontario and one on the judicial bench of Manitoba, one of which has been vacant for some time, I refer to that one in the province of Ontario, the chief justice of the Exchequer Court division of the High Court of Justice. I was not aware there was any vacancy in the Supreme Court of Manitoba, the Court of King's Bench, but I observe a reference to it in the press. Would the Minister of Justice be good enough on some future occasion to inform the House how long these vacancies have been existing; anfi would he be good enough at the same time to give a statement as to the vacancies that exist on the bench of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia since the resignation of Chief Justice McDonald, in the month of January, 1904 ? I have intimated my intention of discussing the vacancies in the Mr. FOSTER.
Supreme Court in Nova Scotia, but since that time I understand the only vacancy on the bench of that court has been filled. At the same time I would like to have information of this precise character; I would like to know, from the commencement of 1904 up to the present time, during what periods any vacancies have existed, and what they have been; and the same with regard to the courts of Ontario and Manitoba. I am not aware of any other vacancies in the superior courts of justice in this country at the present time; but if there are any others, perhaps the Minister of Justice would also intimate what they are.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The vacancy in Manitoba has been caused by the death of Mr. Justice Bain. The judge died a few weeks ago. As to the vacancy in Ontario, I think it could hardly be called a vacancy, because there has never been provision made for the appointment. The position has never been filled.


Robert Laird Borden: I would rather call that an accentuated vacancy.



IMMIGRATION OF SKILLED LABOUR.

George Eulas Foster: I would like to give notice to the Acting Minister of the Post Office Department that to-morrow I propose to bring up a question which has been placed in my hands by the Toronto District Labour Council. It has to do with certain allegations that have been brought to the attention of the government with reference to the close connection between a gentleman by the name of Leopold, and W.
T.	R. Preston, Dominion Government Agent, by means of which connection, as the allegation states, mechanics and skilled workmen' are sent out to this country under a promise of employment which has not been fulfilled, and that great injustice is done to these men and great suffering is incurred by them; and also that the proceeding is not in the true interest of labour.



CORRESPONDENCE RE ROYAL MINT.

Mr. MONK.: Before the Orders of the Day are called I would like to remind my right hon. friend that it is now some time since the correspondence with the imperial government was called for in regard to the establishment of a branch of the Royal Mint in Canada. I think we will require it in a few days.



SEAMENS' ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 147) to amend the Seamen's Act -Mr. Prefontaine-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
George Eulas Foster: Can the minister say on what date this measure was discussed before ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: This Bill is

to replace Bill (No. 38), which has been withdrawn. The first Bill contained only one clause, and met with a good deal of objection, as it did not provide for certain eventualities. This Bill covers entirely the ground for which the measure was asked by the shipping interests of British Columbia. I could not explain the Bill better than it explains itself.


Mr. B. L. BORDEN.: What is the real difference between this Bill and the Bill that was introduced before ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The first Bill meant simply that the dispositions of the Seamen's Act did not apply to the province of British Columbia, without giving further explanations. This Bill gives all the explanations and the way in which the measure will be acted upon.


Mr. INGRAM.: Does it refer to employing British subjects ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No, the Act does not mention anything about that. It provides that the shipping master, instead of being obliged to do this work, may appoint another person to make these arrangements with the seamen.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the Minister of Justice took some part in the discussion of this Bill when it was previously before the House. If he has drafted it, I have no doubt he could explain to us precisely what its effect is.


Herbert Brown Ames: In looking at the Seamen's Act, chapter 74 of the Revised Statutes, to ascertain the full meanings of the three sections which it is proposed to make not applicable to British Columbia, I find that section 7 reads as follows :
No person who sells any spirituous liquor's, and no tavern keeper or boarding-house keeper, shall be eligible for the situation of shipping master or deputy shipping master.
If this section does not apply to British Columbia, it would appear that any saloon keeper or seller of liquor may be a shipping master or a deputy shipping master, it has hitherto always been considered inadvisable to have that class of persons acting in this capacity. What special reason has induced the minister to make them eligible in British Columbia for this important position ? Then, under clauses 16 and 18, the fees established elsewhere are 50 cents on engagement and 30 cents on discharge ; but in British Columbia these limits, which protect both the seamen and the captain, are to be abolished, and hereafter any fee may be charged which may be considered mutually satisfactory, subject to the Governor in Council, replacing that of the schedule. There must be some reason for making these important changes.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The reasons I gave when the Bill was last before the House. As regards section 7 not affecting British Columbia, if power is given to a shipping master or deputy shipping master to appoint any one to act as an intermediary to hire seamen, it makes no difference who makes the engagement. At present in British Columbia the shipping master gets only 50 cents, which is not a large enough remuneration to induce the proper men to make up crews, and the result is that the masters are obliged to go to Seattle or some other part of the United States to secure crews. They have to pay $25 or $30 to American agents to get the proper crew, because under our law they can get nobody to engage seamen. It is necessary to make the provision as broad as possible, so that anybody can do this kind of work. It is provided in section 2 that the Governor in Council shall establish a rate of fees. Of course, the Governor in Council will be guided by the recommendations of tlie boards of trade. It is at the request of the board of trade and the shipping interests of British Columbia that this is done. I understand perfectly well that the first Bill did not go far enough, and would probably have been ineffective, while this one, after being considered by the Department of Justice, has been found to meet the case.


Herbert Brown Ames: While I can see that there may be conditions in British Columbia which may make it necessary to pay more than the stipulated price for the engagement of seamen, I have not as yet heard any reason advanced which, to my mind at least, is sufficient why a certain class of persons who for good and obvious reasons have been considered in other provinces ineligible to act as shipping masters, should be permitted to act in British Columbia. There are reasons all over the world why it is inadvisable that men who engage sailors shall be saloon keepers. Is there any special reason why in British Columbia it is necessary that this class should be considered eligible ? The dangers are considered that a man who runs a boarding-house or a saloon or an hotel, should be the person who would supply sailors for an outgoing vessel. For my part, unless there be some very strong reason to the contrary, I should have to record my vote against section 7.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It has been represented by the shipping interests and the board of trade of Vancouver and Victoria, that under the present law seamen cannot be engaged in British Columbia ports because the shipping masters will not accept the legal fee of 50 cents per head. Ships are now obliged to go to United States ports and pay very large sums to secure crews. It is asked that under certain conditions the shipping master shall have authority' to appoint any one to act in his stead and receive whatever remuneration may be fixed by the Governor General in Council. There may be objections elsewhere. but under existing conditions in British Columbia there would appear to be

no objection to the boarding-house keeper acting as an agent to hire sailors. I understand why the law was made so strict a few years ago when it applied to the province of Quebec, but the conditions are not the same in British Columbia as they were then in Quebec, and in my opinion this Bill is in the public interest.


Frederick William Borden: As it stands at present the remuneration is unlimited until the Governor in Council fixes the fee.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That will be done at once.


Robert Laird Borden: Why should you depart from the usual form which says that the person who is to receive the fees shall be entitled to such fees as are appointed by the Governor General in Council ? We all know that eventually the remuneration to the shipping master is deducted from the wages of the sailors, and although the Bill is an improvement on the one originally introduced, it could be still further improved by simply providing that such fees should be paid as would be appointed by the Governor General in Council.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I do not think there would be any objection to that amendment.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: The leader of the opposition suggests that in the end these fees are taken out of the pockets of the sailors, but as a matter of fact on the Pacific coast these fees are paid by the shipowner or the shipping company which owns tlie vessels. Ships sailing from Vancouver or any other Pacific port cannot at the present time get a ci'ew in our province, because nobody will act as a boarding-house keeper, it being forbidden to keep sailors and ship them under the existing law.


Mr.   I@: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the fee does not eventually come out of the pockets of the sailor?


Robert George Macpherson: It does not. Suppose a man is running a boarding-house and keeps five sailors for six weeks, their indebtedness to him would come out of their wages, but the fact is that the fees to-day paid by ship-owners on the Pacific coast for shipping crews, is much in excess of what the seaman's wages would be.
I know some instances in which ships have paid as high as $50 per man for a crew, and my hon. friend can easily realize that the seaman's wages would not stand a charge like that. I know one instance where $100 per man was asked in the city of Portland, but that was an excessive charge and it of course drove the ships from that port. To-day. in Vancouver. Victoria, Nanaimo, Westminster, or wherilr. PREFONTAINE.
ever a ship may come, she will load her cargo of lumber or fish, and then, having enough men on board to take her to Port Townsend, she will go there to ship her crew and buy her provisions. It thus happens that every ship that leaves Vancouver without purchasing supplies will spend anywhere from $10,000 to $15,000 (according to the length of the voyage) at an American port. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) will easily see that under the present law nobody will take any particular interest in getting crews for the shipping masters at 50 cents per head. It is quite true that danger might occur by allowing indiscriminate rates to be changed, but tbat it is not at all likely because there is more or less competition with the American side. In the meantime the present law works to deprive British Columbia ports of quite a considerable amount of trade in supplying outgoing ships. If this Bill is passed it will remove the grievance in so far as British Columbia is concerned, and no bad results will follow even if ships have to pay $10 or $12 per man. because they would not go to the American side and pay sometimes five times as much. At ail events it would preserve to the British Columbia ports the trade of supplying ships.


George Eulas Foster: At first sight this legislation seems objectionable because it is removing one part of the country from the operation of the general law, and you need a very strong argument to justify that. I do not see how this Bill is going to better the thing unless it betters it at the expense of the sailor.


Robert George Macpherson: Not at the expense of the sailor.


George Eulas Foster: 
Robert George Macpherson: 
George Eulas Foster: 
Robert Laird Borden: Why ?


Robert George Macpherson: Because under the Act he cannot take remuneration as shipping master.	1


Robert Laird Borden: That is not remuneration as shipping master.


Robert George Macpherson: Of course not, but he dare not do it.


Mr.   I@: If you are going to pass a statute which is to be used for a purpose that is not apparent on the face of it, that is the strongest objection for passing it. We are dealing with the question

of the remuneration of a shipping-master. If we mean something else, let us say it. If we mean that the boarding-master may deduct the sailor's wages, let us say so; but not let us lend ourselves to the project of deducting from the sailor's wages the amount which he owes for boarding and doing that under the guise of paying the shipping-master.


Robert George Macpherson: That is not what I said. According to the Bill introduced, a shipping-master will have the power of saying to the boarding house keeper : I appoint you my deputy. Then the captain may come along and get his crew.


Robert Laird Borden: You mean that he will be taking his pay for board under the guise of remuneration as deputy shipping master.


Robert George Macpherson: He would deduct his board. At present he can deduct his board any way if the captain will pay him ; but he cannot enter into the business of boarding-house keeper, because, according to section 7, he cannot ship anybody. According to the Bill that we desire to have passed now it will be possible for a man to go into the boarding-house business and ship men without incurring any penalty. I recognize the fact that a danger may underlie any act that allows the shipping of men to go into the hands of irresponsible people, but I do not think there is any crime in the passing of a Bill like this. The American boarding-houses are carrying on their business within sixty miles of our ports. They are doing a large and remunerative business. Shippers want crews and they want to buy their supplies. We are obliged to tell them in British Columbia that they can load our timber, our fish, our coal, or any of our products, but we cannot supply them with anything else. They have to go to the American side to get their men and provisions. There is nn obvious necessity for the boat leaving our harbour, being towed down and paying double towage at the same time although that does not enter into the spirit of the affair at all. If we are discriminated against it is because the present Act is applied so strictly to us in British Columbia. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) can see that quite easily. He, being a lawyer, can foresee all kinds of trouble that may result from the passing of the Bill, and he can anticipate all kinds of subterfuges that may be raised. He says that the law may bear heavily upon some people. It is bearing heavily on some people to-day if his argument is correct ; it is bearing heavily upon the shipper and the sailor and there is no Act that we can pass that will relieve the shipper or the sailor. But, we can drive away from our shores the legitimate trade we have to-day by continuing the Act which is at present in force.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Mr. COCHRANE.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman how it is that if they have to go to the United States to get their crews, they are driven over there by the same Act to get their provisions ? If you sold your commodities as cheaply as they do on the other side they would get their supplies where they loaded their freight.


Robert George Macpherson: I would like to tell my hon. friend that when the captain has got his boat loaded that boat is worth $300 or $400 a day and the boarding-house master in the port at once says : I will ship your crew, but I will only do it under certain conditions. The conditions are that you shall get your crew from me, that you will pav me so much and that you shall buy youi supplies from people I name.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: 

HARRY P. SULLEN.

[Stage Direction]
These are prominent members of the Board of Trade of Victoria, whom I know personally, and who not only made these representations in writing in May, 1904, but made further representations to a special meeting of the Board of Trade of Victoria last September. I think the law proposed will afford them relief and will secure what they require.
Mr. BARKER.: Is it contemplated, that, under section 2 of this Rill, the Governor In Council may establish a tariff of fees, and that that tariff shall supersede the right to contract for any sum ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It is intended to establish a rate of fees approved by the Governor in Council which shall not be exceeded. Except for that, of course, a man will be free to make his own agreement.


Samuel Barker: I would point out that the Bill repeals, as regards British Columbia section 18, which is the only clause in the' statute that protects the parties in respect of fees. That section provides that the shipping master or deputy shipping master who has charged more than the established fee shall be liable to a penalty and to dismissal.


Robert Laird Borden: More than that, for my part, I cannot see why section 7 should be repealed. But sailors are notoriously improvident; they are notoriously



liable, as the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) has stated, to spend their wages foolishly. And, if you provide that the deputies of the shipping master may be persons who are engaged in the business of selling spirituous liquors, you are passing legislation that in my opinion is unwise. These men have been referred to as wards of the nation because of their improvidence when ashore. They should be wards of parliament, and parliament should not pass legislation that would be likely to increase their tendency to improvidence.


Robert George Macpherson: Then we have no wards of parliament in our part of the country-we have no sailors.


Robert Laird Borden: That is to be regretted. But there may be some worse things than having no sailors. I am anxious to further the commerce and shipping of A ancouver ; but I am not anxious to place on the statute-book of Canada legislation of this character even for the object stated here to-day. You may appoint as deputies of the shiping master, not only men who are keepers of boarding-houses, but men who engage in the sale of spirituous liquors.	;


Robert George Macpherson: It does not say so.


Robert Laird Borden: It suspends section 7, and the effect of that is what I have stated. If that is not the object, then remove this repeal of section 7, and you will remove one very grave objection to the Bill so far as I am concerned.


Robert George Macpherson: Well, allow the prohibition of liquor sellers to stand.


Robert Laird Borden: We want to have that feature of this Bill eliminated at least. So far as the other part of it is concerned, it seems to me that vVe are going at this in a wrong way. The hon. member for Vancouver has some personal knowledge of the circumstances. As I understand, the difficulty is due to the fact that there is no means of recovering in British Columbia the moneys due to the boarding-house keeper. Prom what the hon. gentleman says, as I understand him, a boarding-house keeper will keep a sailor for three or four weeks ; and, even when he does procure a berth for him on an outgoing ship-because we know boarding-house keepers, even if they are not deputy shipping masters, do this work by interviewing masters and so on-lie has no means of reimbursing himself for what the seaman owes him.


Robert George Macpherson: It goes a little further than that.


Frederick William Borden: Well that is part of it at least. If this is the principal part of it, it does not seem to me that we are going at the matter exactly in the right way by this legislation.


Robert George Macpherson: This is not drawn for the benefit of boarding-house masters,


Robert Laird Borden: but for the benefit of the shipping of the ports of British Columbia.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that ; but the means taken is to provide a way by which boarding-house keepers may recover money owing to them by sailors.


Robert George Macpherson: That is an incident.


Hon.  H. R.@: Li. BORDEN. That is the main incident, because it is contended that boarding-house keepers, unless they have this power, will not engage in this business. That is the whole argument, is it not ?


Robert George Macpherson: No.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I understood.


Robert George Macpherson: While the boardinghouse master may not have means of reimbursing himself, this legislation was not suggested by that class of people, nor, in my opinion, is it drawn up with the object of advancing their interest. It is to enable us in British Columbia to get seamen.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but by this means.


Robert George Macpherson: How are you going to do it otherwise ? Of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) knows that these sailors are in boarding-houses. But while we are splitting hairs over this thing, our trade is going by the board. We in British Columbia are convinced that, if this Bill passes it will be one of the best things of recent years for the benefit of our shipping. After all, sentiment does not figure very much when the interest of a whole trade is at issue.


George Eulas Foster: But there must be some limit;-you must not push that too far.


Robert George Macpherson: Of course.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It seems to me that in drafting legislation, the first thing required is to understand what you want. Our legislation on this subject, as found in the revised statutes is wise legislation, passed because of abuses of a most serious character that had grown up in our Canadian ports. It was intended to suppress an evil in the maritime ports known as the evil of crimping, as a result of which more crimes were committed, I believe, than through any other cause in Canada.


