1905-02-17

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 60) to incorporate the Algoma Copper Range Railway Company.-Mr.'Dy-ment.	'
Bill (No. 61) to incorporate the Lebonk and Thunder Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Bole.
Bill (No. 62) respecting the Edmonton, Yukon and Pacific Railway Company.

Mr. Lamont-by Mr. S. J. Jackson.
Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the Brantford and Woodstock Railway Company.-Mr. M. S. Schell.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to direct the attention of the First Alinister to a practice which seems to obtain a good deal this session, that of moving the House into Supply two or three hours after dinner, when neither the Prime Minister nor any of the other ministers are in their places. In the days of my parliamentary innocence it was the practice, I think, to move the House into Supply when the Prime Minister and most of his colleagues were here, and I would like to see that practice resumed. It may be fastidious on my part to vent this idea, but I would like to see it observed a little more, so that the undoubted right of every member of parliament to discuss some public question on going into Supply may be maintained, and that the ministers may be in their places to hear what is said.


Rt.   H@: I understand that the only time when the House was moved into Committee of Supply at a later hour than eight o'clock was yesterday.


William Findlay Maclean: No ; two or three times.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I understand the contrary. At all events, the House can always be moved into Committee of Supply to oblige my hon. friend or any other hon. member who wants to make a motion. Of course, the House may be moved into Committee of Supply at any moment; but we have usually taken up Bills before going into Committee of Supply. Of course, if I knew in advance that any hon. gentleman wished to bring up any question on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, I would be only too glad to give him the opportunity.



INQUIRIES FOR REPORTS AND RETURNS.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Aiay I bring to the attention of the Prime Alinister, as well as the Alinister of Marine and Fisheries, the fact that a considerable number of returns have been' moved for in connection with the Department of Alarine and Fisheries, and that for the most part they have not yet been brought down ? It would be desirable to have those returns brought down before the estimates of the hon. gentleman are under consideration, otherwise some delay might be necessary in order to obtain the information which is asked for in the very returns to which I refer.


Mr. PREFONTAINE.: The returns are being prepared as fast as possible, and they will be laid on the table of the House, I am quite sure, before the estimates of the department are taken up.


Air. SPROULE.: Yesterday I inquired when the report of the commissioner on the importation of alien labour would be brought down.


Sir WILLIAAI AIULOCK.: I have made inquiry, and I find that the report is 'in the hands of the printer, and we are promised it in time to be presented to the House next week.


Mr. GANONG.: Can the Alinister of Alarine and Fisheries give us any idea as to when we are likely to see the report of the commission on the Atlantic fisheries ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am informed by the chairman of the commission that he will be hene next week to complete his report.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COAIMISSIONERS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Alarine and Fisheries) moved second reading of Bill (No. 37) to amend the Quebec Harbour Commissioners Act, 1899. He said :	The object is to extend about
three miles further down the River St. Lawrence the pilotage limits of the Quebec
[Stage Direction]
district. At present steamers have to ,stop at Father Point to get the mails and then they have to stop at Bie, 17 miles farther up in order to take on pilots. It is recommended by those interested in shipping that the pilotage limit be extended to Father Point and the pilots be taken on board there and thus avoid the necessity of a second stoppage.
Mr. MONK.: Have all the shipping interests asked for that ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Every one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
Mr. HAGGART.: What is the object of extending the jurisdiction of the Harbour Commissioners ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The limits are now 17 miles above Father Point and steamers are obliged to stop at Bic to take on pilots. They are also obliged to stop at Father Point, about 17 miles further down, to take the mails, but if the limits be extended to Father Point, the pilots can be taken on board there as well as the mail and thus only one stoppage will be necessary.


Mr. AMES.: Is this the only Bill to be introduced by the government this session to amend the Quebec Harbour Commissioner's Act ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: I am not aware of any other nor of any demands for any other change.


Mr. BERGERON.: Is there anything in the law which compels the pilots to be taken on at Bic ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The pilots of the Port of Quebec are under the jurisdiction of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners and the pilots are taken on at the extreme eastern limit of the pilotage district. The shipping federations have represented time and again that this should be remedied, and the pilots taken on at Father Point as well as the mails. But unless we extend the limits of the pilotage district, we cannot oblige a pilot to go down to Father Point, because outside the pilotage district he is outside the authority of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.


John Graham Haggart: I thought that the hon. minister last session intended to bring in a Bill to take the control of pilotage into the hands of the Dominion government.


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: The pilotage authority for the district of Montreal, extending from Montreal to Quebec was given to the Department of Marine and Fisheries last year with the consent of all public bodies interested. But as regards the Que-


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: bee district, no one would consent to this change. Even the Shipping Federation and others specially interested would not consent. I am informed however, though not officially, that they will make a request in the course of the next week that the pilotage authority for the district of Quebec be put into the bands of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But I have not yet received any official demand.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is the reason the hon. minister gives the only one for changing the law ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What about steamers such as the ' Gampana ' which go to the maritime provinces ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: They have no pilots.	.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They are not under the jurisdiction of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners ?


Joseph Raymond Fournier Préfontaine: No. I wish to propose an amendment to subsection B of this section by adding at the end of the words ' the river Saguenay excepted.' Through an error in preparing the Bill these words were not inserted, and they should be there because the pilotage on the Saguenay was last year put under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY-CONTROL OF TELEPHONE LINES.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. WILLIAM PATERSON (Minister of Customs) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company.- Mr. Grant.']
William Findlay Maclean: I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a petition with regard to telephones. This petition, which has been signed by a large number of municipal corporations all over the country prays :
That your honourable House may be pleased to pass an Act amending all charters granted to telephone companies so as to declare that the poles of such companies shall not be hereafter erected or conduits constructed on any road or street in a municipality without the consent of the council of such municipality, and upon such terms as such council may approve.
As things are now', it would appear, a telephone company incorporated under a Dominion charter can override these municipal rights and can enter upon the streets of any municipality without askiiig the consent of the corporation. This has been found a very substantial grievance and parliament is being petitioned to remove it.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there a general statute, on the subject ?


William Findlay Maclean: There may be some general statute in regard to it, but, so far as I can see, it does not cover the case completely. When a delegation of representatives of leading municipalities waited upon the government, the Minister of Justice asked them to draft a clause which they would like to see put in the general law, at least that is the representation that has been made to me. The municipalities all over this country feel that their rights are being encroached upon by the wide powers taken by the telephone company. And another petition is in circulation, but whether presented to the House or not I do not know. It is a petition on behalf of the Union of Canadian Municipalities. They pray the Dominion government and parliament to carry out the following legislation :
1.	The purchase by the government of the long distance lines.
2.	The amendment of all existing telephone charters, so as to provide that no companies shall erect poles or construct conduits on any road or street in a municipality without the consent of the council of such municipality, and upon such terms as such council may approve.
Here are two organizations, the municipalities on their own account and the Union of Canadian Municipalities praying parliament to give them jurisdiction over the erection of poles or laying of conduits by telephone companies within their limits ; and I trust the government may be able this session to introduce a general law dealing with that question and restoring to the municipalities the full control of their own streets in these matters. It may be necessary to allow these companies to go through a municipality with their long-distance service, but I contend it never was the intention of parliament to take jurisdiction over the streets of municipalities and hand it over to telephone companies. But there is a still more important question involved. It is referred to in ' The Canadian Engineer' as follows :
With regard to the government ownership and control of the long distance lines, while we endorse any movement for the public ownership of utilities, we believe it is far more essential at the present time, for the government to call upon the Bell Telephone Company to give and receive connection over the long distance lines of its existing system with the subscribers of all local telephone services, without regard to the ownership of such exchanges. In other words, every telephone user should have the right of long distance service whether he is a Bell subscriber or not. The inevitable result' of this would be that the monopoly would no longer be able to keep out local competition, municipal and independent exchanges would be established in all parts of the Dominion, and in a few years the demand for increased long distance telephone facilities would be such that the government would be compelled to recognize the necessity of establishing a state-owned long distance system, either by duplicating or
acquiring and extending the lines of the Bell Telephone Company.
Now, tbat is tbe most important question in connection with tbe telephone service. This calls for an interchange of what I might call telephone traffic. The law of Canada concerning railways provides that railway companies must interchange traffic. But at present the Bell Telephone Company or any other, can refuse to give connection to an independent company. The consequence is that the Bell Telephone Company has a monopoly throughout the country. This matter came up in the railway committee the other day. When I proposed to put in a private Bill incorporating a telephone company a clause compelling the company to allow interchange of traffic, the hon. acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman) who is chairman of that committee, said that this ought to be incorporated in a general measure. I agreed with him. But I went further and said that the government should assume the responsibility and introduce such a measure. In view of the petitions that have been presented, I take it to be the duty of the government, this session to make a general law compelling an interchange of traffic between the telephone companies. It is true that a telephone company to-day will accept a measure from i another company if carried across the road and handed into their office; but they will not do what railway companies are compelled to do, make connections so that the traffic can go from one line to the other. Every telephone company has been created by parliament and given powers of incorporation because it is declared to be in the public interest. That is the very basis of the reasons given for incorporating them-that they are in the general interest of Canada. That being the ease, the general interest of Canada can govern them as it governs the railway companies. And the government, out of respect for that interest, should ask parliament to pass a law to compel the telephone companies to interchange traffic. Let me put it as ' The Canadian Engineer ' puts it:
We would point out that the charter of the Bell Company declares the works of that corporation to be ' for the general advantage of Canada.' Th'at being so, the Bell Company has no more right to restrict the use of its long distance system to its own subscribers, than a railway company has to refuse to haul the cars of another system over its lines. We do not, of course, suggest that the company should not be compensated for the use of its lines by outside companies. A system similar to that in operation in Great Britain for the use of the government long distance lines could be arranged without difficulty. In Great Britain a subscriber to the Glasgow Municipal Telephone exchange wishing to speak to a subscriber of the National Telephone Company in London, Manchester, Liverpool or elsewhere, would pay.