George Eulas Foster: You had an experience of It in Quebec.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A terrible experience. At last public attention was aroused by the murder of a man-I have forgotten his name-by Captain Pelletier ; and the result was the passing of the statute from which this chapter of the revised statutes was taken. The law now provides that a sea captain must hire his men by the assistance of what is known as a shipping master. A shipping master in each port has
JUtSTE 14. 1905
the power to appoint a deputy shipping master.
The intention of section 7 was to prevent boarding-house keepers and saloon keepers from being deputy shipping masters. That was the intention, and that is the intention to which we must give effect now, otherwise it is likely to lead to most serious results, with regard to saloon-keepers especially. Now what are the conditions prevailing on the Pacific coast which make a
change desirable at the present time? In British Columbia ports as in other ports, where vessels go to discharge their cargoes or take on their cargoes, as we know perfectly well, when a seaman reaches his port of destination and is entitled to his discharge, he almost invariably leaves the ship. I do not suppose that of the seamen on board ships generally, there are 5 per cent who remain beyond a voyage. When he reaches his port of destination the seaman obtains his discharge, if he is entitled to it; if he is not entitled to it, and he can get out of the vessel in any way, as a majority of the men can, he goes to the boardinghouse keeper who takes hold of him and keeps him away. So that either the seaman leaves the ship because he is entitled to a discharge, or he is induced to leave bv the boarding-master, but the result is that the vessel is without a crew. As a consequence of existing legislation, it is represented that m British Columbia, the captains there cannot get their crews, and as a consequence they are obliged to go over to the United States ports in Puget Sound where this law does not apply, and where they secure their crew through the aid of the shipping master who happens to be a boarding-house keeper or a saloon keeper. The reason. I
tha.t ,3? tbat the ship captain who wants to get his crew knows a boardinghouse keeper who has probably at his place four or five men, and the latter knows that m the adjoining boarding-house there may be four or five more. So he goes to this man and says to him; Pick me up a crew of fifteen or twenty men and I will give von so much per head for them. The result is that that this boarding-house keeper is interested in securing a crew, and he goes about it deliberately and gets the crew Hie Jaw as we have it would prevent the captain from charging to the seamen 'me honorarium he is obliged to pay to the boarding-house keeper. He could charge you'd be the amount of his board, but unless that honorarium is inc uded in the board, the captain cannot charge it to the seaman, and very properly so. But the questioq is how are we to meet that difliculty which obliges the vessel owners to go to these Puget Sound ports for the purpose of getting their crews and when they get their crews they also take supplies, and we lose thereby a considerable amount of trade. What are we to do to remedy that difficulty ? That is to 236J
say, what ought we to do to enable a captain to go to an agent-and I say that agent should not be a deputy shipping master, it is improper he should be a deputy shipping master-but what we can we do to enable the captain to go to an agent and get that agent to pick up these men and to bring them before the deputy shipping master and make them sign a contract in the ordinary way. All that is required to be done, if it is found desirable, is to amend the law so as to increase the fees that are paid to deputy shipping master in order that he may procure these sailors without the intervention of an agent. If it is desirable we should do it, let us increase the fees paid to the deputy shipping master-if my recollection of the statute is correct only one-lialf of these fees would be charged to the seamen. Why can't we proceed in that way? Why can't we make provision, to increase the fees of the deputy shipping master in such a way as to offer him an additional inducement to get a crew, instead of the captain being obliged to go to the boarding-house keeper and directing him to do all these things for the purpose of getting a crew? It seems to me we ought to be able to secure our object in that way, bv giving the deputy shipping master that inducement which is necessary to enable him to go to the boarding-house masters and get from them the crew that he requires. It seems to me that is_ a solution of the difficulty, because there is a difficulty for which we ought to find some solution. But I do not think we will solve that difficulty by making the boarding-house keepers deputy shipping masters.


George Eulas Foster: With that state of things, it does not seem that it is necessary or expedient for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to attempt to go on with this Bill. It is another example of attempting to do things in an improper manner.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: On the contrary, this first Bill was prepared and submitted to the proper authorities. This second Bill was proceeded with in the same way. I have done what I was requested to do by the Board of Trade of British Columbia, I have been acting under their advice, or I have been attempting to come to their rescue.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not want to suggest that this Bill should not go through in tlie form in which it is unless that is the intention of the House. I understand from my hon. friend that the Bill was submitted to the Department of Justice, and a second Bill was redrafted by the department. I accept all the responsibility for it.


William Alfred Galliher: I have listened to the explanation of the Minister of Justice and there is one point that strikes me forcibly.

If I understand the argument of my bon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson), and also the resolution of the board of trade read by tbe Minister of Marine, it seems to me absolutely essential, in order that you may have sailors there to take service on the ship, that there should- be some place where sailors could be taken care of in the interim. It is all very well to say that the agent or deputy shipping master could go out and gather sailors, but where are you going to get the sailors if there are none to be had ? Who are going to keep the sailors there in the meantime? Now to-day the boarding-house keepers make a business of that; they take the sailors in and take care of them during a certain time, and the sailors are there and ready to take service on board ship. It seems to me you cannot reach your object in any other way. If you have no sailors there, and there is nobody to take care of them in the meantime the deputy shipping master or his agent will have great difficulty in finding them. I do not see how the business could be worked out along the lines suggested by the Minister of Justice, for the above reasons.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Let me point out the inconvenience that, in my experience, results from the system such as the one intended to be established here. Here is a boarding-house keeper who happens to have six or seven sailors at his place. He takes these sailors and gets them so drunk that they do not know what they are doing. He takes them to the shipping master, who takes them on board ship without any knowledge on their part of their port of destination, or of the nature of the contract they have entered into. The boardinghouse keeper may get a large fee, I understand that he gets $10 or $15 per head, or, is ns in the case pointed out, $80. You will have in consequence a system of crimping established, and you will have these shipping masters or deputy shipping masters interested in inducing these men to desert, and in consequence, forfeiting their wages, and inducing them to go and live in these boarding-houses, so that they may make a profit in re-employing them.


William Alfred Galliher: You cannot have many advantages without some disadvantage.-This Act can be improved by making a boarding-house keeper a deputy shipping master, and as such he can be made responsible for any act of his. We can reach these people by the criminal law.


Robert Laird Borden: If a half dozen men are sent to sea in that condition do you suppose you will ever hear anything about it again ?


William Alfred Galliher: I do not think the fear that a half dozen men may be sent off to sea in this condition should be held up as a bugbear to interfere with the trade of British Mr. GALLIHER.
Columbia ports. You cannot constitute yourself the guardian of every man in every walk of life ; we all have to take chances ; the sailors' is a roving life and it does not matter much to manv of them what port they sail for. I do not think we live in an age when crimping can be carried on as it formerly was in England.


George Eulas Foster: And here.


William Alfred Galliher: And here perhaps. The ports of Vancouver and Victoria are not very large and it is easily possible to have such supervision over these boarding-house keepers who may be appointed deputy shipping masters, as will keep them well within the mark. I do not believe any bad result will follow, and in the meantime British Columbia ports will get the trade they are entitled to.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I appreciate the fact that a serious grievance exists in British Columbia at present. It is quite easy for a member of this House to play the part of critic on any legislation, but if the minister will allow the matter to remain in abeyance for a day or two I will undertake to see if I can draft some clause that will meet the object we all have in view.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Very well. I was about to suggest that we could provide against persons who sell liquors from_ being appointed as shipping masters, but if you exclude boarding-house keepers you are in no better position than you are now. I tried to solve the difficulty on the request of the boards of trade of the Pacific coast, but I understand the objections very well. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



PILOTAGE-DISTRICT OF QUEBEC.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 171) respecting the port and pilotage of the district of Quebec-Mr. Prefon-taine-read a second time and the House went into committee thereon.
George Eulas Foster: Before section one is read by* the Chairman would the minister explain just what is the condition of things now and what are the reasons that led to this very-decided change ? How would things be bettered by placing it under the minister and in that way bringing it immediately under the party patronage system ; none too good, none too' conductive to discipline and morale in the force. Prima facie it would seem to be a step backward, to take it from a lion-partisan board, as I think this is. and put it under the direct control of a party minister. I suppose the minister knows, as any one who has had to do with these things knows, that the harbour and river police business in Quebec has not been a bed of roses for any one who has attempted to administer it. and even with the buffer of the commission between the minister and the force it has been
JUXE 14. 190?
a source of perennial trouble. Does the minister think he is going to make it better if he takes it away from the commission and puts it where every follower of his and where every adherent of his throughout the district will'feel that they have a right to interfere in the appointments and everything of that kind. But worse than that, it brings immediately to every member of the pilot force the idea that he has to get political pull and political influence in some way if he wishes to better his individual condition or the condition of the force as a whole. It seems to me that in going from the commission to the minister and opening up all the influences, it is not a step in the right direction. Of course the minister will agree with me that this is a very important branch of the service.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) was not in the House two sessions ago when this matter was discussed. For years past the shipping federation lias unanimously agitated for a revision of the laws governing the pilots. In the year 1887 a strike took place amongst the Montreal district pilots who were then under the control of the harbour commissioners, and a commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question. For twenty years past the shipping interests have agitated in favour of putting the pilots under the administration of the Marine Department, and it is only the year before last that the objections of the pilots themselves and of the Montreal Harbour Board were removed, and that a Bill was passed putting the licensed pilots between Quebec and Montreal under the control of the department.
loss of a vessel and its cargo to the value of $250,000. Then the shipping people asked us to take away the Saguenay river at least from the pilotage authorities of Quebec and put it under the control of tlie Department of Marine and Fisheries, and last year I introduced a Bill- for that purpose. The department succeeded in getting tlie corporation of the pilots of Quebec to select four or five of tbeir number wbo knew the Saguenay river very well, and place them under the control of the department. The result was that last year there was scarcely any accident, and matters went on better than they had done before. This year the corporation of the pilots of Quebec, in view of the way matters had gone on between Montreal and Quebec, came to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and asked that they should be put under the control of bis department. They felt that that would be more satisfactory to them and that the regulations would be better attended to ; and therefore, with the consent of the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, I bring forward this Bill with the view of having the whole of the St. Lawrence pilotage under tlie control-of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The pilots' organization will of course keep its entity as it is, while the Department of Marine and Fisheries will be the pilotage authority as regards examinations and regulations for the admission of pilots, and all that is necessary to guarantee to the shipping interest the elimination as much as possible of all dangers from incompetency.


George Eulas Foster: Are these regulations now taken in hand by the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


George Eulas Foster: That was to put the Montreal pilotage division under the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. There were strong representations to the government, and we were taken to task for not having the courage, as it was alleged at the time, to take the whole pilotage under the control of the department. I explained then to the House that there were two sides_ to the question, that I knew that the shipping interests were unanimously in favour of that being done, or that there would be somebody responsible for fiie conduct and qualification of these men. I said that we would try with the pilots of Montreal, who were ready to work band in hand with the department and to submit themselves to the regulations that might be made by tlie department. Since this clause has been in force, now nearly two seasons, not only the shipping federation, which represents the ship-owners, but the pilots themselves, are perfectly satisfied. But there has been some agitation as regards other places. Last year a very serious accident happened on the Saguenay river through the incompetence of one of the pilots, resulting in the


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes. The pilots ave their own corporation and regulations, >ut the pilotage authority will rest with the dinister of Marine and Fisheries instead of vith tlie harbour commissioners. The har-iour commissions are composed of a large lumber of men-in Montreal 11 and in Quebec 9 or 10. The shipping people believe ;heir interests will be bettev served in this wav. The masters, mates, engineers and -aptains are all under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and are obliged to pass their examinations and get their certificates from the department; and the shipping people ask, why should not the pilots be in the same position . They say that the pilots should be put under such control that the shipping people would know where to place the blame if a pilot committed an offence or an error or proved incompetent. He could be dealt with by somebody who would be responsible to the House.


Mr FOSTER.: What privileges do the pilots retain to themselves as a corporation ? Do they regulate their own apprenticeships or the manner in which new pilots are to be

brought in, or does that go to the department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: That goes to the department. When we took the authority over the pilots between Montreal and Quebec, the shipping federation met with the president of the pilots, and they agreed upon certain regulations for the best interests of themselves and the public in general, so that this body should inspire confidence. The result has been most satisfactory in the district of Montreal, and I do not see why it should not be equally so in the district of Quebec.


Mr.   POSTER@: As soon as this Bill is passed, the Pilotage Board will no longer exist ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The Harbour Commission of Montreal is still in existence, but it has no jurisdiction over the pilotage ; and the same will be the case with the Harbour Commission of Quebec.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is a provision in the Harbour Commissioners' Act, giving the Harbour Commission authority over pilotage, and that provision will no longer have any effect.


George Eulas Foster: I am glad to hear from the minister that things have improved in the Montreal district. If he can effect an improvement at the other end, and gain the confidence of the shipping men, which has not been very full, I am afraid during the last few years, it will be a good thing. Meantime, I might say what I commenced to say. My fear in the matter was that the element of patronage and political interference would be allowed to creep iuto it If that can be kept out of it, I believe the change might be beneficial.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The rules will be the same for everybody. The board of examiners is composed of officials of the department. Sometimes they take an outsider to aid in the examination. I do not flunk that the question of patronage has ever arisen.
tern of allowing pilots to be engaged by the year by steamship companies. It lias become a very serious question as to what regulations we will adopt in order to distribute the work more equally. That question will be taken up by the shipping federation and the department within a few days, and I think we will come to some arrangement that will be satisfactory.


George Eulas Foster: Will this rule of distribution in the Quebec portion belong to the pilots or the department ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: It will come under the department, and the distribution of the work as well as the money will be subject t" some regulations. It is not likely, however, that the department will reverse the present condition of affairs without due examination of all the circumstances.


George Eulas Foster: Always keeping in view that the pilots are made for the shipping service and not the service for the pilots.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Of course. As regards the regulations governing apprentices, these will come under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The moment that tins pilotage business comes under the Department of Marine, the minister will have to see that proper regulations for the admission of apprentices are made, and also for their yearly examination. We find that in the district oif Montreal, unless a complaint was made, a pilot would not be called on every year to pass an examination as to his eye-sight and hearing. We have established a rule, with the consent of the pilots, that they should pass an examination every season and get a certificate as to their eyesight and hearing to show that these have not failed so much as to prevent their attending to their duties. We have also stipulated what kind of examination they shall be subjected to.


George Eulas Foster: What happened the vessel in Montreal harbour the other day which went ashore ?
On section 2,


George Eulas Foster: Who regulates the distribution of those pilots ? I notice that ever and anon difficulties arise. Some Shipov ners, not being able otherwise to get the' pilots they want, employ them by the year. Also, who regulates the coming in of apprentices and the terms under which they can come in ? Also, whether there is an arrangement for the pooling of the earnings V


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: In the district o Quebec the earnings are pooled and dividec a. the end of the season under the authori Plots' corporation. In the d.is tuct ot Montreal there is no pooling. Then is a very serious question at present amom the Montreal pilots arising out of the sys Mr. FOSTER


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I have given instructions for an investigation. Her going ashore must be due to gross carelessness or something wrong with her machinery.


George Eulas Foster: It could not be that a new sand-bar had been created ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No.


Mr. OSLER.: Have the laws and regulations of the pilots' association to be approved by the minister ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They have fo be submitted to the Governor General in Council.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Intercolonial Railway-general vote, $7,000,000.
['I think there is an understanding with the leader of the opposition as to that-I do not expect the Autonomy Bill will be taken to-morrow.']
Mr. EMMERSON.: I have from time to time, during the past three or four months, forwarned the House regarding the probable outcome of the year's operation of the intercolonial Railway. In my detailed statement of some months ago, I rather predicted a large deficit. The information available up to this moment has confirmed my worst fears with respect to that deficit. This has been an extraordinary year for us in several respects. The snowfall in tfie maritime provinces last winter was beyond all precedent in the history of those provinces. For nearly two months traffic was practically suspended, except at certain intervals. These conditions not only immensely reduced tfie revenues of the road, but entailed an unparalleled outlay. We have been obliged to burn the candle at both ends. While traffic was paralyzed, suspended, the expenditure has been going on. Detention wages alone is an item of sejrious moment. Trains were sent out and men were under pay; but owing to the conditions, these trains were prevented from earning, though the expenditure went on. I cannot at this moment more than estimate the probable shortage of revenue as compared with working expenses for the current year, but the amount will no doubt be between a million and a half and two millions of dollars. Until full and detailed information is had, I think it would be improper to do more than give a general outline of the facts which have led to this result. While I am prepared to say that this is an alarming condition, I am also in a position to say that during the fiscal year there have been no undue appointments, no creations of office; but that normal conditions have prevailed in that respect But with respect to wages, we have made one very important change-we have been obliged to pay very much higher wages than have prevailed heretofore on the Intercolonial.
Coming to such details as I can give, I may say that, in the first place, the operation of the Prince Edward Island Railway for the nine months ending 31st March last was unusually expensive. The revenue fell off to the extent of $11,957 and the working expenses increased by $65,289 as compared with the preceding year. This result was largely due to the snow blockade. For example, the cost of handling snow in the year 1903-4 was $11,715; but the cost under the same head for the current year was $32,175. A further increase is explained by the addition to the wages. The men are paid, in many instances fifty per cent more than they have been paid hitherto. Still, we have not exceeded the wages that are paid by the other railways
of Canada. The Intercolonial, within the last year, has simply been levelled up to the standard of the wages paid by other railways in this country. I do not think we are paying exorbitant wages-I am satisfied that we are not; we are simply paying a fair wage to the men of the Intercolonial as compared with the wage paid elsewhere, I do not feel that I should apologize for the fact that we have increased these wages. We have an army of men on the Intercolonial who are worthy of recognition. They are a splendid force of railway men and are entitled to what was granted: to them. Perhaps it was delayed too long. But it is certainly unfortunate that this increase in wages serves to make the deficit of the past year one that is not pleasing for the people, or for me as Minister of Railways to contemplate. The increase in wages, in addition to that which we paid during the preceding year is somewhere about $750,000-that is to say that the Intercolonial to-day is paying practically the same number of men about $750,000 more than formerly, to say nothing of any additional men. Now, I know as a matter of fact that the work that is being carried on, particularly in the mechanical department, gives very much better results than before Take, for instance, in the repair of cars. We have increased the number of men, about 20 per cent, but we are realizing in work an increase of nearly 100 per cent. This is due to the fact that our system has been so much improved. Last year we were turning out in the repairs of passenger cars about 10 to 18 a month; this year we are turning out 29 or 30 a month. In the repairs of locomotives, with an increase of say 20 per cent in the number of men, we are turning out 66 per cent more engines.


Samuel Barker: That is in the number of engines, not the quantity of work ? The hon. minister (Mr. Emmerson) must remember that nearly all his cars and locomotives are now new.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The amount of work has been greatly increased. By the re-organization of the shops and the system of change-hands and so on, they are accomplishing very much greater results than they hitherto accomplished. There was an increase in the wages account of $3,588, and $8,985 for additional ties on the Prince Edward Island road. The added cost of repairs, fuel and station expenses made up the remainder. It is, however, on the main line of the Intercolonial that the chief loss has occurred. This loss does not directly arise from a falling off in the revenue. As compared with last year, the income has actually been greater to the extent of a few thousand dollars than last year. Had it not been for the extraordinary conditions bearing upon the operation of the road, the revenue would pro-

bably have shown a sufficient increase to largely reduce the deficit.


Mr. HAGGART.: Has the minister the receipts and expenditures for the couple of months in which he says that the loss occurred ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will show that before I conclude my remarks.


John Graham Haggart: What is the loss on the Prince Edward Island road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not that separately. It is desirable that members on both sides of the House should view this matter from a practical standpoint, and not from a political standpoint. It is simply a question of dealing with a railway that, I think, is run fairly free from political influences, a railway that is managed practically by the same persons that have been there for years. The same general manager, the same chief superintendent, in fact all the officials are to-day identically the same as were there twenty years ago. We have the Intercolonial on our hands as an essential part of the pact of confederation, and we have reached the stage where we must calmly realize the full extent of our obligations in that regard. I do not feel like apologizing for even a deficit on the Intercolonial. I realize that the Intercolonial was part of the pact of confederation, I realize that it was constructed over a route that was not commercial, I realize that It was practically military and political influences that located that road.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Would the minister be good enough to say why it was not constructed over a commercial route ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For this reason, that it was constructed away round on the northern shore of the province of New Brunswick. It was not constructed through the centre of the province, it follows the route of the St. Lawrence, making a long detour. To make any earnings at all on our freight or passengers, we have to carry them hundreds of miles further than does the Canadian Pacific Railway, which runs through practically the same field. The Canadian Pacific Railway goes direct, we have to send our freight hundreds of miles further round, and our mileage is greater, the cost of operation is necessarily greater, but our returns are no more. We are not in a position fairly to compete with other railways. The government of Canada constructed the Intercolonial, it built an excellent road ; but the government of Canada afterwards subsidized a railway to run in competition with the Intercolonial. Therefore, the Intercolonial is not only in competition with that additionally subsidized railway, but it is in competition with the route all along down the shores of the St. Lawrence, down into New Brunswick, down to the Sydneys. The Intercolonial must also compete with the water system. It is true that that competi-Mr. EMMERSON.
tion does not exist during the winter months, but our freight rates are necessarily affected, even though we do not have that competition in the winter, for the reason that we have to enter into contracts upon this basis. Shippers say ' If you will give to us certain freight rates throughout the year, we will patronize your road, not only in winter, but in summer as well.' Under these conditions we are seriously handicapped in freight rates, not merely with one company, but with many companies. And naturally precedent governs, particularly in the matter of the government railway. Precedent is very strong, and if you fix a certain rate in connection with the Sydneys, for instance, you are called upon to have proportionate rates fixed over the whole of the Intercolonial. There can be no discrimination, there must of necessity be unifoi'mity. The ordinary company can do as it will, that is to sac, they can withhold here or they can extent? there.


Samuel Barker: Just the reverse ; the ordinary company is bound by the commission and you are not.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, there are ways and ways of doing it. We are bound by reason of its being a government road. There can be no favourites, there must be uniformity. The very moment you establish a precedent with respect to one thing, that precedent must prevail all over the line. Under these conditions I must say that the Intercolonial is to be congratulated, even under the results that are shown. Of course we do not take into consideration the cost of the canal system of Canada. The canals were constructed as part of the highways 9f the country. For long years tolls were charged, but in the interest of trade and commerce these tolls were abolished. There is an annual current expenditure of upwards of $1,000,000 on the canals. In whose interest is that expenditure made ? It is true that last year we had $1,000,000 deficit on the Intercolonial Railway, but there was also $1,000,000 deficit on the canals of Canada. The canals were a part of the compact of confederation. They were made free in the interest of the trade and commerce of the country. Now, the Intercolonial Railway was established as a bond between the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the provinces known as the maritime provinces. It was established to promote trade. It did promote trade. It is true that the freight rates are not high, but I repudiate th'e idea that they are not high simply in the interest of the maritime provinces, because, if they had been higher, there would not have been that trade created between these upper provinces and the lower provinces which has resulted.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister says that the freight rates are not as high as those of other railways. Would he give us a practical statement of what is the differ-

ei;ce per ton per mile between the rates on the Intercolonial Railway and those on other roads ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 1 have not the exact calculation, but I know that the freight rates on the Intercolonial Railway have been less by some fifty per cent.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, nonsense; you have it in your own reports.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The statement is before the House. It was laid on the table. The information is here. Take the tariff of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the tariff of the Grand Trunk Railway and compare it with the freight tariff of the Intercolonial Railway, and I say that you will find that the Intercolonial Railway tariff is all the way from 25 to SO per cent less than the freight tariff of these different railways. Perhaps that- is a condition of things that should not have prevailed.


Samuel Barker: Are you speaking of through or local rates ?
have what is practically not a controllable clement; that is to say, it becomes a fixed charge. You can never reduce. It is easy to increase, but you can never reduce.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Lots of railway companies cut down their wages time after time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But a government railway never could. I make the statement unequivocally and unhesitatingly that the government cannot, in justice, pay a lower scale of wages to its employees than that paid by ordinary commercial railways.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Why 1


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why ? Because the government cannot do it. Is it right, or fair, or .just, that the government should pay a less rate of wages to its employees than that which is paid by other railways ?
Mr. tY. F. MACLEAN. No ; but if other railways are reducing wages, does the hon. minister say that the government also should not reduce wages ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am speaking very largely of local traffic. Necessarily the through tariffs must be governed by that of the other railways. Necessarily, if we accept freight at Montreal for St. John, we are governed by the Canadian Pacific Railway tariff, because they have the direct route, they have the shorter mileage, and we are compelled to carry that freight away around a much longer distance at the same rate. The local tariff rates are much less than are those of other railways, and therein is a very great loss.


Samuel Barker: I understood the hon. gentleman to be arguing a moment ago that the low rates he was speaking ot were not for the benefit of the maritime provinces, but for the benefit of the whole Dominion. Now lm says that the low rates are local rates.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated that most distinctly, and as to the other rates, because of the long distance we have to carry the freight, there is a greater cost, but notwithstanding that fact the rates are based on the shorter mileage of the Canadian Pacific Railway. We expend a greater amount of money in order to carry that freightage to its point of destination. It is also true-I admit it frankly-that our local rates are lower. I think they should be Increased. I think they necessarily must be increased in the interest, not merely of liiewoad. but in all interests. I think I may safely say that we have now passed the stage when it is possible to make ends meet. On the one hand, the freight tariff is practically fixed. The rates are exceedingly low as compared with those charged by the different railway corporations in Canada. On the other hand, we have an ascending scale of operating charges. Chief among these is the wages. The very moment vou increase, by even a farthing, the wages of any of the employees you


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am making this statement, that even with our increased wages we have not reached the limit of the other railways. The men in the car-shops and the men in all departments of the Intercolonial Railway are not paid in excess
if what other railway companies are pay-ng ; in fact, instead of the government establishing the standard of wages, the government has simply followed in the line of fie other railways, and all appeals that rave ever come before me and all appeals Rat have ever been made to other Ministers it Railways in times past, as 1 know from lersonal experience, were made on the basis if the established rate of wages paid by Rher railway companies. Under these circumstances, we have simply followed on tardily, I admit, but we have followed on, and we are yet under the standard as established by the Canadian Pacific Railway and. tlie Grand Trunk Kailway. in keeping to the rule of paying our men in accordance with the rate of wages which is paid by the commercial lines, we have been compelled, during the past two or three years, to grant very large increases to our employees in all branches of the service, and to this item of wages may be charged the principal cause of the financial results which ^veare now compelled to face. Fuel ties, umber steel and all classes of materials ire much dearer than they were three yeais i go All these charges swell the operating ixpenses. We have not been able thus far o adopt the remedy of increasing the rates, -vhich a railway corporation might apply. That is a very difficult thing to do. I think L can say frankly that there is no subject ipon which the people are more sensitive -ban that of increasing freight rates on a Government railway. From one end of the rail wav to the other, from the Sydneys to

>St. John and from Halifax to Montreal, the *very moment the suggestion of an Increase lu made, that moment you meet with opposition. That Is necessarily the outcome of government operation of railways.


William Findlay Maclean: Not necessarily.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, necessarily from this standpoint: the people say this is our line, this is our railway, we own it and we are going to run it in our own interests. I know that it is difficult for people in other parts of Canada to properly take into consideration the feeling that exists with res' pect to that very feature of the Intercolonial Railway. I have known it, I have felt it, I have been made to feel it. The very fact that you run your canals free, the very fact that these canals are operated without charge to those who take advantage of them, is used as an argument by those who would seek low freight rates on a government railroad. It is stated very freely all over the maritime provinces that if it were in the interests of confederation to construct canals and make these canals free, it is also in the interests of the confederation that the Intercolonial Railway should be operated at the least possible cost to the people who are interested in using it. I know that it is not a pleasing thing for me as Minister of Railways to stand up here to-day and acknowledge these things ; it certainly is not a gratifying fact. We are all judged by results- circumstances are not taken into consideration, peculiar conditions are not thought of-it is the results that are looked to, and upon these results I stand measurably condemned before the people of Canada as the administrator of this railway during the present fiscal year. But, I want the people of Canada to bear in mind the conditions ; I want them to realize the circumstances ; I want them to travel over that railway from the 1st of July last down to the present moment and take into consideration the history of the road. If there has been any mismanagement I certainly have yet to learn of it. We have the same general manager, we have the same officials ; there have been no offices created, there has been no extravagance; we have been buying as we bought heretofore by tender, there has been no favouritism to characterize this road during the past year as compared with previous years ; the conditions have been normal as to purchase, as to operation, as to the employment of men ; and yet we [DOT]have a deficit which may reach nearly $2,000,000.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Hear, hear.
, Mr. EMMERSON. My hon. friend says hear, hear'; he seems to gloat over the fact.
Mr. TAYX/OR. Bad management.


John Graham Haggart: What is the expenditure on capital account too ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The expenditure on capital account is very large. I have not the figures at this moment before me but it is shown in the report.


John Graham Haggart: That is the expenditure for last year; l want the expenditure on capital account for the current year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not those figures.


David Henderson: Is the $2,000,000 deficit calculated to the 1st of July or to the present time ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is only an approximate estimate. I am figuring that up to the 1st of July the deficit will be between one and a half and two millions.


David Henderson: Would the minister bring, after six o'clock, the exact deficit as well as the expenditure on capital account ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I shall endeavour to do so. The question of rates on the Intercolonial must sooner or later receive serious consideration. I am free to admit that even though the canals are free, even though the people of the west have the advantage of free freightage over the canals without tolls, and even though there is an expenditure of $1,000,000 or more annually on the canals for the benefit of the trade of the country, yet, I feel that so far as the Intercolonial Railway is concerned there must be some attention given to the freight charges. It certainly cannot go on from year to year that we should have a very large and increasing deficit, and under these circumstances I would feel that this is a matter which should receive very serious consideration. I desire as briefly as possible and purely in a general way, to go over some of the accounts connected with the operating expenses. In the maintenance of way department there has been an increase for the nine months ending 31st of March last as compared with the corresponding period last year, of $252,808. The principal items of this increase were :	Snow and ice,
$126,041 ; ballasting, $59,60S ; ties, $42,426 ; buildings and platforms, $15,480, and snow fences, $5,482. # Against this increase there was a decrease aggregating $70,762, so that the net increase was $182,625 for the nine months.


George Taylor: There was an election during that time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was an election yesterday too, I believe.


Henry Robert Emmerson: friend will say that. Mr. EMMERSON.
No doubt
my hon.
Mr. TAYLOR, up there too.
You spent a lot of money


Henry Robert Emmerson: However that may he, I do not think that the election affected the deficit very much. The maintenance of way has to do with the keeping up of the high character of the Intercolonial, that is, its roadbed and condition; and the additional charges for ballasting and ties show that this work has not been neglected during the past year. In fact, the standard of the Intercolonial is being maintained. In the department of maintenance of way, the increase of the wages list for the nine months to the 31st of March last, amounts to $97,000. We paid out that additional amount to the same number of section-men along the line of railway for the same work which they have been doing for years for $97,000 less. This additional amount is not due to any added number of men; there have been none added; but it is due simply to the increase in wages. I am not taking into consideration the amount that was paid out in connection with the snow blockade. That of course, was exceptional. We require to have special men in addition to the regular trackmen. In the mechanical department the expenses of the nine months reached $3,098,482, showing an increase over the same period of last year of $021,563. The chief items making up this increase were :	wages of drivers, firemen and
cleaners, $81,660 ; fuel, $174,938 ; repairs to engines, $114,908 ; repairs to cars, $232,462 ; oil, tallow and waste. $8,SOS ; snow ploughs and Hangers, $6,948 ; and superintendence, $9,112. During the past year we have repaired a great many more cars and engines. The rolling stock of the Intercolonial to-day is in a condition which certainly bears splendid comparison with that of previous years. In fact, I think I can safely say that at no time in the history of the Intercolonial has the rolling stock been in a better condition than it is in to-day. All the old cars-that is, the first-class, the second-class, the baggage cars and all that description-have been in the shop, and they are certainly in a much better condition to-day than they were at this period last year; and I congratulate the superintendent of motive power on the splendid way in -which lie is attending to his duties in that direction. They are turning out more engines and cars daily and monthly; they have a better system; they have the work systematized in such a way that the best results are being accomplished. The men who are receiving higher wages are making greater and better returns for those wages than they have heretofore done. A greater number of men are employed, it is true; hut the principal reason for the increase is the higher scale of wages paid to every class of men in the shops.


Samuel Barker: How many new ears of all classes have been put on the Intercolonial Railway in the last four years ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can get a statement of that.


Samuel Barker: The minister is talking of a large increase of cost for repairs. With a large increase of new cars, that ought to go down.
Mr. EMMERSON The average increase to all classes of employees in the shop was two cents per hour, and you can very readily realize what a burden that means. Take the men not merely at Moncton, but at Halifax, Sydney, St. John, LGvis, Riviere du Loup, Montreal, everywhere along the line of the railway. In the traffic department the increased cost of operation was very large. The chief items were: station expenses, $38,842, which is almost wholly an increase in wages. During the last session of parliament, as probably many lion, members know, there was a delegation here representing the telegraphers' union. Their schedule was gone over, and their wages were increased, with the result that during the past year they have been paid $38,842 more than the same number were getting in the previous year. The wages of trainmen during that period were increased by $116,608. I am prepared to give full details with respect to the comparative rates of pay of all classes of employes affected by the increases to which I have referred. Summing up the items of increased operating expenses to which I have alluded, the account would stand as follows, maintenance of way, $182,025; mechanical department, $621,563; traffic department, $145,447; making a total of $949,028. Adding this sum to the deficit of last year of $900,751, the shortage indicated for the current year would be $1.SOO.OOO. Until the year is completed, however, it would perhaps be imprudent to speculate as to what the actual amount of the deficit wil! be. That it will be large there can be no doubt. It is also certain that this result will be made the subject of general criticism. I think I may fairly ask, however, that judgment be suspended until full and accurate data are available for consideration in the light of the special conditions which have developed during the past two years in particular. As I have said, we have added to our wage account. It is only within the last two years that this has been felt, and it is unfortunate perhaps for me personally that it should have taken effect during that period, but these are the facts. I am not disposed to apologize for those increases. I think they were justified, I think they w_ere warranted from every standpoint. I think that the men employed on the Intercolonial Railway are as good a class of men as are to be found anywhere in Canada. For intelligence, skill and attention to duty they are certainly not exceeded by any other | class of men throughout the Dominion.
! There is no railway which can present a

better aggregation of men than does the Intercolonial Railway. They were entitled to recognition, they certainly were entitled to as good wages as are paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Railway; and I feel that I only did them simple justice when I acceded to their demands.
I may fairly be asked for my opinion as to the outlook.