William Findlay Maclean: I had it written.
iSir WILFRID LAURIER. I did not receive any notice, had I done so I would have been glad to place in his hands for his own information the report of an interview he referred to, and which took place some time ago with a deputation from the city of Toronto, if I remember right, with regard to some of the privileges which are now held by the Bell Telephone Company. So far as I remember, the grievance which was brought to our attention by the city deputation was in consequence of a decision given by the Judicial Committee of the .Privy Council whereby it was held that the Bell Telephone Company could use the streets of Toronto, and put poles in the streets ; they had not only the use of the streets which they had already been using, but of all the streets in the city. As I understand the charter given to the Bell Telephone Company in 1S82, they had not only the right to use certain streets, they were already using, but the power to go all over the city and cover its streets with their poles. If I remember the request which was made to us by the mayor and solicitor of the city of Toronto, it was that parliament should pass a law to abridge the power thus given by parliament to the Bell Telephone Company. Well, for my part I pointed out to the mayor and to the solicitor that in my judgment that would be interfering with rights which had been given by parliament. They thought it would not be an interference, but that a clause could be framed whereby the Act would be so amended as that it would not infringe upon the vested rights they had in the city. Thereupon we asked the solicitor and the mayor to frame an amendment for our consideration so that we might have in concrete form the very thing they wanted us to do, whether we would agree to it or not. So far, however, we have not received this draft legislation. If such draft legislation were received by us, it would be our duty to consider it and see whether we could introduce it to this House. I would say to my hon. friend at once that if such an amendment could be framed, one which would not interfere with any vested rights of the Bell Telephone Company, I can see no objection why such a law should not be introduced. But if such a law cannot be introduced without infringing upon rights which have been granted to the company by this parliament, there would be a serious objection to such legislation. I pass no judgment at this moment upon the question which has been raised. I have been waiting, and am still waiting, for news from the city of Toronto upon this subject.
This brings me to another point which has been mentioned by my hon. friend. He has asked for a good deal of legislation, and 40
one of the things he is asking for is a restoration to the municipalities of the powers which have been invaded by this parliament. I am not aware that parliament has ever, by any general law, invaded the powers of municipalities. But I am aware that in past legislation, private companies, the Bell Telephone Company for instance, have been allowed to invade municipalities^ to invade Toronto and other cities, without any reference to municipal authority. Last year, or the year before, our attention was called to similar legislation which was asked for by some railway corporation; and, if I remember right, the Railway Committee here would not pass any law which would interfere with the powers of any municipality unless the consent of the municipality had first been obtained. I am pretty sure that at this moment the tendency and desire of the House would be at all times to see that the rights and privileges of the municipalities are not interfered with except witli their consent. I do not know whether there will be any necessity of passing a law with this object in view. But, in regard to another matter which has been brought up by my hon. friend I confess that I, to a large extent, sympathize with him when he says that the time has come when we should have some general law regulating telephonic traffic and the interchange of traffic between telephone lines. For my part I think there is great force in the demand which has been made in this House and which has been presented to us in numerous petitions. This is a matter which ought to engage the attention of the House, but before it engages the attention of the House it ought to engage the attention of the government. I do not say what will be the course of the government this session or at any future session; all I can say is that the government is not at all oblivious to the sentiment which prevails in the country and I think some attention ought to be given to the question.


Mr. BOURASSA.: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has brought the attention of the House to this matter. I think I can supply some information from my own county upon this subject which is only an illustration of the general condition of affairs as far as private telephone companies are concerned. There have been two private companies established in my county for the last four or five years, and their purpose is to give the people living in the back townships telephonic connection with the railways. One of them especially has its terminus at a station of the Canadian Pacific Railway, an important distributing centre of trade, but by virtue of an agreement entered into between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Bell Telephone Company the Canadian Pacific Railway refuses to permit that private telephone company to place a tele-



phone box in the station. The result is that nine-tenths of the clients of the Canadian Pacific Railway at that station cannot have telephonic communication with the station through which they receive all their freight and goods. They are obliged to send their messages to the telephone office in the village and then pay a special rate for a messenger to go down the hill 400 or 500 yards to deliver them to the agent at the station. They cannot communicate directly with the agent; they can only send a messenger. And, mind you, there is no office of the Bell Telephone Company there, but simply by virtue of the monopoly they enjoy that private telephone company are not permitted to place a box in the office of the Canadian Pacific Railway notwithstanding the fact that the Bell Telephone Company have no office there. The Bell Telephone Company have no office there or at the village, but they exercise their right of monopoly even where they have no, traffic at all. As far as the principle of vested rights is concerned in theory I quite agree with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), but we must not forget this that when rights were grantej for the Bell Telephone Company telephonic traffic was not then considered such as it is now a matter of general interest to the whole country. We had not then come to the point of seeing that the telephone system that does not belong to the companies who enjoy its profits but that it belongs to the people at large, and the time must come when vested rights which were at one time considered to be private property cannot longer be allowed to interfere with the rights of the public. The rights of the public must be considered and if the rights of a private company interfere with the rights of the people then parliament should rather side with the public interest than with private interest. But, it should be done with a great deal of care. We should not introduce that principle with the Idea that in consideration of the public interest we should entirely disregard vested rights, but at the same time I think the government should look into the question. I hope they are going to look into it very soon and that they will not be entirely biased by the idea of protecting vested rights. They should consider vested rights, but if there is a conflict between public and private rights, public rights should have the preference over private rights.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of what the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) said I would agree, but there is one thing with which I would not agree, that is that it is only the duty of the government to take up grievances when some one has brought in a Bill to remedy them. I have always regarded it as the duty of the government to recognize a grievance when it is brought to their notice in various ways and then to Mr. BOURASSA.
endeavour to find a remedy. This grievance has been brought to the attention of the government over and over again, for several years past and I respectfully submit that it should not be left to a private member to bring in a Bill to remedy it. The condition existing in his locality so graphically described by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is what may be found all over this country and it has been brought to the attention of the government over and over again. If I understand it correctly a railway company, when it receives its charter, agrees, by virtue of that charter, to give to the public alike equal facilities to do business with the company. Can it be said that a railway company is carrying out that agreement if it deprives the people who live in one section of the country of the right to do business over the telephone line with its station while it gives that right to another class of people ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The case I have cited is still worse than that. The Bell Telephone Company has no office there but it prevents the private company which is the only one that has a line there from having connection with the station.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but I was dealing with this question. It is absolutely the duty of the railway company to deal with all people who use that railway upon the same principle and to give them equal facilities. It cannot be successfully contended that a railway company is giving equal facilities to people who live alongside a private line when it denies them the right of connecting their line with the station while at the same time it gives people living upon the line of the Bell Telephone Company the right to do business with the station. I am anxious to get the ear of the right hon. Prime Minister, but if I am only talking to deaf ears I would rather avoid the trouble of talking at all. I do not say anything about the discourtesy that is displayed to a member of the House who is endeavouring to do his duty because I think every hon. minister ought to recognize that which is fairly due to another member. I say in regard to this question that in my judgment the duty of the government is, now that the grievance is brought to their attention, to provide a law to remedy and not call upon private members to perform that duty. This case has been brought to their attention over and over again. Then, another feature of this matter is that I hold that the law as it is to-oay would compel the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway to admit any other telephone company to its office if the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) took the matter up and enforced the law. You cannot expect a private individual will undertake to fight against a railway company. This has become such an intolerable grievance to business people that the government ought to take it up and remedy it at the earliest

possible date. When we endeavour in every Bill that comes before the House and the Railway Committee to embody in it a clause providing a remedy for this grievance we are invariably met by some member of the government with the objection that this remedy should be provided by a general Act. Well, let the government introduce that Act and pass it. We will give them all the support we can and I am sure the people are desirous that it should be done. I think the government are not doing their duty by the people if they do not provide a remedy when the grievance is brought to their attention.


Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter in which I am very much interested.


Mr. SPEAKER.: There is no motion before the House. If there is to be a long discussion-


William Findlay Maclean: I understood that a motion had been made to go into Supply and it was to that motion that I addressed myself.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: This is a matter of very great moment to the country. Some time ago I placed certain questions with regard to it upon the order paper and requested an answer with regard to a particular instance, namely, the difficulty with the Bell Tele-pliom Company which was brought to the attention of the government during the last session in reference to making connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway offices at Port Arthur and Fort William. I was told. I think, by the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Emmerson), that it was impossible to answer these questions although they were put in succinct and concrete form. For what reason he was unable to answer these questions and give the information I am unable at present to say. I regret to note that the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Conmee) is not in his place at this time. If he were here he could doubtless speak of the very great confusion that was caused to the commercial interests of Port Arthur and Fort William by this difficulty. There is in these towns the Bell Telephone system and also a municipal system. The Bell Company, armed with this public franchise granted to them by parliament and enjoying the public rights, and opportunities so granted absolutely, refused to make any connection whatever with the municipal telephone system or with the offices of the Canadian Pacific Railway, so that it was impossible for subscribers of the municipal system of Port Arthur and Fort William to have any telephone access to, or any communication with the railway stations at Port Arthur and Fort William, which were under the control of the Bell Telephone Company. A very large percentage of the people of these two towns which are large growing and prosperous towns of considerable and growing commercial im-40J
portanee, use the service of the Citizen Telephone Company. They prefer to use the Citizen's Company and to exercise the privilege which they have of patronizing their local municipal telephone system, but of what use was it to them when the Bell Company, enjoying these privileges granted to them, as the right hon. the Prime Minister says, by parliament, could set at naught the will of the peopljj and prevent them from having access to these offices and to the full use and enjoyment of their franchise. It is an important question and one that should occupy the attention of the government even at this late day. It is very much to be regretted indeed that the government has not, after all these grievances have been brought to its attention, seen fit to interfere, to remedy these grievances and bring before parliament some measure which would afford some relief under the circum-. stances.



Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion is adopted I would like to refer to the correspondence which the Prime Minister has just placed on the table. As it is not very long I shall take the opportunity of reading it. The first telegram is as follows :
Ottawa, 5th Oct., 1904.
Joseph Ena Girouard,
Dawson, Y.T.
You have been appointed returning officer for the electoral district of the Yukon. Writ dated 29th September mailed to-day. Nomination Friday, 18th November, at Dawson. With this information by referring to form ' E ' and clauses of Yukon Representation Act, 1902, you can select clerk and enumerator and decide on polling stations. Then prepare proclamation following directions in Act.
(Sgd.) R. W. SCOTT.
A note follows this :
On ascertaining that Girouard was a member of the Yukon Council and therefore disqualified, Ledieu was appointed.
The next telegram is dated October 8, 1904, to the gentleman just named Mr. Ledieu. It is as follows :
Ottawa, 8th October, 1904.
Pierre Ledieu,
Barrister, Dawson, Yukon Territory.
You have been appointed returning officer in place of Joseph Ena Girouard, not' qualified. Get from him my telegram, October 5th, and act in accordance therewith.


R. W. SCOTT.
[Stage Direction]
The next telegram reads :
Ottawa, 17th October, 1904.
Pierre Ledieu,
Returning Officer, Dawson, Yukon.
If proclamation has not been posted slay action. Represented that owing to difficulty of travelling time appointed for nomination is unsuitable. Number of polling places should not exceed forty. Consult Congdon, who is familiar
[Stage Direction]
with centres of population. Advise me immediately of present position.

[Stage Direction]
Then there is a note following that to this effect:
Not then known that Congdon had resigned commissionership or that he was to be a candidate.
(Sgd.) R. W. S.
The next telegram is dated Dawson, Yukon, October 20, 1904:
Hon.  R. W.@: Scott,
Secretary of State, Ottawa.
Is writ to be dated 5th October, and what is the return day ?
(Sgd.) PIERRE LEDIEU,
Returning Officer.
The next telegram is dated Ottawa, October 21, 1904, and is as follows :
Ottawa, 21 October, 1904.
Pierre Ledieu,
Dawson, Yukon Territory.
No, writ dated 29th September

nomination 18th November. You were instructed to get my telegram to Mr. Girouard and act in accordance with it. I cancel the suggestion in my telegram to stay action and expect you to proceed vigorously. If not too late limit number of polls to forty. Writ' returnable when your duties have been completed.



[Stage Direction]
The next telegram is dated Dawson, Yukon Territory, and is dated December 5, 1904. It is to the Hon. Charles Fitzpatrick (Minister of Justice), and reads:
The voters' lists compiled.
I suppose it is compiled, it reads ' complied : '
The voters' lists compiled under the Yukon Territory Representation Act, 1902, have been stolen, if posted, immediately after posted ; lists for each polling division have not been posted in accordance with section 30, and access to lists in enumerators' hands under section 30 and 31 refused by enumerators to Dr. Alfred Thompson, candidate, his agents and supporting electors. Intense excitement prevails in consequence, pointing to danger of general uprising. The lists for whole enumeration district were posted in two places only in such district and were not segregated for polling subdivisions and posted in such polling divisions. Such lists as posted were so posted secretly at midnight, November 30th, and immediately removed and have never been open to be seen by Dr. Thompson or his supporters. We respectfully request that direct' instructions be immediately given to all enumerators to allow Dr. Thompson, his agents and all electors access to voters' lists, final closing of the same under Act. Please advise Dr. Thompson by wire.
(Sgd.) ALFRED THOMPSON.
'Candidate T. W. O'Brien, Thomas J. Kearney, N. F. Hagel, T. D. Patullo, C. W. Tobors, George Black, John Pringle, R. H. S. Cress-well, committee.
The next telegram is dated Ottawa, December 1, 1904 :
Robert Laird Borden: Ottawa, 7 December, 1904.
Pierre Ledieu,
Returning Officer, Dawson, Y.T.
All candidates are entitled to equal facilities in securing copies voters' lists. Representations are being made that this rule is not being *observed. Any sharp or indefensible practice defeating this fair principle by officers employed under Elections Act will result in forfeiture of their remuneration and may void the election. You appointed clerks and enumerators and will be held responsible for any malfeasance. Publish this telegram immediately on receipt in local papers and send me copy of papers. Answer by wire if published.



[Stage Direction]
It appears by tlie subsequent correspondence that the returning officer did not obey the very proper instructions which the Secretary of State gave to him by publishing this telegram ; in fact further on he intimates that he has declined or refused to obey these instructions so far as the publication is concerned. The telegram which follows next is :
Dawson, Y.T., Dec. 7, 1904. Secretary State, Scott,
Ottawa.
Returning officer Pierre Ledieu refuses to make public through newspapers contents or purport of instructions known to have been received from you. People vitally interested. Please wire ' News ' if the public is entitled to know.
Dawson ' Daily News,'
A. S. GEORGE, editor.
To this the following reply was sent:
Quebec, 9 Dec., 1904.
A. S. George, editor, &c.,
Dawson, Y. T.
Returning officer was substantially instructed to give all candidates equal opportunities to obtain copies of voters' lists. That as he had appointed enumerators it was in his power to see that the lists were given impartially to both candidates.

[Stage Direction]
The next telegram is from the Yukon to the Secretary of State.
Dawson, Y.T., Dec. 9, 1904.
Hon.  R. W.@: Scott,
Halifax, N.S.
List as yet not furnished Dr. Thompson or his agent. Returning officer neglects to communicate with enumerators outside Dawson and some enumerators are being kept hidden. He refuses list of polling subdivisions until two days before election, too late for electors to ascertain whether names on are struck off. Other party has them. People depending on you but thoroughly aroused, have had to request police to protect enumerators and returning officer to-day. If corroboration desired communicate with Police Commissioner Wood. Instructions should be prompt and definite, and Dr. Thompson advised thereof, otherwise same will be evaded. Situation becoming more strained.
ALFRED THOMPSON, candidate, John Pringle, T. W. O'Brien, Thos. J. Kearney, C. W. Clabor, N. W. Hagel, George Black, R. H. S. Cresswell, T D. Patullo.