Mr. FOWLER.: Did the hon. gentleman state the deficit on this year's operations ?
are not paying more wages, but there is this element which must not be lost sight of. We have to go mile after mile in order to earn the same results as are earned by the other railways. We have to travel additional miles and get no more returns than they do. That certainly figures very largely in our balance sheet at the end of the year, and we ought to recognize it. 1 have stated that the latter method, the method of obtaining proper equipment and thus lightening the cost of transportation merits a fair trial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that it would range between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think the hon. gentleman said $1,849,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said that if certain things were true, it would be about $1,800,000. That is an approximate amount.


Samuel Barker: Does the hon. gentleman overlook the fact that that has been going on the last four or five years ? Every expenditure for the last five years lias been justified on that ground and yet the minister tells us that it is impossible for this line to compete with others.


Samuel Barker: Up to the 30th of June or to the date of your latest interim reports?
Mr. EMMERSON; Up to the 30th June. All my conjectures are based upon the year's operations and on certain results we have up to the 31st March, and even up to this moment. Taking it all in all, on the 30th June our deficit will not be less than $1,800,000 and it may reach $2,000,000. Of course a good deal will depend on what the operations of this month may be. This Is usually a good month; and if we have favourable conditions, that very dark picture may be brightened up to some extent-Of course as regards the conditions at the close of the year, I could very much better give an explanation then as to the year's business and I prefer to leave it until then. It is not worth while my speaking of the conditions of the Intercolonial Railway or its prospects, but I simply recite the facts as they appear to-day. I think that I can fairly ask the sympathy of the House in facing the task of administering the Intercolonial Railway under the new circumstances which now prevail. Two ways of reducing the deficit are open to us. One to increase the freight rate generally and the other to carry, by means of better equipment, traffic at a lower cost. I do not know that the former method could be immediately applied, but the latter merits a trial. If we can equip that road so as to minimize the cost of carrying the traffic, that certainly would benefit the railway. Let me say that the cost of carrying the traffic over the Intercolonial Railway compares favourably, acording to the March returns, with any other railway in Canada. We are not paying more for our material. In fact we are paying less.


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the past year the Tntercolonial Railway has been short of motive power to the extent of seventy-five engines, and that has materially add'ed to the expenses of running the railway during the last winter. And, more than that, we should have on the Intercolonial to-day at least fifty additional engines, if we are ever measurably to keep up with the increased traffic of the road. That point must not be overlooked-that there has been a great increase in the traffic and there has not been a corresponding increase in the motive power nor in the cars. Why, last winter, I could not go into my office, without being assailed with telegrams from all over the system complaining of lack of cars. When I telegraphed to Moncton, the only result was to ascertain definitely that we had not enough cars. And we were absolutely short of engines. Only last week the engine of the morning train going out of St. John broke down, and absolutely, there was not a spare engine anywhere in sight. We haven't them. Now, the people of Canada have a splendid railway, and that railway needs to be properly equipped-it certainly should be equipped so that it can take care of the traffic that offers. And, though I am not able to present a very pleasant picture of the current year's operations. yet, in my judgment, the Intercolonial is the greatest asset that Canada has. It has served its purpose, and is serving its purpose-that of cementing the provinces together.


Samuel Hughes: Then the minister is not going to let it be sold to the Grand Trunk Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not through my vote That railway should remain an asset of Canada.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


William Findlay Maclean: And be extended.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are getting our materials for the Intercolonial Railway at less cost than do the other railways. We Mr. EMMERSON.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would be willing to extend it. Every move I have made has been in the direction of extending it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. minister has 'extended the deficit most successfully.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, my hon. friend (Mr! Osier) speaks for another railway. I admit that the deficit has been extended, and I am not going to apologize for it. It has been done in the interest of Canada ; Canada has got the benefit of it. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is in favour of government ownership of railways, I believe ?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And I suppose of canals as well ? Well I do not think that the expenditure of $1,000,000 for running the canals for a year would be a matter calling for apology. Nor do I think one should apologize for spending even $2,000,000 in the interest of the country in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. If it is deemed a desirable thing that the Intercolonial should be carried on so as to make ends meet, it is possible that both the methods to which I have referred should be adopted -on the one hand the improvement of the equipment, and on the other hand the increase of the freight rates. That is a matter calling for most serious consideration. And, as it is six o'clock, I will leave hon. members to consider what I have already said and resume after recess.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I trust that my explanations with respect to the Intercolonial are found to be satisfactory by the committee, and I do not think I need to dwell upon the subject any longer.


David Henderson: Does the hon. gentleman mean that statement for sarcasm, that the explanations he has made are satisfactory to the House?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hope the explanations are satisfactory, whether the results of the year are satisfactory or not. I do not wish the committee to commit itself in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman means that he delivered his statement in a pleasing manner.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, iu a frank manner.


John Graham Haggart: The minister promised to give us a statement of the expenditure on capital account.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am unable to do so, I found it is not in the office.


John Graham Haggart: We have certainly listened with a good deal of interest to the statement of the Minister of Railways with
respect to the position of affairs on the Intercolonial Railway, and a more lugubrious state of affairs, although it may have been _ a candid one, than that made by the Minister of Railways, was never before made iu this House. We have been promised from year to year on account of the large expenditure which was being made on the Intercolonial, a better state of affairs than has previously existed. Let me state briefly what the position was on the Intercolonial under Conservative management. From 1891 to 1896 the Intercolonial was brought to a position where the revenue nearly met the expenditure. For the three years, 1891. 1892 and 1893 there was a surplus. In 1S94 and 1895 there was a slight deficit, amounting to about $50,000 per year. The expenditure nearly balanced the receipts from 1S91 to 1896. There was a comparatively small expenditure on capital account. The statement was made by myself in this House that the Intercolonial Railway, under proper management, with the rates which are at present in force, could be made to meet all expenses. What have we seen from 1896 to the present day? Let me tell you what the .position of the Intercolonial was on the 30th of June, 1896. The total expenditure on capital account was $55,267,000. The expenditure on capital account up to the 30th of June, 1904, was $72,735,000. Then we have the extraordinary statement made to-day by the Minister of Railways that the difference between earnings and expenditure, independent entirely of capital account, was between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000. The Minister of Railways stated that the amount of the loss he estimated at somewhat more than $1,800,000, and that probably at the end of the year it would be $2,000,000. I asked the minister for an explanation, and the explanation he gave was that it was to a large extent owing to the unusual amount of snowfall, in Prince Edward Island, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and that consequently there was an enormous extra expenditure. He stated also that to bring the payment of wages on the Intercolonial up to * the standard that was in force throughout the Dominion, it wrould be necessary to increase them about twenty per cent. What is the expenditure on capital account? Why do we not get that from the minister? ' It is the simplest thing in the world for him to furnish the information. Why have we not got it? I find that the amount expended on capital account during the current year is $6,195,250. which with the deficit on the Intercolonial Railway amounts to $8,195,000. For this current year the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals explains that the receipts are nearly the same as they were last year. ,The total receipts therefore on the Intercolonial were in the neighbourhood of $6,200,000. In order to earn this $6,200,000, this country has expended $S,195,000 on

capital account on the Intercolonial Railway. Does it not seem extraordinary to the. House ? This is the most extraordinary presentment of the management of the road that ever was made in this House since I have been a member of it-$8,195,000 expended in cash out of the pockets of the people of this country when the total receipts from the railway are in the neighbourhood of $6,200,000 ! No wonder that the lion. Minister of Railways and Canals was modest in the presentment of it. What excuse does he offer to the people of this country ? His excuse is that the people in the maritime provinces believe that they are entitled to some recompense for the canals which the people of the Dominion enjoy. What reason has he to advance that argument ? I have heard both the hon. Minister of Railways hnd Canals and the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) advance that argument. In the settlement of the indebtedness between the ' provinces, when the provinces were confederated into the Dominion, we had canals existing in the country. We had a debt. The debt was apportioned between the provinces and it was assumed by the Dominion as a whole. There was an allowance made for the expenditure we had made upon the canals up to that time and any expenditure upon the canals since that time has been fully compensated by like expenditure or by'larger expenditures in the maritime provinces for works of public utility in these provinces from which the Dominion government does not receive a cent in return. I hope that will end the argument that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has made in reference to the maritime provinces being entitled to the free carriage of goods, because it amounts virtually to the free carriage of goods in the maritime provinces, in compensation for the free use of the canals. What benefit has this section of the country or what benefit is the province of Quebec receiving from the building of the canals ? The canals have been _built for the purpose of diverting the trade of the Northwest both on the Canadian and American sides of the boundary through our Dominion and for the purpose of giving us the advantages which might accrue to us from the transportation of that trade through the Dominion. No especial benefit accrued to the people of Ontario or to the people of Quebec as a result of the construction of those canals. It was of no advantage to them. What advantage was the building of the Sault Ste. Marie canal ?-no more advantage to the people of Ontario and Quebec than to the people o>f New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. It was a grand undertaking for the purpose of developing the Northwest and diverting that immense trade-which I suppose could be further diverted bv the deepening of our canals to an extent which I have advocated hitherto-through the Dominion of Canada for the benefit of Mr. HAGGART.
the whole Dominion. Not one dollar has been expended for the purpose of building these canals, but an equivalent expenditure has been given in compensation to the maritime provinces. Enough about that. We have no objection to that. As the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has introduced the local issue into his argument let me .say that the people of Ontario and Quebec have no desire whatever to secure any large return from the expenditure upon the Intercolonial Railway-. What does the expenditure amount to at the present day ? The expenditure to the 30th June, 1904, on the Intercolonial Railway amounted to $72,735,935. Add to that the deficit during the present year and this $6,100,000 expended on capital account and it amounts to over $SO,000,000. Notwithstanding the fact that we have made this enormous expenditure which the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals declares was necessary in order that the people of the maritime provinces might be compensated for the expenditure which has been made to provide water communication in this section of the country, we have been obliged to expend during the present year on capital account and to meet the deficit over $8,000,000. But, it does not end there. The hon. minister foretells what he intends to do in the future. Me says that the only way to bring matters to a different position from that in which they are at the present moment is to increase the facilities for transportation in the maritime provinces. He says that they want at least fifty more locomotives on that railway and that a further expenditure will be necessary for the purpose of .bringing things to a level. We have heard sufficient about that. When the Drummond County Railway was taken over by the Dominion government, what was the promise made by the Minister of Railways and Canals at that time ? He stated that the Intercolonial Railway was opening up a new era, that there was life being put into the old concern, that they were no longer to keep on doing business on a back street, that they, were to occupy premises on the front street and that the result would be one of financial benefit to the people of the country. What has the result been ? The result has been just as it has been depicted by the hon. minister who has presented this statement to us here this evening. I do not understand how it is that the Finance Minister allows an expenditure on capital account for the purpose of carrying on the work of this railway and for the purpose of making up the deficiency in the revenue amounting in all to $8,195,000. We remember the glorious picture which the hon. Minister drew of the finances of the country ; yet, last year for the purpose of balancing the affairs of the Intercolonial Railway there was an expenditure on capital account of $8,195,000. The hon. gentleman undertakes to give us the reasons for it. He states that they have been bringing up the wages

to the level of that attained upon other
roads, and he states that the freight rates that they collect on the Intercolonial Railway are not mercantile rates and that they are not such as other railways charge for the carrying of freight. Most of the business clone on the Intercolonial Railway is a local business. All the expenditure which has been made during the last twenty years for the purpose of increasing the volume of through traffic had not increased the through traffic of the Intercolonial Railway at all. The development which has taken place on the Intercolonial Railway from 1S92 when the receipts wex-e about $3,500,000 to the present day when they are $6,200,000 has taken place simply as a result of the development of the maritime provinces themselves.
The local business has increased, the through business initiating in the maritime provinces has increased, but the through traffic from or to Montreal has not developed one bit. The minister should have placed before the House a statement as to the freight rates charged on the Intercolonial Railway and a comparison with the freight rates charged by other railways. He ought to know the receipts per mile carriage for local freight on the Intercolonial Railway and also for through freight. He could have got that information in his department, but he did not go to the trouble of giving it to the House. In like manner he should have been able to tell the expenditure on capital account for the current year. We know that in 1896 the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway was $55,000,000, and we know that to-day it is $81,000,000. Since these gentlemen opposite came into power they have increased the capital expenditure by $26,000,000. They have promised from year to year that things would be better, but it has gone from bad to worse. Will the people of Canada continue to endorse this ? The fact that the Intercolonial Railway has been put into the position it is in to-day by this government can have no other object than to disgust the people of Canada with the management of the road, and with state management of railways in general, and to force them to seek a remedy in the management of this railway by a commission, or its sale to a syndicate, or the turning of it over to some of the large railway corporations of this Dominion. I warn the people of the maritime provinces that it is to tlieir interest that the Intercolonial Railway should make a better showing ; I warn the people of the maritime provinces that it is to their interest tha't the Intercolonial Railway should be a state-owned and state-managed railway ; I tell them that under other management than the present, the result would be that the Intercolonial Railwav-it might not pay interest on its cost, although it possibly could-but certainly there would be no difficulty at all in making the receipts
and expenditures balance. The returns show that there has been a large development of trade in the" maritime provinces. From Dal-housie to Sydney and Halifax and St. John, the railroad runs through a country which ought to make it as good a paying investment as a railway in any other part of the Dominion, if it were under proper management. The Minister of Railways tells us that there was a capital expenditure of nearly $3,000,000 at Moncton, with the result that the repairs of locomotives can be done cheaper now than hitherto. Well, we do not know anything about that, but we do know that there is an immense expenditure for repairs on the road. He told us that he built four locomotives last year, but I venture to say that he could have bought these locomotives in the market for just one-quarter what they cost to build in Moncton. J list fancy an institution that can only turn out four locomotives a year competing with the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway, whose workshops will turn out one a day ; with the Baldwin Works, which have a capacity of ten a day, or with the Kingston Works, which can turn out thirty or forty a year. The Minister told us that the deficit was to some extent caused by putting the men on the same scale of wages as the employees of other railways throughout the country. He should have given us specific information, and made a comparison between the wages paid on the Intercolonial Railway and the wages paid on other Canadian railways. He is perhaps right when he says the government cannot afford to pay lower wages than private corporations pay, but there is no necessity for the (Intercolonial Railway paying less. When 1 took over the management of the Intercolonial Railway I found a surplus of labour to the extent of nearly 1,600 employees on the road. I gradually got rid of that. There was a little kicking at the time, but it soon subsided, and the fact of the matter is that sc long as you do not increase the freight rates those who use the railroad do not care whether you have double the number of employees necessary or a less number than is required. There must be a large number of employees on Die Intercolonial Railway who are not necessary for the operation of the railroad. But the alarming part of the statement of the minister is that this unfortunate condition of the Intercolonial Railway is not going to end. He threatens to increase the freight rates, but I tell him there is no necessity for that. The minister told us that the freight rates on the Intercolonial Railway are from 20 to 80 per cent less than they are on the other railways. He gave us no exact figures to prove that, tut I venture to say that that statement is incorrect. I state that for the carriage of local freights, which is the chief business of the Intercolonial Railwray, fair remuneration is received. The inference from the whole thing is that the management of the