The next telegram is from the returning officer:
Dawson, Y.T., Dec. 9th, 1904. Hon. R. W. Scott,
Halifax, N.S.
I repudiate any intimation that I have facilitated one candidate more than the other in obtaining special copies of voters' lists. The law as framed does not provide for furnishing such special copies to each candidate by enumerators, whose only duty is to post the same in the different divisions. True it is that several of them were stolen after being posted. Each partv accuses the other of the theft. I remain uncertain as to what was my duty, but will follow your instructions by advising the enumerators to furnish each candidate with special [DOT]copies. The duties of returning officers under the Yukon Representation Act are not clear. 1 thank you for your opinion upon the matter, i beg however, to submit that the publication ot your telegram would be unjust towards me by putting me in an unfair light before the public. I hope you will not insist upon the execution of this order. 1 cannot understand how your telegram was known to have been sent before it
reached me.	pieRRE DEDIEU,
Returning Officer.
Ottawa, 31st' Jan., 1905.
Pierre Ledieu,
Returning Officer, Dawson, Y.T.
Whom do you propose declaring as member elect ? Reports received give Thompson a large majority.
R. W. SCOTT. Dawson, Y.T., Feb. 1, 1905.
R. W. Scott,
Ottawa, Ont.
I propose, as bound by law, to declare elected the candidate who on the 7th February, declaration day, will be found to have had the majority of votes. As it Is I have only the unofficial reports of deputy returning officers, which apparently give a majority to Thompson of over 500.


PIERRE LEDIEU,
[Stage Direction]
Returning Officer.
Dawson, Y.T., Feb. 8, 1905.
R. W. Scott,
Secretary State, Ottawa.
Alfred Thompson was declared elected yesterday by a majority of 618. My report with writ will be sent in a couple of days.

[Stage Direction]
Returning Officer.
The telegram of the Secretary of State reflected in no wise on the returning officer. It was a mere telegram of instructions, and it does credit to the Secretary of State in that regard. It is evident from the telegram which I have just read that it was not the intention of the returning officer to comply with those instructions, but to keep secret from the public until after the election the instructions which he had thus received. And I may say, before I go on to the further telegrams, that this returning officer points out what we pointed out to the government during the last session and the session before that if the law were not amended grave injustice would be done to candidates where there were partisan returning officers or enumerators, both in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. The very thing which we pointed out, which my friend Mr. Casgrain, who then represented Montmorency, predicted, in his address to the House on that occasion, has actually happened in the Yukon and has led to serious disturbances there. The other telegrams are as follows :
Dawson, Y.T., Dec. 14th, 1904. Hon. R. W. Scott,
Secretary State, Ottawa.
If threatened wholesale removal of names from voters' lists carried out, -will be bloodshed.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, 15th Dec., 1904.
John Pringle,
Dawson, Y.T.
If election frauds such as you represent are being perpetrated, better apply afterwards to the courts to void election rather than resort to the bloodshed which you say is imminent.

[Stage Direction]
Dawson, Y.T., Feb. 13, 1905.
R. W. Scott,
Ottawa, Ont.
Was serv-ed to-day with writ of subpoena in a case of conspiracy ordering me to produce on the 1st of March the writ of election, the voters' lists, the poll-books and all other election papers. Shall I obey the order of the court or not. Dr. Thompson is leaving for Ottawa on the 15th.

[Stage Direction]
Returning Officer.
Ottawa, 14th Feb., 1905.
Pierre Ledieu,
Returning Officer, Dawson, Y.T.
If there has not been any demand for a recount under section ninety, Dominion Elections Act, then your duty is to return this candidate and conform to all the requirements of section ninety-two of the Act.

[Stage Direction]
I thought it worth while to read this correspondence to the House, because it deals with a very important matter, namely, the conduct of the returning officer, who is an officer of this House ; and it concerns also the disfranchisement of the Yukon Territory for a period of perhaps two months when it should have been represented by its member sitting in this House. When this matter was mentioned earlier in the session, my lion, friend the Minister of Justice stated distinctly that an explanation was to he demanded from the returning officer as to the reason for delaying the date for opening the ballot boxes and summing up the result, to the 7th day of February, the necessity for which does not appear anywhere in this correspondence, nor, so far as I am aware, can it be demonstrated otherwise. The promise then made to the House by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice has apparently, for some reason, been overlooked or neglected.
r
[Stage Direction]
126a
I would suggest to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that it is desirable that without delay that promise should be implemented and an explanation asked by telegram from the returning officer as to why he postponed to the 7th day of February the opening of the ballot boxes, when so far as we know a more proper date woidd have been one towards the end of December or certainly many weeks prior to the date he has fixed. I would respectfully ask the Prime Minister to have that matter dealt with at the earliest possible moment.
Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that I do not know much of the circumstances which have attended this election. In fact, I knew nothing of them until a day or two ago, when, after my hon. friend the leader of the opposition had brought the matter to the attention of the House, I made some inquiry as to the reason for the delay in returning the elected member. All the information that I can give at this moment to my hon. friend is this, that according to the law and the practice of the Yukon, the delay has not been extraordinary. If I am correctly informed, there must be according to the law of the Yukon a full month between nomination day and polling day, and a very long delay between polling day and declaration day. The reason is that at that season especially, on account of the long distances and the severity of the weather and the bad roads, it would not be possible to have any less delay. If I am correctly informed, the returning officer on this occasion acted exactly in accordance with the precedent of the previous election in the Yukon. There have been two elections in the Yukon so far, first, the election of Mr. Ross and then the election of Dr. Thompson. As I am informed, the delays in each were exactly the same, and those delays had been fixed by the returning officer before the two candidates were put in nomi nation. The impression seems to prevail that they were extended by the present returning officer after the election of Dr. Thompson, because Dr. Thompson was supposed not to be of his own political party ; but if I am correctly informed, all such imputations are absolutely unfounded. The delays were exactly the same as before and were fixed at the time the returning officer issued his proclamation fixing the polling days and the day for declaration. As my hon. friend has read, the last telegram sent by the Secretary of State to the returning officer was that he should declare elected the candidate having the majority and that his duty was to send his return here, and as soon as we have his return we will be in a position to see how the matter stands.


Robert Laird Borden: There was no delay so far as the former member of the Yukon is concerned, but that may have been due to the fact that the House met at a later date in the year. But I would be slow to be-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
lieve, without very cogent evidence, that a delay of fifty-three days is necessary for the return of the ballot boxes. That is the delay which has taken place in this instance from the 16th December until the 7th February.


MILITIA ORDERS.
Mr. G. H. PERLEY.: I notice in the public prints, within the last day or two, copies of orders which the Militia Council proposes to put in force regarding those clerks in the Militia Department who are in the militia of Canada. I wish to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia to one of the clauses in these orders. It is a clause which, it seems to me, cannot fail to create a wrong impression, and an impression which, I feel sure, the hon. minister had no intention of producing. The clause says that-	' .

similar considerations govern the grant of leave of absence for the purpose of attending annual training or performing other military duty. Leave of absence, other than the annual leave to which the applicant is entitled under the Civil Service Act, can only be given for this purpose upon the condition that no detriment is caused to the public service.
That is the clause to which I call attention. We all know well that no employer in this country can have any of his men belong to the militia without suffering some detriment to his business. This clause refers to times of peace, and the other parts of the order, which refer to times of war, provide that the members of the civil service in the Militia Department shall not go out in time of war. That is probably all right. But in times of peace, I feel quite certain that even if these orders are put in force as they read, the minister will never prevent any of the clerks in his department from going to annual drill, simply because that might cause the department some inconvenience. I am sure that the hon, minister wishes to make the militia as efficient as possible, and I simply wish to suggest that the clause to which I have referred, and which provides that the clerks in the Militia Department cannot attend annual drill in time of peace if it causes any detriment to the public service, is one which will produce an impression among other employers of labour that will do our militia a lot of harm. No employer of labour can allow his men to belong to the militia without some detriment to his business ; and I am quite sure that the Minister of Militia is willing that his department should, in time of peace, be put to the ordinary inconvenience or detriment which other people are willing to suffer when their men belong to the force. I would suggest that before these orders are put in force the hon. minister should consider whether he should not alter the wording of this clause in order to remove from the minds of ordinary em-
12G1

ployers of labour the impression that the Department of Militia is not willing to be put to any detriment or inconvenience in order to allow its clerks to attend annual drill and the other ordinary duties of militiamen in times of peaee.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I am sorry I was not in the House when the motion was made, and still more that my hon. friend did not Intimate to me that he intended to bring this matter up. That is the usual course pursued and the usual courtesy extended to a minister. 1 was near the chamber in my own room attending to some work, and would have been here if I had known the intention of my hon. friend. Besides it would have been much more convenient to give the minister the opportunity of being prepared to meet a matter of this kind. Speaking off-hand, I may say that the reason for the order is that it would be manifestly inconvenient, in time of stress, or difficulty, or war, if you like, for officers of the Militia Department, who, at such a time, are more required in their offices than at any other, to be compelled to go into the field. It would be absolutely impossible to carry on important militia work if men holding important positions in the department were permitted to take posts in the militia which would necessitate their leaving their duties in the department at the very moment when they were most needed there, and when they could do best service for their country in the department itself. That is the whole object of the order. It was discussed in the Militia Council, and very strongly recommended by the four military experts, and was not passed without being most carefully considered. With all deference to my hon. friend, I do think that these gentlemen, possibly, are better informed than he as to the best requirements in the puhlic interest on the part of these officials in the Militia Department ; and I am sure that no one can have a stronger desire than they to serve the public interest. Later on, perhaps, in the session I shall be very glad to return to a discussion of this matter, but I think that this is rather an inopportune moment to consider it.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: It is my purpose to take this matter up on the minister's estimates. No doubt the theory is that these men are all members of a permanent corps, so to speak, and to take them from one branch of the service to another in time of stress might be detrimental to the public interest. The point I specially object to is that it names certain commissions that no officer in the department may hold, such as adjutant, and, I believe, commanding officer. If an official is allowed to enlist as a private in a militia corps, I do not see why he should not 'be allowed to rise to be Lieutenant-Colonel of his regiment. Either these officials should not be allowed to join a militia corps or they should be free to rise
to the highest positions in the new service they are capable of taking. I give the minister intimation that I will take up this matter when the estimates are under consideration.


Frederick William Borden: I think it would be well to have this order placed upon ' Hansard,' and therefore with the permission of the House, I will read it:
The question of to what extent it is desirable that employees of the Department of Militia and Defence, both at headquarters and elsewhere, should serve in the militia has been under the consideration of the minister in Militia Council.
It is obvious that in the event of an outbreak of war, the position of the Department of Militia and Defence must be entirely different from that of other departments of the public service. Upon its efficient working depends the efficiency of the military forces in the field. It is. therefore, of paramount importance for the success of the campaign that it should not suffer detriment by being liable to have members of its civil staff withdrawn at such a moment in order to serve with troops in the field.
At the same time, the Minister in Council desires to encourage employees of the department to serve in time of peace and so familiarize themselves with military requirements.
He trusts, however, that they will understand that, although they are members of the militia force of Canada, their duty to the State is primarily that of civil servants in the department to which they belong, and that in time of emergency they render more valuable service to their country by continuing to serve in the Militia Department than by accompanying their units as soldiers.
This being the ease, it follows that no employee of the Militia Department can be safely reckoned on to accompany his militia unit when it is called out for service, and further, that he ought not to hold any position in that unit of such a nature that his absence would seriously prejudice its military efficiency.
The Minister in Council has, therefore, decided that no civil employee of the Militia Department shall, in future, accept the position of either adjutant or commanding officer of any unit of the active militia, and that permission to join any corps can only be granted subject to this proviso.
Similar considerations govern the grant of leave of absence for the purpose of attending annual training or performing other military duty. Leave of absence, other than the annual leave to which the applicant is entitled under the Civil Service Act, can only be given for this purpose upon the condition that no detriment is caused to the public service.
All officers and other persons in the employment of the department will guide themselves accordingly.


Samuel Hughes: 'Some time ago the minister, if I understood him aright, promised that he would supply each member of the House with a copy of the new regulations. May I jog his memory on that subject ?


Frederick William Borden: I will see to that.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.

Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital- Welland canal-to deepen portions of summit level between Port Colborne and Thorold, $80,000.


Mr. EMMERSON.: As I explained last evening, $140,000 is required to complete tills work. We ask here for $80,000, wliicb will cover the work that, in the ordinary course, will he done within the fiscal year which will leave a balance of $60,000 to be asked for later on.


John Graham Haggart: Last year $150,000 was voted for this purpose, which, with the $140,000 yet to be spent would make a total of $290,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The total estimated cost of this work is $530,000, of which $390,000 has been expended up to December 31 last.


John Graham Haggart: Will this $140,000 complete the work ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, so I am informed by the chief engineer. The work is the excavation of 1,377,000 cubic yards. The lowest tender was 38i cents, making $530,000.


John Graham Haggart: What depth of water will there be when the work is finished ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This will give 17 feet of water at the ordinary level of Lake Erie, and 15 feet at low water. The deepening of the canal is made necessary by reason of the lowering of the water in Lake Erie which lias been going on for some years.


John Graham Haggart: What is the object of having 17 feet when navigation in the canal is only 14 feet ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: When this is completed there will be a depth of 17 feet. At certain points the boats dragged, I believe making the deepening of this level necessary.


John Graham Haggart: Why have 17 feet when you have only 14 feet of navigation ?


Mr. GERMAN.: I have some knowledge of the navigation of the Welland canal. The difficulty arises from the fact that the wind blowing from the east to the west lowers the water in the Welland canal. When the wind is blowing from the west the water in the canal will rise two feet or more ; and when it is blowing from the east up the lake the water in the canal will be lowered by two feet or more. The normal depth of the water is supposed to be 14 feet, that is the advertised depth of water in the Welland canal, the depth on the mitre sill. There being this fluctuation of two feet above or below, it is necessary that the canal from Port Colborne to Thorold. where the locks begin, should have a sufficient depth of water so that when the wind is blowing up you will still have 14


Frederick William Borden: feet. Unless that is done the canal at certain times would be absolutely useless.


John Graham Haggart: When it was first built it was well known what the effect of the wind was, blowing east or west on Lake Erie. The difference between the two extreme levels was, I think, about six feet. There would be no object in deepening the summit level if you have not dropped the mitre sills both on the lake and at the entrance. Have you done that ?


William Manley German: Yes, at Port Colborne.


John Graham Haggart: How much ?
Mr. EMMERaON. Three feet.


John Graham Haggart: Then you are deepening the summit level of the canal for the purpose of bringing it down to the depth on the mitre sill, and at the entrance to Port Colborne that would be 14 to 17 feet. [DOT] Did not the weight of the material that was originally excavated at the summit level and piled on each side of the bank, force the bottom up a little ?


William Manley German: There is no doubt it did, and that is part of the work that it is necessary to do. This work has to a considerable degree been increased by the fact that the banks which were constructed under the supervision of the hon. gentlemen opposite in that particular way, have forced up the bottom of the canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would not be true with respect to that portion where there has been rock excavation.


John Graham Haggart: None of it is rock excavation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a fact that a portion of this work is rock excavation. If the hon. gentleman had been here last night he would have learned that fact, and that there was a contract let for that work at $2.90 per cubic yard.
IMr. HAGGART. On the summit level of the Welland canal ?


William Manley German: Yes, at Port Colborne.


John Graham Haggart: On the summit level it must be all clay.


William Manley German: From Port Colborne for about two miles and a half down the canal to what is known as Ramey's Bend, it is all rock excavation. The whole canal Is built through rock, and that has to be deepened.


John Graham Haggart: You have 17 feet on the mitre sill of the lock, what is the depth of the excavation for Port Colborne harbour, that part which is under the control of the Canals Department.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The harbour is 22 feet, we reduced it at the entrance to the lock to 17 feet.


John Graham Haggart: What is the standard you take for 22 feet depth ? Is it the original bench mark of the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is the original design.


John Graham Haggart: Are you making allowance in your 22 feet excavation for Port Colborne, for the variation caused by the lowering of Lake Erie which the hon. gentleman mentions ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Just the same as it is done in the canal.


John Graham Haggart: Just the same as it is being done on this level of the canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: You are taking the 22 feet navigation of Port Colborne, is that on the new depth or the new bench mark allowing for the lowering of the water in Lake Erie ?


William Manley German: The jurisdiction of the Department of Railways and Canals only extends to the outer extremity of the pier at Port Colborne. From the outer end of the pier, the beginning of the jurisdiction of the Department of Railways and Canals, the depth of the canal will be probably 15 feet on the whole summit level. Outside of that is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works, who, I understand, are making a basin there with a depth of 22 feet under any condition of weather, so that the largest boats on the upper lakes can go into the elevator and unload no matter what the climatic conditions may be as respects the wind.


John Graham Haggart: I understood entirely different. I understood that part of the work of deepening that was in process at Port Colborne, was under the jurisdiction of the Canals Department, that outside the locks they are deepening to the extent of 22 feet in order that vessels may come up to Port Colborne, and over this portion they have jurisdiction ; or do you only take jurisdiction to the end of the lock ?


William Manley German: To the end of the pier.


John Graham Haggart: Does the Department of Public Works have jurisdiction to the guard lock of the canal ?


William Manley German: Not up to the guard lock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The harbour itself is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works ; the channel which runs from the harbour into the entrance of the canal is under the control of the Department of Railway and Canals.


John Graham Haggart: Are you deepening that channel 22 feet or only 17 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed by the chief engineer that they are deepening that channel to 22 feet.
Elevator at Port Colborne, including foundation, $310,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The estimated cost of the elevator and foundations, including the machinery for operating and handling grain is $1,110,000. The capacity is 2,000,000 bushels. The foundations and superstructure were designed and planned by J. A. Jamieson, of Montreal, an acknowledged expert in this special line of engineering, and who is paid a commission of five per cent for the same, including superintendence during construction. The elevator will be fire proof, being constructed principally of steel and concrete. Mr. Jamieson has designed elevators for the Canadian Pacific Railway at Owen Sound and St. John, and for the Montreal Transportation Company at Kingston and other places. We have let the contract for the foundations, the contract price at schedule rates amounting to $95,200.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. minister considered the possibility of having these elevators made of tile instead of iron? The iron ones are found to be affected more by the heat in summer and the cold in winter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is not completely iron, but concrete and iron. It is different from the ordinary iron elevators. It is a new design of elevator in accordance with the most modern ideas and is to be one of the most up to date elevators that is to be found on this continent.