intercolonial Railway is not what it used to be The Minister of Railways endeavours to justify himself by saying that the chief employees of the railroad have been the same for the last twenty-live or thirty years. That is true. The deputy minister, who is directly responsible to the minister, is the same man, and Mr. Pottinger, the general manager, is the same. He is perhaps getting a little old for the position, but the duty of the Minister of Railways to the country is to judge by results. If the results of the operation of the Intercolonial Railway is not what he thinks it ought to be, his duty is to get other employees. But I will say this in favour of Mr. Pottinger, from what I know of him, that if he is given instructions by the minister, he will carry them out to the letter, and if the instructions are such as they ought to be to the man who manages the Intercolonial Railway, the showing will be entirely different.
What justification has the Minister of Railways or his colleagues for the enormous deficit on the Intercolonial ? He promised last year that there would be increased freights this year. I tell him that there'is no necessity for anything of the kind ; proper and economical management of the Intercolonial Railway would yield a result entirely diffei'-ent from what we have at the present nio-ment. What must the people of the country think of the justification offered by the minister for a deficit and an expenditure on capital over and above the receipts for the current year of .$8,100,000, or nearly $2,000,000 in excess of the total receipts of the road ? Oh, we are told, the people of the maritime province think that their freight ought to be carried at the rates which prevail at present, because the people of the other provinces have the right oif free transportation over their canals. I have proved that for every dollar expended on the canals since confederation nearly an equal amount, according to population and accoi'ding to the amount paid by the people, has been expended in the maritime provinces, in return for which the people of this Dominion never received a cent. If my statement is correct, we are in this position, that for the purpose of carrying freight on the Intercolonial Railway, we are taking $8,100,000 out of the pockets of the people of this country. I absolve the people of the maritime provinces for not paying their fair share of the freight on any goods carried on that railway. I say the rates are fair. The railway passes through a country in which, if economically managed, it ought to show a good revenue for the expenditure-not on capital account, because that has reached over $80,000,000 at the present moment. We are entitled to a detailed statement showing a comparison with rates on railways similarly situated in any other part of America, to see whether the people of the maritime provinces Mr. HAGGART.
are paying a higher rate than they ought to pay. Matters will be worse in a few years than they are now.
The Minister of Railways has told us what he intends to do under the arrangement with the Canada Atlantic Railway. The Intercolonial, he assures us, will have a brilliant future, just as the same thing was predicted on the acquisition of the Drummond Counties Railway. I venture to tell the minister that any arrangement he makes with the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the running of trains over the Canada Atlantic from Montreal to the Geoi'giau Bay, will be to the advantage of the Grand Trunk Railway-that any sum paid by the Dominion of Canada for the purpose of securing running powers over that road will be greater than the net receipts resulting therefrom, and that the result of acquiring those running powers will be a greater deficit on the Intercolonial than exists at the present time. The position of affairs in this country is alarming. The expenditure is increasing by leaps and bounds. Is it possible that the people of Canada, with the enormous expenditures which they are making in every part of the country, will be able to bear an expenditure of $8,000, 000 a year for the purpose of running the Intercolonial Railway ? Bad crops In the Northwest for one year would put the finances of the country in a very serious position. The public debt is not decreasing, and it cannot decrease when a road which ought to be at least self-sustaining is costing the country so much. Yet the Minister of Railways could to-morrow make such arrangements with a couple of companies or with a syndicate that instead of an expenditure of over $8,000,000 a year the country would receive $750,000 a year for the Intercolonial Railway. Is the minister forcing the country to that position ? Why should he do so? There is no reason for it. The Intercolonial Railway is a benefit to the people of the whole Dominion especially to the people of Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces, and a means of inter-communication. It is built, as I stated before, on as good a line, if economically managed, as any line of railway in the country. Oh, we are told, it runs against water communication. What is the position of the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway from the pox-ts of Sarnia and Windsor to Quebec? They run against the finest system of water communication in the world for six months in the year. The Intercolonial Railway is in no different position in that respect from the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk. To a certain extent the Intercolonial parallels the St. Lawrence river from Point Levis throughout the pi'oviuce of Quebec ; hut when it reaches the maritime provinces, it passes through nearly the centre of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. What differ-
7465 JUNE 14. 1905 7466 [DOT]	
ent position, does it occupy, then, with reference to earning powers, from the other railways? None whatever. Besides that he says it does not follow commercial lines. And yet that line from Quebec down to Moncton, which is at present a non-paying one, is to be met by competition. The people are asked to build for the Grand Trunk Pacific another line for the purpose of competing with it. The hon. minister says that the freights charged upon the Intercolonial Railway are competitive freignts against the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has a shorter line of communication. Well, then, in what position will we be when the Grand Trunk Pacific is built ? You say that that will give a shorter line from Levis to Moncton, but it will be another competing line in opposition to the Intercolonial Railway. It is time for our people to be alarmed at the position. We have statement after statement from Ministers of Railways, from one year to another, as to what the probable results will be in the future, and in that respect the present Minister of Railways differs from all his predecessors. He does not want to paint a bright future for the intercolonial Railway. He says that there is bound to be a large deficit next year unless we give him unlimited powers for the purchase of locomotives and freight cars, so that he may be able to cheapen freight rates. I suppose another necessity in that respect would be to reduce the gradients. That whole matter would involve an expenditure, not of $8,000,1X10 a year only, but greatly in excess of that amount-and for what ? For the purpose of making both ends meet. A more extraordinary statement I never heard from a Minister of Railways. The only wav, he said, to remedy the deficit is to increase the rates of freight, and he does not think he can increase them, because there is a feeling in the maritime provinces against any7 increase on account of free tolls on the canals. But he also suggests another remedy. We are, he says, short of seventy-five locomotives, and we ought to have easier grades and an increased number of freight cars ; and when we have these we will be able to carry freight cheaper and lessen the deficit. But he ought to be prepared with a financial statement showing what the expenditure in these respects will lie and how much cheaper he can carry freight if he has these improvements made. But, Mr. Chairman, it will be the same old story next year and year after year. So long as the management continues to be as it is at present, we will find a continuous record of increased deficits. There is another little detail. I see that the capital expenditure at the end of 1905 was $4,665,265 on the Intercolonial Railway. That is the capital expenditure during that year, and on the Prince Edward Island Railway it was $1,335,975. The hon minister states that the receipts of the 237 REVISE	Prince Edward Island Railway are about $11,000 less than last year, and the increase in working expenses is $65,000-Last year the deficit on that railway7 was in the neighbourhood of $90,000. Add the increased expenditure this year of $65,000 to the shortage in receipts compared with last year of $11,000, and you have $76,000 to the bad on these two items alone. The hon. minister has not given us the actual deficit or the expenditure on account of capital on the Prince Edward Island Railway, but he says that the difference between levenue and expenditure upon that road must be in the neighbourhood of nearly $90,000. Add that to the deficit of last year, and you will find that for the purpose of running a little narrow gauge road-which ought not to have cost more than $4,000,000, but on which the capital expenditure is $6,-060,000-you have a deficit ot nearly $200,000 per y7ear. What excuse can there possibly be for any such state of affairs ? 1 would say to the management of that read : If you cannot run things better, I will try something else. The hon. minister ought to have taken such a course, both on the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway, instead of coming down with that de profundis speech of his, in which he says, in the most melancholy of tones : I regret deeply to have to make such a statement. I would try some experiment, and see if the management of these roads could not be made more conducive to the interests of the people than they now are. Will the country accept such an apology 1 Will the country endorse such an exhibition of incompetency and extravagance ? I am afraid that the people do not look narrowly into the expenditure of this country. They do not criticise the enormous extravagances of the gentlemen who are our rulers at present. If they did as any commercial concern would, look into their own business more closely, the results would be very different. Here we have a Minister of Railways blandly presenting us with H statement of these two roads, showing mismanagement in every line-one of these roads 1,300 miles long and the other about 230 miles long; one a narrow gauge road, and both running through as fine a country as there is in Canada. Both are roads which ought to pay, and yet the hon. gentleman comes"down with a statement showing a deficit between revenue and expenditure of nearly $8,000,000, namely SS.OOO.OOO on the Intercolonial Railway ana on the Prince Edward Island Railway. I have not got all the figures as to the expenditure on the Prince Edward Island Railway, but I will venture to say they are between $900,000 and $1,000,000, making a deficit of $9,200,000 taken out of the pockets of the people for the purpose of running two mismanaged roads under the direction of the government. D EDITION ;

I have my duty to perform ; I have presented the facts to the people, and if the people will submit to a continuance of this mismanagement, I have toothing more to say. But it puts an end to all prospect of state-ownership of railways in this country. It is the most fatal blow that ever was struck at that policy. It shows that under the management of a government, such as now constituted, we can expect no economical management of any state concern. It puts back for fifty years in this country the prospect of state-ownership of railways or of state-ownership of any public utility. Nor do the conditions justify any such lamentable exhibition as we have had. As the Minister of Railways himself says, the government can buy materials cheaper than any other railway owner in the country. Under the system in vogue when I was manager of the Intercolonial Railway, when we invited tenders for supplies, I found that I got supplies of the best quality, because they were tested, whenever there was a dispute, by the McGill College in Montreal, whose decision was final, and we got them cheaper than any other railway in the country.
On a government railway you can get men at cheaper rates and men who will serve more faithfully than under private management. But, if you build work-shops greater than are needed, if you undertake extraordinary expenses for useless purposes from one end of the line to the other, of course you cannot look for success. When 1 ceased to have charge of the railway in 1896, I had reports from the officers who are at present in charge of the system stating that the system was in a better position than when we took charge of it. And not only was the position of the road improving, but expenditure on capital account had nearly ceased, as ought to be the case on the Intercolonial. There is no justification for expenditure on capital account on an old railway. The same is true, except for the expenditure on the branches with regard to the Prince Edward Island road. That capital account of the Intercolonial should close, as I said before. Mr. Chairman, I have set before this committee and this country the broad facts of the management of the Intercolonial; and if the people will submit to such management, they will submit to anything.


Samuel Barker: I do not intend to enter to-night into any criticism in the shape of a reply to the speech of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson). On two occasions since f entered parliament, I went through a very considerable amount of labour to analyse the annual report of the Minister of Railways of this government and to lay before the House, in some detail, the conclusions at which I arrived. But I found so little attention paid fiv hon. gentlemen opposite to any word Mr. HAGGART.
that was uttered in criticism of the government management of the Intercolonial, that I consider it would be an absolute waste of my time and of the money of this country to spend an hour in the criticism of any Minister of Railways under this administration. I say that frankly, I say it deliberately; for, having spent weeks at examination of the long and most extraordinary reports issued year after year by the government as to the management or these railways, I felt that that labour was absolutely thrown away, and time occupied in addressing the House worse than thrown away, because it involved an expense to the country. I have said before in this House that in criticising, and giving my reasons for the criticisms, that if any ordinary company in Canada or the United States, were managed as the Intercolonial is managed under this government, the directors of that railway company would be liable to criminal indictment for the manner in which the business was administered.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. BARKER I say that deliberately. And I know whereof I speak. I have had some experience in railways; I have had thirty years' experience; and I say, deliberately, that if a board of directors of any ordinary railway company laid their accounts before their shareholders and the public in the way in which the accounts of the government with regard to the Intercolonial are presented, those railway directors would find themselves in jail; and I defy contradiction of that statement.
So I am not going into the details to-night. I object to going to all that labour for the third time. But the minister of Railways has made one statement in my presence to which I wish to refer. I had not intended to speak at all, but after he had made the statement to which I refer, and while sitting here at my desk, I tested the accuracy of his figures. And I will give the House the result of that test and will leave the House to judge how far they can trust accounts as explained by the hon, minister. The hon. gentleman said that the Intercolonial was 75 locomotives short of the number it ought to have for the proper conduct of its business. Am I right ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Samuel Barker: Well, after the hon minister made that statement 1 took the mileage and locomotives of the Intercolonial Railway and of the three other principal railways of Canada, the Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Northern. And I found that the Intercolonial has more locomotives to the mile than any of these roads. And I will prove it. At page 1-6 of the Report of the Minister of Railways we find it stated that the Intercolonial has a mileage of 1,322 miles. And. at page I-115, of the same report, we find that the Intercolonial


I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to be obliged again to call attention to the point to which I referred a few minutes ago, the manner in which this committee is conducted, as illustrated by what we see,-gentlemen standing up and talking all over this chamber.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order.


Samuel Barker: 
William Findlay Maclean: As a friend of public ownership, and as one who still at times advocates that principle in this House and elsewhere, I cannot agree with the statement made by the Minister of Railways. His statement is a very discouraging one ; and I agree with the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart) that if a better showing cannot be made in favour of public ownership, the country will not long stand what we have of it to-day. There is nothing miraculous about public ownership. Public ownership must be vindicated by a sound business administration, and by nothing else. Now have we had a sound business administration of the Intercolonial V So far as I can gather, we have had anything but that. There has been a political administration of it, there has been an extravagant administration of it, and there has been a use of it, or rather a misuse of it in the interest of other railways that happen to be rivals. Now if we are to have public ownership tried in this country, 2371
and the experiment is well worth being tried, there must be sound business administration, and good results must be shown. The road must be put into the hands of men who have no connection whatever with politics. We have seen public ownership of railways in Europe, and in every country in Europe, a budget is brought down every year containing an explanation of the state ownership of railways and its results. There is not a Minister of Railways who comes down in any of those parliaments who makes such a speech as has been made here to-night; on the contrary, he brings down a business statement, he shows his railway is being administered as a business proposition, he is showing a profit on the construction of the road, on the capital invested in the road, and he is showing that the people are getting lower and lower freight rates and a better service in every direction. Now public ownership, public administration of railways in all the countries of Europe has proved to be a success, and it is proved to be a success because it is under sound business administration and not the kind of administration we have in this country. That being the case I say we ought to make an effort to have a similar administration of our national railway. And why is not the experiment tried ? Why does not this government say : We are determined to make the experiment of a business administration of our public railway ? Let them get a man like Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, or Sir William Van Horne, or Mr. Chas. M. Hays. Let them do like the city of Glasgow, which gets a Dalrymple to administer its street railways, and the consequence is that it has the finest street railway system in the world. They are doing it in connection with telephones in the old country, they are doing it in connection with everything else, both by municipalities and by the state, and the basis of it all is that the administration is put into the hands of business men, and politics are not allowed to interfere.
Why can't we do that in this country ? Why can't we have the experiment made in public ownership by a proper administration of the railway we hav# ? It is a great railway, it is a great proposition, it could be made to pay, it could be made to pay in the maritime provinces which they say is a poor country. I agree with the hon. member for Lanark that it is a good place to try the experiment in. But let us first of all make the revenue pay the expenses, without any regard to capital account ; then let us try to pay on the capital account, and if we can do that we can extend the state system all over this country and bring great relief to the people. In Ontario we do not want to see the Intercolonial ruined, we do not wish to see it made a by-word to the people. We would like to see it prove a success in the maritime

provinces, and see it extended through Quebec and into our own province of Ontario. We would like to see the Intercolonial brought into Toronto, brought to the Niagara frontier, brought to the Detroit river, brought to the Georgian bay, and finally to the upper lakes. But we never can hope for that under such an administration as we have at the present time, and necessitating such a statement as has been made here to-night. Why, Sir, it brings the blush of shame to any one, to any citizen of this country, to hear the statement made here to-night that the railway is being run as a first-class railway with a third-class traffic, and is producing this enormous deficit that has been produced. If the character of its traffic is only that of a third or fourth-class railway, if the department is spending so much money to maintain it as a first-class railway, I want to see it maintained as a first-class railway, and I want to see it administered as a business proposition and nothing else, and as state owned railways are administered in every other country in the world. They are a success in Australia, they are a success in New Zealand. In Australia they found a Canadian railway man to take hold of and improve their system. We have got railway men in this country who can make a success of the Intercolonial to-day; we have railway men in this country who if you give them charge of that road, will make it pay running expenses out of receipts, and begin to build up a surplus against the investment on capital account. Why can't we have it ? Why cannot the Liberal party take up a proposition of this kind and show that they can do something with it ? The only thing I can see is that they have some ulterior purpose in view, they wish to discredit the principle of public ownership. We know what the Prime Minister said about public ownership in a speech made in this House when he tried to discredit the principle. Why don't they try and make it a regulator of transportation ? In the United 'States they are trying now to improve transportation by increased government regulation, and if they are not successful in that, the only thing left is government ownership and they must come to that. If they come to that in the United States it must be on the principles of a business administration, and a man like Roosevelt will take hold of the railways in that country and administer them as a business proposition, and not as a political proposition.
Now I ask the Minister of Railways to tell the people of this country why he cannot make that railway pay. If it is not paying because the freight rates are not high enough, let the freight rates be raised. No member for the maritime provinces will stand up here and justify that road being run with freight rates that don't pay. They must do either one of two things, increase the rates or reduce the expenses. I agree Mr. W. F. MAOLE'AN.
with the hon. member for Lanark that the first experiment to make is in the reduction of expenses, and in the meantime an administration on business principles instead of a political administration. I hope some effort will be made in that direction. Let them try to get feeders for that road, and make alliances that will bring business to it. But unfortunately every arrangement that has been made up to the present with other roads is in a way to milk the Intercolonial, and turn it in as a feeder to other roads instead of making other roads feeders to it. The government went into what they called a great national transcontinental system of railways, they are expending millions and millions of the people's money, but they take good care not to make the Intercolonial a part of the system. Why are we building another railway down in the maritime provinces to compete against this road we now own, when the Minister of Railways confesses there is not sufficient traffic for three ? On the contrary he should have used the Intercolonial as the basis of a thoroughly national system, and extended that system to the west and ultimately to the Pacific. But on the contrary we have given all the opportunities to a private enterprise, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the result is that we are not having anything approaching to state ownership or a state owned railway, in this country, but the state is being bled enormously to build up great private railways which are not sufficiently cheeked nor sufficiently regulated. Now in this country we do not seem to have enough confidence in ourselves to make the experiment of a state owned railway as it ought to be made.
I deplore that fact. The hon. Minister of Finance will soon be in a position that he must justify the expenditure of state ownership we have here or be prepared to abandon it, because it is not sound financially and cannot be justified. The justification that was given here to-night as against the canal system in the west will not bear investigation. It has nothing to stand on. My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has dealt with that and dealt with it in a convincing way. The hon. Minister of Finance and the government will be in such a position that they cannot justify what is taking place to-day and the call will go forth for an increase in the rates and a reduction in the expenses of the Intercolonial Railway. That is the worst thing that can happen to the people in the maritime provinces. They ought to take a pride in the state owned railway. It is their servant, it is operated in their interest and they ought to take a pride in seeing that the state owned road is made a success, and that the railway is not something that ought to be milked and depleted and run in an extravagant way. Let them take an interest in having low freights, but let them take an interest in its economic and sound