Samuel Hughes: They are all that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They may be.


Samuel Hughes: A concrete elevator erected at Duluth some years ago is more or less a failure and the iron elevators are failures.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a combination of the two.


John Graham Haggart: What is the policy of the government in reference to these elevators? What is the object of building them and what are you going to do with them after they are built?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is, of course, for the storage of grain. A harbour has been constructed at Port Colborne at great expense. Vast sums of public moneys have been expended there. There were quite a number of applications received by the department from time to time from transportation companies and other private corporations asking for the privilege of putting up separate elevators on the public works at that point at the entrance to the canal. It was deemed in the public interest better for Canada to furnish a large elevator which would be open to the general public m accordance with certain regulations and subject to conditions and tolls. It was deemed that it would be better that Canada should

expend tlie money to construct this elevator and give to all who are interested in the transportation question an opportunity of availing themselves of elevator facilities. Thus it was that it was determined to construct this elevator. It will be the largest elevator, as far as I have any knowledge, in Canada, and will certainly meet the present and even anticipated requirements of the traffic from the west to the east by the lakes.


John Graham Haggart: Last session when the hon. gentleman was taking a vote he asked for about $40,000 for the purpose of constructing the foundations of this elevator.


Henry Robert Emmerson: $400,000 was asked for last year.


John Graham Haggart: But $40,000 for the foundations.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We asked for $400,000 last year. At that time it was anticipated that we would have the foundations further advanced, but in consequence of the delay-


John Graham Haggart: It appears in the estimates that you asked for $400,000 and 1 want to state what the hon. minister said last year in reference to it. He wanted $40,000 for the foundations for this elevator. He stated that in the course of the construction of the piers it would be necessary, whether the elevator was erected by private enterprise or by the government, to build the foundations. Last year the government had not decided whether it would be better for private individuals to build this elevator or whether the government should have control of it. It was a moot question with the government; they did not know whether they would expend a dollar or not in reference to this matter. What is the advantage of having this elevator built by the government and interfering with what ought to be strictly and purely a private enterprise ? What was the reason that induced the government to build this elevator?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well I would say to my hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) that as far as my judgment is concerned it was to prevent one or two transportation companies getting the control of that waterway. There can only of necessity be a limited number of elevators and they would be under the control of the exclusive few. There would be a large majority of those engaged in lake transportation who would be entirely shut out, and, of course, the expenditure of public moneys there is supposed to be in the general interest. It is for the good of the greatest number, and if it were our policy to permit private parties to have the use of the works there for their particular private business it would not promote the general lake traffic. The government believe that the application of this principle must commend itself to those who are interested in getting the traffic from the Mr. EMMERSON.
west to the east and while it cannot be said to be a money making enterprise in view of the expected traffic, it need not be a money losing operation.


John Graham Haggart: Then, you are going into what is after all an individual or private enterprise on the ground that perhaps a couple of parties might erect elevators at Port Colborne and interfere with what might not be in the interest of the general public. That is the reason stated by the hon. minister for this arrangement. He says that in the interest of the general public the control of this elevator should be in the hands of the government because it might tend to monopoly in the hands of private individuals. I suppose the hon. minister has the report which he sent to Council or at least the report of his deputy urging the reasons why the government should build this particular elevator. Within a few miles of Port Colborne there is centered a great amount of traffic requiring the greatest elevator capacity in any part of the world. Yet, I am not aware that either the state of New York or the government of the United States has interfered with what should be purely private enterprise by having an elevator erected in Buffalo or in any part or portion of the United States. It is a new venture for governments to enter the domain of private enterprise for the purpose of erecting elevators in the interest of the public, in the hope that it will accrue to the public advantage afterwards. It is true that on the Intercolonial Railway as part' and portion of that railway we have erected elevators, mostly in places where grain never reaches them, like Halifax, and to a certain extent St. John, and we have, for the convenience of the Intercolonial Railway or perhaps for some reason on the lines the hon. gentleman advances, erected one in Quebec, but if the government of the country are going to furnish elevators for every part of the Dominion of Canada where it might be to the public interest and advantage that elevators should be erected they are opening up a very wide field indeed. What is the cost of this elevator going to be?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) cannot have forgotten the proposition made to this parliament last year, that it would be in the public interest to build elevators along the railways as a public charge and under the control of the public. This proposition is a natural sequence of the action of this parliament in building the breakwater at the entrance to the Welland canal in the harbour of Port Colborne. A very large sum of money was expended in the public interest-wisely expended we must assume-in order to facilitate the lake traffic. In order to have any traffic whatever, it is necessary to have an elevator there. There are conflicting interests, competitive companies, all disputing for the

right to enjoy the major portion of that traffic, or all of it that they can get. There can only be a limited number of elevators, probably two at the most, placed upon these public works. If one or two of these companies secured these elevators, then where would be the facilities that other companies are seeking for ? They would be simply shut out. and the large sums of the money of Canada which have been expended in the erection of that breakwater and the building up of that harbour would have been expended in order that one or two companies should have a monopoly of the traffic. That would be simply placing the expenditure of this large sum of money at their disposal, shutting out the larger number of transportation companies. It seems to me that these are very good reasons for the action proposed to be taken by the government with respect to this large elevator, which will be open to the public at large.


John Graham Haggart: The minister has a curious system of ratiocination, which I am not able to follow. He says that the natural sequence of building a breakwater, if the public are going to utilize it, would be to furnish it with an elevator for the benefit of the public ; in order to derive any benefit from the deepening of Port Colborne harbour and the entrance to the mouth of the Welland canal and to utilize it to the fullest extent in the interest of the public, we have to erect the largest elevator on the continent of America, and we do it probably for the reason that there is only room for two elevators there. It is news to most of us that you can only erect two elevators in that large harbour which is being constructed at Port Colborne, and that if the two were erected the public would be at the mercy of the elevator owners. It is in the interest of the public, it is the natural sequence, according to the hon. gentleman's style of argument, that when you erect a breakwater, and desire to use it to the fullest extent, you have to erect also an elevator for the benefit of the public at large. There should be an end of this kind of thing; something should be left to private enterprise in this country. The natural sequence, according to the minister's argument, of the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific by the government would be that we should erect elevators on the line of the different railways that are in operation throughout the country.


William Manley German: There is no doubt a question involved which is of very great public importance in the construction of the elevator at Port Colborne. There is a contingent on the opposite side of the House in this parliament who believe that the government should own all these utilities, not only the elevators, but all the railways, telegraph lines and telephone lines in the country. Possibly this government is starting, in a small way, in that direction by owning
the elevator at Port Colborne and, perhaps, in other places. Whether it is wise for the government to own the elevator, or whether that should be left to private enterprise, is a matter for discussion ; for myself, I am free to admit that I desired the government to allow a private company to construct this elevator. But the rights claimed by private companies were rather ' extreme. In the first place, Mr. Wolvin, of Duluth, who is the head of a large transportation company which operates between Duluth and the head of Lake Superior and Montreal and Quebec, desired to have the right to construct an elevator or elevators at Port Colborne. The government, some years ago, began, and have nearly completed, the construction of two large concrete piers at Port Colborne, which are being constructed exclusively for the purpose of erecting on them elevators and storage warehouses at considerable expense. It was thought to be in the public interest that this should be done, and I do not know that there has been any serious criticism of the government's action in the construction of these works. In order to make these works of any benefit to the country, elevators had to be built. Mr. Wolvin desired the right to construct an elevator on one of these piers, but he insisted that if he did anything he should have an exclusive right. Certain financial gentlemen in Toronto applied to parliament for a charter, and I had the honour of fathering their Bill. Hon. gentlemen can see from the Bill who the incorporators are, some of the wealthiest men in Toronto. Their idea was to get the rigflit from this government, if possible, to construct an elevator or elevators at Port Colborne, and to put on a line of boats of canal size to carry grain on the lake route to Montreal. But these gentlemen, before they would go into the enterprise, before they would even think of constructing an elevator, insisted upon having a monopoly or an exclusive right to build elevators. They said that the matter was experimental, and that it was in the nature of a gamble, to expend large sums of money in the construction of ships and in the building of elevators at Port Colborne, terminals at Montreal and Quebec. They said that if they spent this large sum of money, they must have the exclusive right to the use of the elevators at Port Colborne. Mr. Wolvin insisted on the same thing. These two companies came into competition ; they came to the government; Mr. Wolvin insisted on the exclusive right to construct the elevators, and the company of Canadian capitalists which was incorporated here also insisted on an exlusive right. The government decided-wisely or otherwise, is a question for argument-that rather than give any company the exclusive right to construct and control these elevators, the government would build an elevator itself. The government is going on to build the elevator, and I have no fear but that the

future will demonstrate conclusively that the construction of this elevator will aid very materially in the solution of the transportation question in Canada, and bring about the transportation of grain through Canadian channels instead of through American channels, where it goes at present.


Mr. OSLER.: Does the minister know the amount of grain which has gone through the Welland canal during the present year as compared with previous years ? Has there been any increase ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
William Manley German: 


John Graham Haggart: We have an interim report, it seems now, from the commissioners who were appointed to investigate our transportation facilities? I understood from the answer that was given in the House the other day that there were no reports.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It has been stated here more than once that this commission, under the chairmanship of the late Mr. Bertram, had reported with respect to the St. ,Tohn harbour, and, if I mistake not, that report was laid before parliament. It was also stated, if I mistake not, at the last session, that the matter of the Port Colborne harbour facilities was being inquired into by this commission, and that they proposed making an interim report, and they did so.


John Graham Haggart: Are these all the reports you have from the commission ? .


Henry Robert Emmerson: Speaking from memory, there are only two. The commission went to St. John, Halifax and Sydney, if I mistake not. At any rate" they went to St. John and they have made a report with respect to that harbour and a report with respect to Port Colborne. I do not think they have made any other suggestions-certainly not a general report.


John Graham Haggart: It would be most interesting to the committee to have a report from that transportation commission. I had every faith in the ability of the chairman of that commission, who has died, and a report from him would be of great use to this committee. When we are considering the expenditure of two or three million dollars for the building of elevators at Port Colborne and the deepening of the harbour and that portion of the canal which reaches the harbour, we ought to have the full report of the commission on the subject. We ought to be informed how the traffic is going to be diverted, what rates are going to be charged on these elevators, and how, the whole affair is going to result commercially. We know nothing about any of these matters. The minister should furnish us with a tabulated statement showing mathematically the commercial advantages si what the government propose to do.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman asks for an accurate statement showing the commercial advantages. Let me invite his attention to the situation, and it he will take a comprehensive view of it he will see that it is our duty to erect this elevator regardless whether it will pay in the matter of fees, because its erection is essential to the utilization of the enormous capital we have already expended on the Welland canal. That canal has a carrying capacity of 14 feet. I believe that the locks are able to lock through vessels carrying about 70.000 bushels. But every one knows that on the upper lakes to-day are plying a

large number of grain carrying vessels of a capacity of 200,000 bushels and more, some going as high as 300,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Drawing what water ?


William Mulock: Twenty feet.


John Graham Haggart: Nineteen feet.


William Mulock: Those vessels are to-day doing the chief carrying trade on the lakes, carrying grain from Duluth and Fort William down chiefly to Buffalo. Why do they not bring it to Port Colborne ? Those vessels carry sufficient cargo to fill at least four or five canal barges the full capacity of the lakes, and they will not come to Port Colborne if they have to be detained there. They must feel sure, when they start from Duluth or Fort William, that they will be able at once, on reaching Port Colborne, to unload either into barges or elevators. We have built a breakwater and dredged and deepened the harbour inside the breakwater. There are five hundred acres, or nearly a mile square of harbour safe for these vessels, but to-day they must give it the go-by and go to Buffalo because there are no facilities at Port Colborne to enable them to discharge their cargoes at once and immediately return. It is the very essence of the carrying trade that these vessels should utilize every moment of time during the short season of navigation instead of having to wait idly for hours or days before starting on their return trip. There are between 200 and 300 of these vessels on the upper lakes bringing the grain from the upper ports to Buffalo, and these vessels give the go-by to Port Colborne simply because we have not the facilities for unloading at the port which they require. The erection of an elevator there is therefore absolutely essential if we want to bring the traffic to that port and down the Welland canal. We have spent $60,000,000 from first to last on our canals, and they have not yet at all realized the expectations of our people or given any direct or indirect reasonable return on that expenditure. Why is this ? Simply because the key to the situation is Port Colborne, and that port has not yet been equipped in such a way as to make it possible for us to capture that traffic. If we are to enjoy the fruition of the expenditure on our canals, which has been justified by public opinion ever since confederation, we must completely equip that port. My hon. friend possibly takes exception to the government, but what is the situation ? If Port Colborne is the key to the situation, we must not imperil our chances by giving the control of the elevator at that port to any one person or company. There is not unlimited space there ; and if we were to give any set of gentlemen the building of the elevator, they would acquire a quasi monopoly and possibly deter others from investing money there in like manner.
We know what wheels there are within wheels and how combines and organizations grow up. If we were to allow a set of men to build an elevator at Port Colbornei it might pay them better to shut up the elevator. They might make more money by playing into the hands of Buffalo ; and while you make agreements-my experience of agreements with great corporations


William Findlay Maclean: Be careful.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK-is that in some way or other these corporations are able largely to evade the most carefully drawn bargains.


Samuel Hughes: Would the hon. minister mind letting us into the secret of how they do this ?


William Mulock: I am sure I could not add anything to the hon. gentle^ man's information on that question. In my opinion the only way for us to be safe is for the government to own this elevator. Then the grain men of Buffalo could not, as theyi might in case the elevator were owned by a private company, use their influence to have this elevator closed or its usefulness defeated. If a company should own the elevator, they might probably conform to the letter of the agreement and yet defeat its spirit. They might have a slow method of handling the grain. They might embarrass the boats coming and going. They might in many ways injure the trade without actually violating the agreement. On the other hand if the government should be the owner, they will have no interest except to bring the largest volume of trade through the elevator so as to make our canals useful and have the country reap the greatest advantage from the money expended. I do not think there can be any argument in favour of private ownership of an elevator at the mouth of Port Colborne as against the arguments in favour of government ownership. We should view with the greatest alarm the giving over the right to own the elevator to any corporation or set of men. The present scheme has my heartiest approval. I believe it will prove the turning point in the history of the Welland canal. That canal has not up to the present realized in any respect the expectations of the people and I shall be disappointed beyond expression if the building of this elevator will not bring to this canal as much grain as it can carry. Without this elevator how could a vessel drawing 19 feet of water come into Port Colborne and be discharged, if the weather be not favourable? If the vessel owners could be sure that when they got to Port Colborne there would be fine weather, they might come in, and a few do occasionally come in, but very few because they cannot depend upon it. True, the breakwater has to some extent got over that difficulty, but then the question of delay

comes in. I am told that when this elevator is constructed, it will give facilities for transhipment at Port Colborne that will enable vessels carrying 150,000 bushels of. grain to unload and leave the harbour in six hours less than they could in Buffalo harbour. I do not know what the difficulties are in that harbour.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The time taken in getting there and back.


William Mulock: It is not only that, but there are difficulties there.


William Manley German: Congestion in the harbour.


William Mulock: There are other difficulties 1 understand. My authority is an engineer, I think it was Mr. Weller. I visited Port Colborne harbour and talked with the men in the government service there, and they gave me to understand that a vessel of the kind I speak of would be able to save six hours on each trip. That is a very material saving, I suppose, in a short season of navigation. So, if we have the elevator there, we have the chance of having between two and three hundred vessels drawing 19 feet of water or thereabouts coming to our harbour with traffic, while, to-day, we have not a chance of any of them coming. Surely, the prospect is a favourable one. How else are you going to get the trade ? If you do not put up an elevator, you get along in the same miserable way as in the past. We have had enough disappointment in the working of the canal and it is time to display such enterprise as will actually bring the traffic our way. Everything is done except the finishing of the work. We have spent $60,000,000, and surely we are not going to stop at an expense of $2,000,000 if by that expenditure we have a fair chance of securing the trade.


Samuel Hughes: I asked the minister (Sir William Mulock) if he would give us light on the matter of large companies controlling the elevators. I do not know that he has thrown light on anything, but, if he has, it is certainly not on the subject before the House. He speaks of two or three hundred vessels drawing 19 feet of water coming from Port Arthur and Port William to Port Colborne. He says he does not know anything about the grain-shipping business. I can tell him that if he is going to get two or three hundred vessels from Port Arthur and Port William, they must be American vessels, and they could not carry freight from Port William to Port Colborne.


William Mulock: Why not ?


Samuel Hughes: Because they are American ships and are not allowed to engage in coasting traffic. That is, they are not allowed to go from one Canadian port direct to another. They could not be Canadian boats, because there are not nearly Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
that number of Canadian boats drawing 19 feet of water.


William Mulock: We will get the Duluth traffic.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister spoke of Port Arthur and Fort William and did not mention Duluth.


William Mulock: Yes, I did.