business administration. If they do that they will benefit themselves and the whole country and- they will see the demand for public owned railways in this country increased. I could talk for a long while this evening in favour of state owned railways, but X do not wish (to do so. I only wish to enter 'my protest against any such statement as that made here to-night that the deficits have increased and are likely to increase. . On the contrary the statement ought to be that the prospect is that deficits are soon to end on the Intercolonial Railway and that it will not only pay its running expenses out of its traffic receipts but that it will soon be earning enough money to pay something on the investment. That is being done by all other first-class railways. whether state owned or private, and it is the only principle on which to administer a railway. You must make it a commercial success. There cannot be any other reason for the existence of a railway than that. It must be made to pay, the traffic over the road must maintain it and any proposition in favour of any o'ther kind of railway, whether state owned or not, cannot be justified. In Germany some of the railways are for the purposes of defence, but even these railways are made to work in with the commercial and business interests of the country and they are not only using them for the defence of the country but they pay from the point of view of aiding the trade of the country. In no country is the excuse made that a railway, because it is a government road, ought to be run at a loss. If the Intercolonial Railway is a round-about road why cannot it be shortened ? It is easy to make a short cut but that short cut should not be made in an extravagant way. If the Prince Edward Island Railway can be improved and they say it can be improved an expenditure should be made for that purpose, but once it has been improved the road should be run as a business proposition and its receipts should pay the cost of its maintenance. If we do that we will do something for public ownership and we will see the idea spread. I am more than discouraged to hear the statement which has been made here to-mgfit that to all intents and purposes a state owned railway cannot be made a success. What is this weakness in the Canadian people that of all the people in the worid who have an organized government they cannot succeed in the successful operation of a public owned railway ? There is very little competition. There are no railways cutting into the Intercolonial Railway except the Canadian Pacific Railway and that does not count 'in respect to local traffic at all. When we have conceived a great principle we ought to realize it and make it a success. If hon. gentlemen say that there is some kind of weakness in us as a nation, that our public men are not of the character to administer a trust of this
kind, let them say it boldly, but I repudiate that idea as a Canadian. I say that there ought to be sufficient patriotism in the men engaged in public life here to take that railway out of politics, put its administration into the hands of a commission or of one strong man who knows his business and who would have no political interference, as I would like to see it, if we did that I am sure that we would find a way of making the traffic pay the cost of maintenance. Canadians are equal to that, but the confession is now. made, as it has been made year after year in this country, that in some way a state owned railway cannot be made a success, and if that confession continues to be made I have no hope for the idea of public ownership of railways in this country. I say that public ownership is a great and growing principle. It is extending all over the world. It has justified itself in connection with railways, it has justified itself in connection with various municipal utilities and it is justifying itself in every direction today. It is a success in England, it is a success in Germany, it is a success in France, it is a success in other colonies such as Australia and New Zealand, and if it can be made a success there it can be made a success here, if we only try the experiment. Ret the government take this department absolutely out of politics. Let them provide a new administration for the Intercolonial Railway. Let this new administration be composed of smart, able railway men. Let us try that experiment for three years. Let us try it between now and the next election even if it does cost some votes in the maritime provinces. The everlasting love of office seems to be the inspiration that actuates almost all of our public men. Why do they not form an ideal and try to realize it in connection with our public affairs ? Surely ideals are better than love of office and better than votes, and if that is the case let them take the ideal of public ownership and try to realize it. If they do 1 believe the people will give them credit for it and be disposed to keep them longer in office rather than remove them. But this everlasting idea that we must not disturb this voter's interest, or the interest of that province, or else it will go against us in the next election must be got rid of. We must adopt a sound administration in connection with the Intercolonial Railway and if we do it will pay its way from this onward. Instead of having a deficit the cost of maintenance will come out of the traffic earnings and in a short time there will be a surplus which can be applied to the payment of the interest on the cost of the road.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Chairman, I want to correct a few figures I gave in reference to the expenditures on capital account and the deficit on the Intercolonial Railway. I find on looking over the report that the

amount of the expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway on capita] account for the current year was $4,214,750. Then, there is to supplement that in the supplementary estimates, $450,515. That makes a total expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway, independent of the running expenses, of $4,665,265. To this add the deficit on the Intercolonial Railway which the hon. minister says is $1,860,000, or which may be $2,000,000 at the end of the year, and it makes $6,665,265. The amount of the expenditures on capital account on the Prince Edward Island Railway last year was $1,003,300. In the supplementary estimates for this year there is a vote of $85,050, making an expenditure on capital account for the current year of $1,I'M,825 to which is to be added the deficit between the expenditure's and receipts of $200,000-I am estimating that but I think I am a good deal under the markmaking $1,335,075. I stated that the total deficit for the current year was $8,100,000 ; I find that it is $8,001,240.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not propose to criticise the statement of the Minister of Railways ; I do not think'it is worth criticism. The short speech of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) was quite within the mark. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to one phase of this matter. __It is quite true that it has always been the custom to charge the deficits of the Intercolonial Railway to capital account, but that is making a false representation to the country and making the people believe that the Intercolonial Railway is providing for itself.


Mr. FIELDING.: What does my hon. friend mean by saying that it has always been customary to charge the deficit to capital account ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: It has been customary.


William Stevens Fielding: To charge the deficit to capital account ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not charged to capital account ; it is charged to the debt of the country.


John Graham Haggart: The deficit every year is added to the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway ; it is not paid out of revenue.


William Stevens Fielding: How could you pay it out of the revenue of the Intercolonial Railway when that revenue is not sufficient. It us paid out of the general revenue of the country.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is added to the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


John Graham Haggart: You are wrong ; I looked into it to-day.


John Graham Haggart: 


William Stevens Fielding: The meaning of the expression ' capital account ' in our public accounts is well known, and when the hon. gentlemen says that the Intercolonial Railway deficit is charged to capital account he is mistaken. It is charged to the general revenue of the year.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Not of the Intercolonial Railway.


William Stevens Fielding: The general revenue of the Intercolonial Railway is not enough. The receipts of the Intercolonial Railway are credited to the revenue of the year and the exepnditures are charged in the outlay, so that the deficit is charged against the income of the country for the year.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The deficit is made out in such a way that the country does not realize the immense amount of money it costs us yearly to maintain that railroad. It is the custom to charge the deficit of the Intercolonial Railway in this manner, but it is a wrong principle. Until the country knows exactly what this railroad is costing them, and until the government realize their responsibility and operate this railroad in a business like manner, the present condition of things is likely to continue.


William Stevens Fielding: When the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) takes the capital. expenditure and deficit for the year and charges and treats it all as the deficit of the year. I think he is unreasonable. The money charged to capital account, if properly applied, always1 goes to the betterment of the property, and the interest on capital expenditure is a legitimate charge on the year's operations, but to charge the whole of the year's capital to the deficit account is a method of calculation that my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) would not like to have bad applied in his day.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Alexander Mackenzie when Minister of Railways said that the Intercolonial Railway was a completed undertaking, and that the capital account should have ceased altogether. That is my argument, and my statement is that the capital account or whatever you call it is expended on the railroad for the year, and in that way there is over .$8,000,000 taken out of the pockets of the people of the country this year.


William Stevens Fielding: When my hon. friend takes the deficit for the year and adds that to the capital expenditure for the year, he is unfair. The money expended on capital, assuming it is properly applied, goes to the betterment of the property and you only have the right to charge the interest on that capital to the annual output.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) was taking the capital account and he was adding to that the deficit which must be paid from some source, and



[Stage Direction]
lie said the Intercolonial Railway cost the people of this country that much more than the people receive out of it. The Minister of Finance says that we should not charge the deficit to capital.
William Stevens Fielding: You should not charge the capital with the deficit.


Robert Laird Borden: What will you do with the deficit ?


William Stevens Fielding: You have to pay it out of the general revenue of Canada.


Mr.   I@: Suppose a private corporation were operating a railroad and there was a deficit of $1,000,000 a year, and you had deficits of this kind accumulating year after year ; in the end that must be met by a fresh supply of capital or you must close up your railroad. It seems to me that the deficits on the Intercolonial Railway as on any other railroad must in the end be paid out of capital. The Minister of Finance says we have not added the deficit, to capital from year to year.


John Graham Haggart: As a matter of fact we have.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Finance says not.


John Graham Haggart: I say we have.


Robert Laird Borden: I am assuming for the purposes of argument that we have not. It seems to me that that only makes the conditions worse, because while we have $70,000,000 of capital account, in order to get the true position of affairs we should have added to that year after year the deficit, which if this railroad were owned by a corporation would have to be added to capitalization or provided for in some way.
I do not know much about railway accounts, but I think that is common sense. While we must accept the statement of the Minister of Railways as to some of the causes which in his opinion have led to this extraordinary result during the past year, it seems to me that the hon. minister did not give any satisfactory explanation as to why there is so remarkable a difference between the results of the operation of this railway and the results of the operation of the other great railways in Canada. I understand that the percentage of expenditure to receipts on these other railways is from 65 to 70 per cent while on the Intercolonial Railway the percentage of expenditure to receipts is 110 to 115 per cent. That is a very remarkable difference. We know that some peculiar conditions have to be taken into consideration in connection with the Intercolonial Railway.
We know that the Intercolonial Railway competes with water carriage more than any other railway in Canada; we know it runs through a portion of country in the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec, which is not very thickly settled; but outside of these reasons and the low rates
which were mentioned by the Minister of Railways, I do not know of any reason which should operate to make the results
so very different. It is remarkable that from 05 to 72 per cent of the gross earnings are sufficient to operate railways in other parts of Canada, and even in the same portions of Canada, while in the case of the Intercolonial it takes 110 or 115 per cent of the gross earnings. What is the reason for that? Is there not some other reason than what the hon. Minister of Railways has given us to-day ? My right hon. friend the Prime Minister declared in a speech within the past fifteen or eighteen months that the whole system was vicious. The Minister of Railways seems to have given very good evidence to-night that there is something wrong about the system, otherwise he would have been able to have set forth a different result from what he did. If the system is vicious and brings about such an extraordinary result as he has presented, how is it that we do not hear from the government some statement of the particulars in which it is vicious and some proposal or policy by means of which that vicious system can be modified so as to become at least less vicious and produce better results? There is no use of calling on the House and the country year afteryear for a million or a million and a half to pay off a deficit, or for three or four millions to be spent on a capital account that should have been closed long ago, and saying without any explanation that the whole thing is vicious. There is not much logic or reason or statesmanship about that.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend think the capital account should have been closed? I know that the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) thinks so.


Robert Laird Borden: That, I suppose is the proper principle to follow except so far as extensions are concerned.


William Stevens Fielding: And betterments.


Samuel Barker: No ; betterments out of revenue.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not profess to speak as an expert, but I think the usual principle is to make the expenditure out of revenue except for extensions, for an absolute change, for a better class of rails, making due allowance for the old ones


William Stevens Fielding: Or increased rolling stock.


Robert Laird Borden: Only so far as it does not' supply the place of rolling stock purchased in the first instance.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite correct.
Mr. R- L. BORDEN. I do not think we are very far apart; so that it might be sufficiently accurate to say that the capital ac-


Edmund Boyd Osler: The Finance Minister says that expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway should be charged to capital, and that only the interest should be charged against revenue. That would be all very well if there were a profit from the expenditure of capital. The Minister of Railways told us to-night in his very lucid speech that we had come to the point where we must realize that the Intercolonial Railway must be operated at a loss. That being the case, do not let us deceive ourselves, but let us boldly face the met aud let the people of this country realize that all the expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway is practically a charge against the revenue of this country. The Intercolonial has been in operation as a finished road for the greater part of twenty


Robert Laird Borden: five years. It is quite true that during the first ten or fifteen years in the life of a railway, expenditures for renewals, increased sidings, &c., are charged pretty much against capital. But having taken two trips over the Intercolonial last summer, I think the roadbed, the rolling stock and the railway generally is in a first-class condition.
Therefore there should not be any necessity for an expenditure exceeding the ordinary expenditure on a completed railway. Very few of the items now charged to capital account on the Intercolonial Railway would be charged to capital account by any ordinary railway company. We are deceiving ourselves by adding year after year $3,000,000, $4,000,000, $5,000,000 to capital account, on which there is no apparent possibility of our obtaining any returns. Therefore that money should be charged, not to capital, but to revenue, because it Is so much less in the operation of the railroad. The extraordinary thing to my mind is that item after item Is for extensions of sidings and extensions of accommodations, and yet, according to the minister's own statement, the gross earnings for this current year are not greater than they were two or three years ago. That is something no one can understand. The Intercolonial Railway is doing a large business, it is participating in the increased business all over the country, and as is has not, according to the hon. minister, changed its rates for passengers or freight it ought, in the ordinary course of things, to have received a very much larger gross icvenue this year than it did the year previous. That is quite apart from the increased expenditure. But if you take the trouble to look over the items charged to capital account in the public accounts in 1904, you will see how utterly absurd they are, especially on a road which is not doing, according to the minister's statement, any increased business. The statement of the minister can have only one meaning, and that is that the business on the road to-day is not greater than it was two years ago, and yet an enormous sum has been expended the last two years on rolling stock and on renewals of rolling stock, so that the road ought to have a very ample supply of rolling stock for its business. Take item after item in this long list of expenditures charged to capital account, and you will find such items as increased accommodation at small stations, $662.57, siding to wharf at Campbeliton, $1,250. Although there is no increase in business, these little sidings here and there are charged to capital account. Then there is a new freight shed $1,228, dwelling for agent $1,699 and freight house $1,300 charged to capital account, and these on a road which has been in operation for 34 or 35 years and has been a finished road for 25 or 30 years. No private corporation would dream of charging these items to capital account.
JUNE 14. 190a


Robert Laird Borden: What does an ordinary corporation charge to capital account ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Nothing except permanent extensions.


Robert Laird Borden: It depends on whether there is an increase of revenue ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: When a road has been put in first-class order, when all its bridges and other permanent structures are completed, there is no charge for maintenance or renewal added to capital account. Take such items as these charged to capital account: Alberton, new station, $24 ; Oxford and New Glasgow branch, $200.16. One item after another of this description, some of them large items, are charged to capital account when they should have been charged against revenue. I think that the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he brings down his budget, ought to face this question, because as this account is now made, the account of the new transcontinental road will be made. He should let the people know exactly what that new road is going to cost. Taking the statement of the Minister of Railways that we cannot expect anything but deficits on the Intercolonial Railway in the future, we are simply attempting to deceive ourselves when we do not charge the whole amount expended on the Intercolonial to revenue.


Samuel Barker: I would like to recall to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance the argument he was so ready with two or three years ago, when, in this House, I called attention to the very objectionable system of the government of charging the renewal of rails to capital account. What did the hon. gentleman say ? He said : Oh, what difference does it make whether you charge it to capital or working expenses, the country has to pay all the same. If that be so, if the capital expenditure plus the deficit goes to the general debt of the country, what is the use of finessing about whether it is correct to make the charge to capital account or not. It is quite true the deficit is not charged to the capital of the Intercolonial Railway, but the debt of this country to-day is so much greater by the deficits on the Intercolonial Railway. During this administration, the Intercolonial Railway has run short ,by nearly $8,000,000, including the present year. Does the hon. gentleman mean to say for a moment that our national debt is not thereby so much increased ? That I take to be practically what the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) means, and the people do not seem to understand that our deficits on the Intercolonial Railway are running up the debt of this country. The hon. gentleman speaks as if calling the loss a deficit, wipes it off. But somebody has to pay the money; it must come out of the pockets of the people; it is added to the debt of the country. What is the position in the year reported upon in the Blue-book before us ?
The Minister of Railways, who thinks he has made a most satisfactory report, lias paid $114 to earn every hundred dollars we got in, and according to him that is satisfactory. If that W'ere satisfactory to him in his own personal affairs, he would soon be wound up. No man- is able to pay $114 out of $100 by any process I have ever learned unless he goes into debt, and this country goes into debt every year it has a deficit. Of that there can be no question. The Finance Minister may say that the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway is not added to by these deficits. That is quite true. We find at page ii 32 the whole thing set forth, and you find millions upon millions added from year to year to capital expenditure and in another column the deficits, but they all come out of the same pot and the country has to foot the Bill. Whether you call it technically capital account or not, the country has to pay it. Wliat my hon. friend means is that the people ought to understand that.
Three years ago I argued that very large sums improperly charged to capital should be charged to revenue and that there should be no concealment of the real loss on working by turning over to capital account But tiie lion, gentleman wanted a surplus on these occasions. He was then congratulating the country that in every line of our public finances there was a surplus. His surpluses were made out of deficits. He had a deficit on the Intercolonial, but he charged it up to another account, to capital, and, having pulled out the plum of a surplus in this way, he said : ' What a good boy am i ! ' But the hon. gentleman knew what he was doing, and I am afraid the Minister of Railways of that time knew also. He was covering up his tracks ; he was charging to capital what he ought to have charged to income. He simply ran the country into debt ; and then he said : ' What difference does it make whether you charge it to capital or anything else, for the country has to pay it just the same ? ' All we say on this side is, tell the truth ; charge to revenue what ought to be charged to revenue, and let the country know the exact condition of affairs. But the hon. gentleman preferred to have a little surplus to add to the general balance, although the railway accounts were thereby all wrong. And the Minister of Finance knows it as well as I do, and I defy him to say that he does not. He knew that the system pursued by the ex-Minister of Railways was wrong. He knew that that gentleman was replacing steel rails that ought to have been replaced out of revenue and was charging them to capital account. The hon. gentleman knew that was wrong ; he knew that no railway in the world would tolerate that kind of thing. But it suited him then to say : ' Oh, what does it matter ; the country has to pay it anyway ? ' That was the position he took then. But now he is very particular whether things shall be

7483
charged to capital account or to revenue account. If the hon. gentleman would tel) the people the facts, if he were ready to tell them that the country had to spend $114 in order to get $100, he could hardly join in the congratulations offered by the Minister of Railways upon the ' satisfactory ' showing he has made.
Mr. FIELDING, it was very kind of the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) to tell us what the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) meant, because it may be very helpful to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier). I was not dealing with what that hon. gentleman meant, except so far as what he meant could be gathered from what he said. He said that deficits on the Intercolonial were charged to capital account. I said he was mistaken, and I repeat it. All the explanations as to what the hon. gentleman meant will hardly help. The receipts of the Intercolonial form a part of the revenue of the country. And the expenses charged to income-not dealing, for the present, with the capital-are charged on the other side of the account; and if the l eceipts are not equal to the expenditure there is a deficit, and that deficit is paid out of the general revenue of the Dominion. The expression ' charged to capital ' has a meaning in our public accounts and in the general discussion of our public affairs.


Samuel Barker: So far as the railway is concerned.


William Stevens Fielding: Not only so far as the railway is concerned, but with regard also to public works. ' Charged to capital ' means that that portion of our expenditure is not to be made out of our ordinary annual revenue, but represents some special service.


Samuel Barker: If the minister wili allow me, I will recall to his memory the fact I pointed out, two or three years ago. that -what was properly chargeable to revenue should be charged to revenue, and the same with regard to capital, in order to show the true position ; and the hon. gentleman said that it did not make any difference-that the same paymaster had to pay it in any case.


William Stevens Fielding: That is where the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) is not fair. He insists : Tell the truth. I accept that, with one amendment: Tell the whole truth. If he looks up the debate-I am sure he will remember it-he will find that I said that it was important to have the accounts properly kept, but that in the end the result was that the country had to pay the cost. When the hon. gentleman said that I suggested that it made no difference whether an expenditure was charged to capital account or revenue account, he is stating that which is entirely wrong-I never made such a statement in the sense he has suggested.


Samuel Barker: 


Samuel Barker: Will the minister be good enough to tell ine, then, what possible application his remark could have to the argument I was making when he said that the country would have to pay it in any case ?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Barker) will have to go back and read the whole debate in order to see the application of my remark. I do not propose to do that to-night, but I have a distinct recollection of the circumstances. I had not the pleasure of hearing the statement of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) today, and therefore I do not intend to go into the debate as to the general question of charging to income or charging to capital. But I have heard some of the speeches in this debate, and I must emphatically dissent from the rule laid down by the hon. member for West Toronto as to charges to capital. He has read a number of items that are charged to capital account and made-merry over them. He found a charge of $24 for a station charged to capital account. Well, if a new station had been constructed and $24 was due on it, why would it not be right to charge it to the same account as the previous expenditures on the same building V Wha t difference does it make that it is only $24 if it is really part of the expenditure ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Does the hon. gentleman say that this was a balance due on a station ?


William Stevens Fielding: I presume it must have been. I do not think they would start to build a station for $24 and charge that to capital account.


Edmund Boyd Osler: That is the way it was stated.


William Stevens Fielding: And it was fairly stated. It was charged to the same account as the other expenditures on the building-for it is a fair presumption that is how it occurred.


Edmund Boyd Osler: But there is no presumption in this item.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman would not pretend that they could build a new station for $24 ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: There is nothing in the item to show anything else.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) knows that he is putting an utterly preposterous interpretation upon it.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Will he pretend to say that he understands that the railway could build a new station for $24 ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, if the hon. gentleman is absurd enough to try to believe

that, I suppose I can hardly say anything to convince him to the contrary.


William Findlay Maclean: I know a sixteen-doliar station on the Canadian Pacific Railway.	.


Andrew B. Ingram: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) that there are a number of stations that have not cost more than $24. I could name such stations on different railways In this country. It is by no means a remarkable thing.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman knows that, he ought to give the Minister of Railways credit for greater economy for putting up a station for $24.


Edmund Boyd Osler: There are many buildings put up along new roads in this country that cost less than $24. I know of such roads in the west.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Oslen makes the statement, and I am not allowed to contradict him. Rut he must allow me to entertain a lingering doubt as to his acuracy. Another item to which the hon. gentleman called attention was one of $1,200. Well, if this represented a new building, if it meant an addition to the property of the Intercolonial, why not charge it to capital ? It is a perfect legitimate charge.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) convinces me that he is absolutely unacquainted with railway matters. He has made the statement that I am very ridiculous. I say that his statement is so' ridiculous from the railway point of view that I am amazed that he should make
il.	Here is a railway which is not earning money, a railway which has been built and in operation long enough to get into first-c-lass condition, a railway whose capital account should have been closed ten or twelve j ears ago. I can tell him that there is not a railway managed by business men that would think of charging these items to capital. The Minister of Railways has stated that we must expect a deficit in the management of the Intercolonial. That being the view of the case, what is out duty ? Our duty is to let the country know the truth, to let it know fairly and squarely that every dollar we spend on new railway stations, on renewals, on locomotives, is a charge that has to be paid out of the current revenue. It is absurd to add to capital that which is not going to make any return. It is nonsense to say that you are adding to capital account that which is not adding value to the work. The Finance Minister said that the value is there for all time. There is no value in an expenditure on railway property where there is no return coming from it. Therefore, all the money you expend on the Intercolonial from a business standpoint, the standpoint the government ought to adopt, no matter for what cause, unless it
is distinctly going to produce a revenue, should be charged against operating expenses and the revenue. Let us know exactly what it costs ; and until we do that, the country will not realize that the Intercolonial must be managed differently from the way it is now being managed.


William Stevens Fielding: Now we have the hon. gentleman giving us another most extraordinary doctrine of finance, more remarkable than those which were given by gentlemen preceding him. I understand him to say that because there is no return of revenue to the treasury on that item, therefore it must not be charged to capital but to income ; he stated that in a clear and emphatic manner.


Edmund Boyd Osler: In connection with the operation of this railway, yes.


William Stevens Fielding: In connection with any work for the Dominion government.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the difference?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister must not put words into my mouth that I did not use.
I am speaking now of one particular transaction, one particular item ; and I say that when you are going into a new enterprise and expending money, then such expenditures are quite entitled to be charged to capital account. But when you have a railway that is already completed as the Intercolonial is, these items are a charge not against capital but against revenue, because the road will not bear them, it will not justify these charges, and then the money is thrown away so far as revenue is concerned, and should be charged to revenue.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a doctrine that the Intercolonial capital account should have been closed many years ago, and is a fad of the hon. member for Lanark.
Mr.	BARKER.	Supported	by	high
authority.
Mr.	FIELDING.	It is not.Mr.	BARKER.	The hon.	member for
Lanark referred to the statement as having been made by Mr. Mackenzie.
Mr.	HAGGART.	Yes, he	made	that
statement in the House here.


William Stevens Fielding: Did not that hon. gentleman add money to the capital account of the Intercolonial long before the advent of the hon. member for Lanark as Minister of Railways? Did not he himself as Minister of Railways add to the capital account of the Intercolonial after Mr. Mackenzie made that statement?


John Graham Haggart: I did.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course he did. Then I take the position that the Intercolonial

capital aeeouut should not have been closed years ago, and that if Mr. Mackenzie were alive to-day, in the light of the new conditions, he would not say so. Close the capital account of the Intercolonial ! Do they not know that the Intercolonial has had large sections added to it, that after its final completion it was enlarged by the additional Riviere du Loup road?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Do not deliberately misunderstand me. My statement was made in connection with a road that is already completed and in running operation for many years, and has nothing to do with the extensions of that road. I know the Minister of Finance does not suppose that I suggested that new extensions should not be charged to capital account. For instance, the expenditure on the Drummond county entrance into Montreal is a legitimate charge to capital account. 'If the account is closed you cannot add anything to it.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend from Lanark added to the Intercolonial the Prince Edward Island Railway; and the money paid this year for the extension of that new line in Prince Edward Island he says should be treated as part of the deficit of the year. So that even according to his contention, they are all wrong. But let us get away from the mere question of extensions. The hon. gentleman is a director of a great railroad, and I speak with deference to his views of the matter. But I am bound to say that his doctrine on finance is so utterly preposterous that if Sir Thomas Shaughnessy was in the gallery and heard him. he would be ashamed to have him as a director.
Mr. OtSLER. And I can tell the Fiuance Minister that if Sir Thomas Shaughnessy heard him he would be ashamed to have him | on the board as a director.


William Stevens Fielding: We differ in our estimate of what Sir Thomas Shaughnessy would think, that is all.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps you will agree to refer it to him.


William Stevens Fielding: No, for I am sure the hon. gentleman might get an inside interview with him, which I could not get. However, leaving aside for a moment the question of extensions, we know that during the past ten years there has been such an advance in railroad operation in this country that many railroads have had practically to be rebuilt. For instance, where we had 56-pound rails before we now have 80 and 100-pound rails.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is a very old story.


William Stevens Fielding: 
Edmund Boyd Osler: The Finance Minister has referred to arguments that wrere made iu this House in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway many years ago. This increased bridge accommodation, these heavier engines are as well known to us as the Lord's Prayer, and it is not necessary to remind us of them. There is almost no item in this account that I can see that refers to the items the minister has mentioned just now. The enormously increased expenditure on the Intercolonial for the items which the minister has mentioned, is no justification for these outrageous charges, and have not resulted in an increased business.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I beg your pardon. If a mans' business does not warrant the extension of his warehouse he is a fool to add to his warehouse. The Finance Minister knows as well as I do that there are certain expenditures that are perfectly legitimate to charge to capital account; there are certain other charges that are not, such as every item in this long list which, in a well built and completed railway, ought to be included, especially where the railway is not earning interest on its cost, not only that but it is not earning its running expenses. Now I do not want for a moment to suggest that the Intercolonial is not an enormously valuable asset to Canada ; I do not suggest that it should be run without any profit to the country, because it is of very great value. But I say that the country ought to know exactly what this luxury is costing, or what this work of necessity is costing. I say that as these accounts are juggled-there is no other | word for it-in this statement, the country does not know what this road is costing.


William Stevens Fielding: I object to the word ' juggled ' as being entirely unjustified.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I did not mean it in an offensive sense.


William Stevens Fielding: I accept the hon. gentleman's explanation. The accounts are kept in precisely the same manner as they

have been kept from tlie beginning of confederation, and I say they have been kept properly too.


Samuel Barker: I want to say a word about the Question of capital account. The hon. gentleman seems to be surprised that there should be any recognized principle about a going concern finding whatever^ is necessary to carry on its business. The recognized principle is, and you will find it laid down in Adam's work, that a going concern has to provide without adding to its cost or its capital whatever may be necessary for its business from time to time. The principle is exactly the same as that which applies to a merchant or a manufacturer who wants to make some improvement about his premises. For instance, a merchant might want to put in plate glass windows. He does make a mortgage to pay for them or add them to the cost of his establishment. His business warrants the improvement and he puts plate glass windows in because the improvement is going to pay him and he is going to get a revenue immediately from it. That is the principle which must be applied. You must not add to your capital account. It is a check upon keeping your improvements in step with your business. The difficulty about that has arisen in this way: A very large number of railway companies found, when they wanted to put in heavier rails or get heavier locomotives or whatever the business at that time warranted, that they had not the money and these railway companies had to put a capital mortgage on their property. So, they did things which were contrary to the true principle-I can give the hon. gentleman the authority for it-which is that a going concern must maintain itself and keep up with the business of the times, and if it cannot do that it should show by its revenue accounts that it is losing and not cover it up.


William Stevens Fielding: That is what we show.
Mr. BARKER, No, it is nothing of the kind. What does the hon. gentleman do ? Instead of incurring debts on revenue account he turns- around and says : Give us $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 and we will pay for these things. Does he pay interest on this $1,000,000? Does he charge a cent of interest to the Intercolonial Railway ? If he issued $10,000,000 of government debentures to improve the Intercolonial it would not add one cent to the annual charge of the Intercolonial Railway. Yet, the hon. gentleman says it makes no difference. He must go on with the improvements, buy locomotives, improve the stations, provide heavier rails, more equipment to the mile. He says: Let that go on; give them all they want. These betterments are worth $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 but the Intercolonial Railway does not have to pay any interest. It can make a profit on the betterment, which does not cost it anything. Well, it is the business of the government, but government business should not be conducted on that principle. The government should charge to the revenue of the road every item for the improvement of its business because it gets back the results of the improved business. Then, you will know whether your road is a paying road or not. You have expended on the Intercolonial some $70,000,000. If it were $170,000,000 you would make no difference in the charge against revenue of the road. Go on and spend all you like, that is the principle the Minister, of Railways and Canals has been going on for the last ten years. The hon. gentleman speaks about a $24 station. I have seen charged to capital account the price of a bucket at a station.
I have seen charged to capital account a chair in the Halifax office.


William Stevens Fielding: That would be quite correct.


Samuel Barker: I can only say that if the auditor of a railway company, of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Grand Trunk Railway, wanted to charge a chair, put into an office, to capital account, the general manager would probably think that he had gone crazy. I do not think there is a business man iu this House who would say seriously that a little article of that kind bought in the ordinary course of a railway company's business, should be charged to capital account. Here, the accountant goes over the list trying to reduce his expenses to the lowest possible point and picks out a pail here, a whitewash brush there, and a chair in another place, as was done at the Halifax office, and charges it to capital account. That is the principle the hon. gentleman is going on. If the hon. gentleman constructs even: 50 feet of siding for the purpose of doing more business and getting more revenue he charges that 50 feet to capital account, and it goes into the debt of this country. I think that in appealing to business men I can say this is simply ridiculous. The proper principle is that a going concern carries itself along and where there has been any departure from that has been the result of absolute necessity on the part of the company which could not raise the money at the time.


William Stevens Fielding: I think we had better have an exact statement of the facts about that bucket before we base any charges upon it.


Samuel Barker: I referred to it before.


William Stevens Fielding: All the buckets that will enter into the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific are going to be charged to capital account, and the hon. gentleman will have a splendid c-hance to introduce buckets and hold them up before the House and say; You should not charge them to capital account.


Samuel Barker: I do hold that on a railway which has been working for fifty years it should not be charged to capital.


William Stevens Fielding: I want to take exception again. It is my misfortune to have to take exception to the statements of those who make a profession of knowing so much more than I do about railways, but the hon. gentleman has laid down another dangerous doctrine as the true doctrine, and that is that a railway as a going concern must provide its own improvements.


Samuel Barker: That is the strict principle.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the principle other companies adopted 1


Samuel Barker: I told the hon. gentleman that these other companies from sheer necessity were obliged to charge these improvements to capital account and that was their only excuse for doing so.


William Stevens Fielding: Then, it is only bankrupt companies, I suppose, that do it ? Very well then ; I have my hon. friend put on record on that point. I am obliged to disagree there again because when the Canadian Pacific Railway applied for the last amount of additional capital they said that one of the purposes for which they wanted that was to buy additional rolling stock for the road.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman made some comment as to the way the accounts were kept.


William Stevens Fielding: I said they were all right.	-


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman said that the accounts are kept in the same way as they were in my day in reference to revenue and what should be charged to capital. My orders to the accountant of the Intercolonial Railway were to charge nothing to capital account unless he had strict instructions from the head office to do so. All the expenditure on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway, when I was at the head of the department, were expenditures which perhaps ought not to have been charged to capital account but which were required. One was a large expenditure in St. John and there were expenditures at two or three other places of a similar nature which the officers of the Intercolonial Railway thought ought not to be charged against them. My instructions were that all the expenditures-and that is the only proper way-on the Intercolonial Railway should be charged to revenue and expenditure. The hon. gentleman spoke about placing new steel rails upon the road. I laid as many steel rails per year as have been laid under the administration of the hon. gentleman, and I never thought of charging them to capital account. They were charged to revenue account. I did Mr. FIELDING.
not even charge the difference between the Weignt of the rails taken up and the weight of the rails put down to capital account. There is only one way of doing it. Unless some abnormal expenditure is required in connection with the railway, or unless a new railway is being built, you should cease your capital expenditure altogether. The hon. gentleman says that there were many expenditures added to capital account which were for additions to the Prince Edward Island Railway, but he did not say one word about the $4,666,000 which was added to the capital account of the Intercolonial Railway nor justify that expenditure as being for additions to the road in any way whatever. It is true that the $1,100,000 capital expenditure on the Prince Edward Island Railway includes the Hillsboro' bridge, but was that a new line.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly; it is an extension.


John Graham Haggart: If it is a new branch altogether it is justifiable to charge it to capital account. My criticism was chiefly directed against the Intercolonial Railway, and I say that there was no justification for charging one dollar of that $4,466,000 to capital account.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This question of expenditure on Intercolonial Railway capital account is brought up year after year, but it seems to me that some hon. gentlemen do not consider the fact that we have a capital account in connection with our canal system. Year after year we vote millions for capital expenditure on our canals and millions for the working expenses of these canals. If you apply to the canals the principle which my hon. friend (Mr. Barker) would apply to the Intercolonial Railway, then, the canals are completed and the capital account for them should be closed.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of that comparison ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That if the people of the country want to know what is expended on canals and what is expended on government railways, these facts must be taken into consideration. Not long since the Canadian Pacific Railway got power to issue a loan of $20,000,000 for the express purpose of betterments to their road.


Samuel Barker: Was it not for extending the road ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No; a large proportion of that amount was for betterments of the railroad, and the Canadian Pacific Railway did not seem to think it wrong to have a capital account. It has been asserted here to-night that the gross earnings of the Intercolonial Railway are not increasing. That idea is seriously erroneous.


Mr HAGGART.: It was your own statement.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I made no such statement.


Samuel Barker: I said the net earnings were not increasing.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Let me point out that the increase of gross earnings in 1902-3 over 1901-2 was upwards of $650,000; the increase of gross earnings in 1903-4 over 1902-3 was $14,000, and it is estimated that for the current year the increase in gross earnings will reach $400,000. My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) said that this was a finished concern; that its earning power was at a standstill and that therefore we should close the capital account-


John Graham Haggart: The railway report shows that there was a decrease in gross earnings last year as compared with the year before.
Mr. EMMERSON My hon. friend is entirely wrong. An increase in gross earnings is shown by the report, and it is estimated that this year the increase will be $419,474.


Samuel Barker: Do you not see that if you pay $114 to earn $100, the greater the gross earnings the more you will lose ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is another question altogether. It was stated here that the gross earnings of the Intercolonial Railway were not increasing, and I have shown by the figures that that statement is erroneous.


Samuel Barker: What I said was that the net earnings were growing worse from year to year. There was nearly $1,000,000 short last year, and the minister tells us that this year there will be $2,000,000 short.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) and my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) made the positive statement that although we had extended the railway, the business had not increased. I have shown that that statement is wrong. Furthermore, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) looks at the figures he will find that in the capital expenditure of the Intercolonial Railway last year is included $800,000 for the acquisition of the Canada Eastern, and that fact he has ignored. The other expenditures charged to capital account last year were for extensions to the road, improvements, betterments, double tracking at different points, and the strengthening of the bridges on the Drummond County section which are not adapted for the passage of the very heavy engines used at the present day. If the cost of management of the Intercolonial is only to be computed upon the basis of capital expenditure, I think it is only a fair proposition that the same method should be applied to the canals. The people of the
country want to know what the Intercolonial is costing them by way of capital and other expenditure. They also want to know what their canal system is costing them. I think we should look at this matter fairly. The Intercolonial has many burdens ; but it is doing and has done a great work in connection with the building up of this country. It is a splendid road, and it is kept in condition. I think the conditions prevailing on the Intercolonial to-day are such that no man will say that there is a better road anywhere in America. Its train service is modern and up-to-date, and its roadbed is in splendid repair.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: I would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Hamilton in reference to capital account. Suppose a mine were discovered on the line of the Intercolonial, and a town sprung up there suddenly, and the management came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to construct a new railway station there, and also a hotel costing say $500,000. We understand that the Grand Trunk Railway Company, now that they are taking over the Canada Atlantic, propose to build a new railway station and a hotel in Ottawa. Would not these two items be properly charged to capital account ?


Samuel Barker: With regard to the hotel, we might perhaps go into the question whether or not the hon. gentleman would allow me to /sell whisky and a number of other things. With regard to the new station, I would say that, on the principle on which all such accounts are kept, if there were business forthcoming from that time that would justify the building of the station, then the station should be built and the revenue from the mine should pay for it.


Aaron Abel Wright: I am not asking
what should pay for it. I am asking whether that should be charged to capital account or not ?


Samuel Barker: No, it should not. It is a strict rule that a going concern maintains itself. The principle is that the going concern adds to its facilities according to the business it sees before it from these improvements, just as my hon. friend would in carrying on his business as ia merchant..


Mr. LEFTJRGEY.: On this item of the Murray Harbour branch and the Hillsboro' Bridge, the minister promised to bring down the contract and some other things.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think the papers were all brought down.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We have not received any notice of the papers having been brought down up to the present time. I do not think we can very well proceed with this item until they are brought down.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: The minister is in error. I asked for papers with regard to

railway extensions in the province and also for papers in regard to expenditures on railways and canals in Canada, and these have not been brought down.


John Graham Haggart: I think the hon. minister must have them in his desk, as the clerk of the House has not received them yet.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Instructions were given to have all that information prepared, and I was under the impression that it was brought down. I shall certainly have it prepared for my hon. friend.


Alexander Martin: Before the item passes we would like to know what the minister is doing with regard to railway extension in the province. With regard to surveys from Stanley bridge, I think there are some in the department, but would like to know what the government propose doing ? There are also in the department, as the minister knows, some claims for damages sustained by pai'ties in connection with those surveys, and the papers with regard to these ought to be laid on the table.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does my hon. friend mean the papers relating to the land damage claims ?


Alexander Martin: l'es. The minister knows that some demands have been made on him which the department very unfairly refused to pay, and there is a report of his own engineer in his department which gives some information in regard to them.
I would like to see those papers.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think it has a bearing on this at all. That is on the Murray Harbour branch ?


Alexander Martin: No, on the Stanley and New London branch.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We will have an opportunity of discnssing it on the supplementary estimates.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I would suggest that as the information promised is now down,, we should let this item stand until the sup-plementaries are down. ^
Mr. EMMERSON You could pass it now and discuss it then.


Alexander Martin: Will the hon. gentleman give us the assurance that there will he some items in the supplementaries on those lines ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can say that to my hon. friend.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: On the 13th March there was an order of the House for eopies of all correspondence, &c., relating to land damages claimed on account of lands expropriated on the Murray harbour branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway. That has not been brought down. We were also promised the contract between the goy-


Alexander Martin: -
eminent and the contractor and we have not yet got It. This item cannot be intelligently discussed until that information is before us.	.


Robert Laird Borden: As the papers are not down, it would be perhaps better to
take this item up with the supplementaries.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There will be an item in the supplementaries on this very matter when the whole item can be discussed.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: When will the supple-mentaries be brought down ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Some time next week-


Mr.   R L. BORDEN@: I think we are justified in insisting that the papers should be down before we pass this item.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have no desire to prevent discussion and only suggest that, in order to expedite business, we should pass it now, and discuss it later on in the supplementaries. My hon. friends will then have no cause to complain of lack of information.


Robert Laird Borden: The other course would he more desirable and there will be no time lost.
Item allowed to stand.
National Transcontinental Railway-surveys, construction and other expenses, $1,328,500.


John Graham Haggart: There was a map brought down which partly explains what surveys have been made, but we have no report of the expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is all contained in the report of the commission.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any information in it in reference to gradients and curvatures ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has very full information.


Mr.   R L. BORDEN@: I have never received any copy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was laid on the table three weeks ago and ordered to be printed immediately and ought to be here now. I cannot understand why it is not.


John Graham Haggart: The minister will see we cannot discuss this without any information. But if the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) wishes it, we could make an arrangement under which this matter could be discussed on an item in the supplementary estimates. Is that satisfactory?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, so far as I am concerned ; but I do not wish to press it upon any other hon. member. The only conditions I would make are that we shall have the printing expedited-the printed copies should have been in our hands long

ago-and that the supplementary vote to which reference has been made shall be brought up at a reasonably early date. With that undei'standing, we can pass this item.
Mr. EM ME It SOX. Do I understand that objection is taken to item 87?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, that item stands.
Public Works-chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-New Brunswick-Cape Tor-mentine-improvements and repairs to harbour works, $22,000.
Mr. BRODET'R. This vote is to provide for works required to make good the damage done by the teredo, the harbour works having been greatly weakened by that destructive sea worm. This work is in Westmoreland county.


Angus Alexander McLean: I understand that a great deal of money is spent every year on this work, as the storms are very heavy and the waves break over this work. It is stated that the work is not rip-rap. It is open to the storms and in the first storm of the autumn some portion is apt to be carried away. It is contended that it is absolutely necessary that this should be rip-rapped with heavy stone.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is what is being done by the department, as it has been found that the work done hitherto is not satisfactory.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: Has a contract been let for this?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it is done by day's work.
Chance harbour-'breakwater, $1,000.
Mr. BRODEUR This work is in the county of St. John. The item is a revote to provide for the completion of a small submerged breakwater. The estimated expenditure on the work is $4,000.


Mr. DANIEL.: Will the work be completed tliis season?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, it is hoped so.
Clifton (Stonehaven)-breakwater-improvements and repairs, $9,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for maintenance.


George Taylor: That can hardly be, for only $2,500 was voted last year, whereas $9,000 is asked this year.	.
Mr. BRODEUR, It is intended to render the harbour more secure and to prevent the waves bringing in sand and filling in the harbour and reducing its depth. The total cost will be $9,000 according to the estimate of the engineer.


George Taylor: Is this being done by contract?
Mr. BRODEUR, No, by day's work.
Dipper harbour-breakwater, $35,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is under contract.


George Taylor: Will this complete the work?
Mr. BRODEUR, This sum of money wifi complete it. But it may not all be spent this season.


Mr. BLAIN.: What is the total cost?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The estimate is $48,000.


Richard Blain: How much was expended last year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Three thousand dollars. It is estimated that $33,000 will be spent before the end of the fiscal year. This work is in the county of St. John.


Richard Blain: I suppose there have been some changes during the last year that increased the estimate. I noticed in the discussion of the item last year the minister stated that the total cost would be $30,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed that new plans have been made.
-Mr. BLAIN. I would regard that as lather unusual, that the estimated cost was $30,000 as stated last year, and then the following year new plans are prepared increasing the amount to $4S,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Tenders were called for o:i the original plans and none came in ; so the plans had to be changed and new tenders asked for.
Durham-wharf, $15,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Tenders have been called for and received, but the contract is not yet awarded. This estimate is for a wharf to be built at the eastern end of the parish of Durham, which will give a depth of six feet in low water and fifteen feet in high water. It is a new wharf.
Great Salmon river-groyne and breakwater combined, $4,300.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is also in the comity of St. John. Some tenders were called for but none were received, and we will have to call for new tenders. Nothing has been spent during the past year.
Miscou harbour-wharf, $S,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is under contract, in Gloucester county. 'The contractors are Messrs. Burns and Charleson. It is a new wharf. There are about 70 bouses on tlie Island including 11 lobster factories, two of which are engaged also in canning salmon. The population is estimated at about 500. The occupation of t'he people is mainly fishing for lobsters, herring, salmon and smelts. Farming is carried on to some extent.


George William Fowler: The lobster factories are mere sbeds. fi'he whole bunch of them


COMMONS '7499
[Stage Direction]
would not be worth $2,000, and you are sitending $16,000 for a wharf to accommodate about 50 houses.
Mr. TURGEON.: If the hon. gentleman lived on the north shore he might change his opinion. The lobster factories there represent a large amount of capital, thousands of dollars are invested in each one of them. There is an immense trade in bringing provisions to these factories, but they are without any shipping facilities.


George William Fowler: How many months in the year are they in operation ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: 
Andrew B. Ingram: How long has all this been going on ?


Onésiphore Turgeon: For years and years. Unfortunately the government has neglected those people.


Andrew B. Ingram: I can tell the hon. gen-jfclejman that all the exports he is talking about do not amount to $75,000, and the imports only amount to $50,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I cannot give the figures, but I know7 there is an immense trade done there which requires these facilities.


Andrew B. Ingram: The contract price is $13,700. Why are you increasing that amount ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 1 am not asking for a larger amount. The contract is for $13,700, but there is superintendence and contingencies in connection wdth the execution of the contract, which raise the amount to $15,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: ______Would the minister excuse me for going back to the Salmon river item, and tell me when are these tenders to be called for.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They will be called for as soon as possible, this season.


George William Fowler: I suppose the minister is aware that the mill property at Salmon river is owned by a private corporation. Are there any people living there except those who are working for this corporation ?


George William Fowler: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is a public work.


George William Fowler: I say there are no people served except the people of this corporation. I know7 the property very well. It is a mill property and it is owned by an American corporation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It belongs now to the government.


George William Fowler: I am speaking of this place, Salmon river. There is no public interest, but that of the people w7ho are engaged by this corporation. The facilities you put there will simply be for the advantage of this corporation.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This corporation exports a good deal of lumber, does it not ?


George William Fowler: I say that. Does this property belong to the government ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It belongs to the government.
Mud cove-breakwater, $1,600.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is for a small eribwork and breakwater 80 feet long which it has been decided to build at Mud Cove on Grindstone Island at the head of the Bay of Fundy.


Richard Blain: How much was expended last year ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


George Taylor: This is $1,000 of a revote ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George William Fowler: Where did the hon. minister say Mud Cove is ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In King's and Albert county.


George William Fowler: What point ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At Grindstone Island which is 30 miles long and a quarter of a mile w7ide.
Petit Rocher-breakwater, $25,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This is under contract.


Richard Blain: What is the amount of the contract ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Richard Blain: Will that complete the work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: first cost of wharfs built by them in tidal waters, $5,000.


George William Fowler: I would like to say in connection with this item that it does seem to me that the time has arrived when the Dominion government should pay the whole of the cost of these wharfs. The finances of the province are not in a healthy condition and the total cost 'of works of this character constructed in other provinces is paid for by the Dominion government. I think that New Brunswick should be placed on the same footing as other provinces in respect to this matter. It is very important to navigation that you should supply these facilities to the people along the St. John river. This is just as important as it is to build a wharf at Miscou where this lobster 'industry is carried on. The St. John river is the highway of commerce running through the centre of the province of New Brunswick and, I do think the Dominion government should defray the whole cost of these wharfs instead of compelling the local government ; which is very ill able to do it, to pay half the cost.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that is in virtue of an agreement between the local and federal governments. I suppose the agreement will have to be carried out until it is changed.


George William Fowler: I might relieve the mind of the minister by saying that I have not the slightest doubt tfle local government would be perfectly willing to cancel tlie\ agreement if the Dominion government would take on itself the burden of providing the whole cost. I know this custom has existed for many years, but there always comes a time when it is well to change, and it seems to me the Dominion government should now consider whether they will not provide the whole cost of these different constructions along the St. John river.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That might be discussed when we are considering the relations between the Dominion and the provinces.
St. John harbour-repairs and extension ol protection work at base of Fort Dufferin, $500.


George William Fowler: Is this, an annual vote ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


George William Fowler: What repairs were necessary ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The timber decays and has to be renewed.


George William Fowler: Could it not he built of stone and made permanent ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It would cost a large sum of money.


George William Fowler: But it might be cheaper in the end.
St. John drill hail:, $10,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) on a former occasion


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: asked for some information as to the site of the Drill Hall. I understand the decision of the Department of Militia is that the drill hall will be erected on the government property ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Can the government say whether they will "commence the construction this season or not ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes ; plans are being prepared.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are they the same plans that were prepared once before.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are general plans.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: There is a Railway Bill, and then we will resume the. discussion of the estimates of the Minister of Bublie Works.


George Taylor: Not the Autonomy Bill ?


William Stevens Fielding: I think there is an understanding with the leader of the opposition as to that-I do not expect the Autonomy Bill will be taken to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, June 15, 1905.