Samuel Hughes: I did not hear him. In the shipping of this grain it is not a race to reach Port Colborne or Buffalo. The question is how to send the grain most quickly and most cheaply from Duluth, Port Arthur or Port William to its final destination. Buffalo is nearly the end of the shipping route, where the grain is taken hold of by the various railways-very little of it goes by the Erie canal and little will go by the Welland canal. The minister says we have no place to receive the grain. Why, Midland is a great deal nearer Duluth, Port Arthur and Port William than Port Colborne is.


William Mulock: I did not make that statement.


Samuel Hughes: I do not think the minister knew what statement he was making. He said we had no place to receive the grain


William Mulock: No, I made no such statement.


Samuel Hughes: At any rate we have Midland which is a deeper harbour and much nearer Chicago and Duluth and Port Arthur than Port Colborne is. There are elevators there and a railway connection that will take the grain to the sea-board at cheaper rates than can be given from Port Colborne. In a short time we shall have the item for the Trent canal under consideration. I hope the government will push that work through to completion. We shall then have the grain carried to the sea-board by a sheltered route all the way. I trust that in a few years we shall have the Georgian bay canal via Lake Nipissing and the French river. This will be another sheltered route for grain to the sea-board and will make it unnecessary to go round the circuitous route by way of Port Colborne. I am not finding fault with the expenditure under consideration. I believe the scheme to be all moonshine, but I have never opposed it. If there is anything in the theory that this can be made a great shipping route I am willing to try it. But, I must say, I cannot see how any shipper of grain is going to ship to Port Colborne, then place the grain in small vessels to send it by canal, or send it in cars, to Lake Ontario, then load it into boats and take it to Montreal. The barge trade on Lake Ontario cannot be made a success. I believe it would be better to enlarge the Welland canal and let the vessels go through

to Montreal, rather than waste money in building up Port Colborne.


Edmund Boyd Osler: One fact the effect of which was not fully realized, I believe in before the enormous expenditure at Port Colborne was decided upon is that the grain shipped by the Welland canal is destined to be exported by the St. Lawrence route. This route closes comparatively early and at the very time when grain is being shipped to Buffalo in the largest quantities. The last boat from Montreal carrying grain leaves about November 10th. That is, the shipper from Port Arthur, Fort William or Duluth cannot rely upon sending out his grain by Montreal unless he gets it through the Welland canal and into the port of Montreal not later than that date. The greatest rush of grain is between the beginning of November and the middle of December, and the closing of navigation from Port Arthur is certainly uot earlier than December Gth. This year vessels left Port Arthur loaded with grain and landed their cargoes at Georgian bay ports-I think I am right in saying-up to December 10th.


William Manley German: The Welland canal closes on December 15th usually.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not speaking of the Welland canal, but of the destination of the grain that goes by the Welland canal-that grain is destined for export by the St. Lawrence, and, as I say, it must reach Montreal not later than November 10th. I am a little familiar with vessel trade on the lakes and am aware that the boats are being made of greater and greater capacity every year. The boat that was considered a large boat four years ago Is one that would not now be built by any one going into the grain trade. The whole object that the grain men have in view, so far as I can ascertain, is to build as large boats as possible and land their grain on the eastern shore of the Georgian bay. If the enormous expenditure at Port Colborne realizes in any degree the hopes built upon it, I shall be delighted. I am quite willing that whatever amount is necessary to the carrying out of any reasonable project should be spent. But I am afraid that tiie conditions of our canal navigation will render the usefulness of this expenditure doubtful to say the least of it. All the railways, the Grand Trunk Pacific, Mackenzie & Mann and the Canadian Pacific Railway are looking to get increased facilities on the eastern side of the Georgian bay, so that they may as rapidly as possible get rid of their wheat from Port Arthur and Fort William. The railways do not wish to have a bushel of grain lying in the elevators on the west side of Lake Superior when navigation closes, and they want boats that will empty the elevators and transfer the grain to the eastern side of the lakes that it may be carried away even in the winter. I believe that the ministers in going into this
enormous expenditure at Port Colborne have not realized the fact that the grain goes to Buffalo not so much because of superior advantages of that harbour itself-though they have superior advantages we admit-but because the grain can be distributed from Buffalo six weeks later than it can be from Port Colborne. I think that is the secret of the Buffalo grain trade. Furthermore we find that about two-thirds of the grain shipped to Buffalo is distributed through the state of New York and the New England states and is not exported. Say that 300, 000,000 bushels of grain are received at Buffalo, that is quoted as grain that should have gone down from the Welland canal and through our ports. But if you trace that grain out you will find that less than 100,000,000 bushels perhaps not more than one-fourth of the whole, is for export ; the balance of it is used up in New York city and in the New England states. I think when we are discussing the question of the Welland canal as against Buffalo, we are apt to omit that important consideration. I do not think we sufficiently realize that the main reason why Port Colborne and the Welland canal do not take the traffic that we think they ought to take, is because the grain traffic comes too late to he carried by that route.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCIC It is to be borne in mind that the government is not to-day originating the scheme of the Welland canal. That was determined upon a third of a century ago, or more. We find ourselves to-day confronted with a situation. The Welland canal is completed to 11 feet, that was a policy adopted by the previous government, and we have simply adhered to it, and brought the depth of the St. Lawrence locks to that depth of 14 feet. Now, because it is possible that other routes are more suitable, are we to stop and allow the Welland canal to fall into decay ? Are we to say it is a failure, instead of giving it the finishing touch so that it may have a chance ? That is the situation. If we had not the Welland canal to-day, and if we had the existing railways, and route, and ideas, perhaps the country would pause before embarking in a Wei-land canal at all. But the canal has been built. Is it-wise therefore for us to decide that it is a failure and not give it a chance? It may be that climate, it may be that geography is against us, but I am not quite prepared to admit that. As time goes on we may expect that transportation rates will become cheaper, and then grain can go through the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals and will be able to reach the eastern market before the close of navigation. Perhaps the Minister of Railways will be able to take it by his railway to a maritime port. We have not yet learned at what cheap rates grain can be hauled by railway. But even if we had to lose a few days, even if our outport should become congested, or the vessels should leave too

soon, is that any reason why we should not try to bring the grain down as far as we can ? What reason is there to suppose that during the early period of navigation, with the several hundred vessels that are now bringing grain to Buffalo, you cannot bring cargoes by the Canadian route if they can unload within the proper time ? My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) says that if at that late date in the season they can with greater advantage bring their grain to Buffalo, they will do it. But that does not prevent them at an earlier date in the season unloading at Port Colborne. At all events, if you do not have a harbour at Port Colborne you cannot have the trade. Is there any person in this House who would say that we should not have a harbour at Port Colborne and give that port a chance ? Even if nobody contested that view, then it is only a question of detail as to what we should do in order to give the Welland canal a chance. We must have a breakwater, everybody concedes that. You have to deepen the harbour for vessels drawing 30 feet of water, and you have to have some machinery for handling the grain. It is not a question of choice. There is the necessity, you are confronted with a situation from which you cannot escape. You have either to provide facilities at Port Colborne, or you might as well close up the Welland canal. That is my view of the situation.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not object to the expenditure of money, in fact I approve of it to an almost unlimited extent if it will heighten the facilities for carrying our grain to market. But I do not approve of the Postmaster General's premises, that because we have spent an enormous amount of money on a route that may be superseded, we must continue to expend it.


William Mulock: I did not make a general remark, I was addressing myself to a particular work.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If it can be found that by spending $500,000 or $600,000 on some other harbour which will accomplish our object, it wpuld be much better expended than it is there, notwithstanding that a large amount of money has been spent on the Welland canal. The tendency is to get as short a run as possible from the Lake Superior side to the Georgian bay or eastern side. That is the object all vessels have, that is the reason they are building bigger vessels ; and an enormous increase in the business will take place when the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Mackenzie & Mann roads are in operation. I do not think the government sufficiently weigh this matter, or give sufficient attention to this question, if they are only spending more money on the Welland canal because, as the Postmaster General says, we have already spent so much. I do not think that is a good argument at all.


William Mulock: 


Mr. LEWIS.: I am a firm believer in waterways, that is the proper way of carrying our grain to the sea. In considering this proposed vote of a sum of money to deepen the Welland canal, the real question is not whether it is right and proper to put an elevator there, but is this a proper amount to pay for that elevator. As I understand it, $95,000 is asked for to build the foundations for an elevator that can only carry 1,000,000 bushels of grain.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 2,000,000.


Edward Norman Lewis: Well, say 2,000,000. Now at Owen Sound it costs 13 cents a bushel to build an elevator, in the city of Buffalo, where the foundations are in mud, it costs 20 cents. The question is whether we should build an elevator there or not. There is no question that we should spend money on our waterways. The United States are considering the question of expending $100,000,000 on the Erie canal. We have a much shorter canal to carry grain. We should spend the money on our harbours. We should spend money on the Welland canal, so as to enable it to take care of the grain traffic. In 1902, 12,000,000 bushels of grain went through Buffalo because of the want of facilities to carry it through our own country. This government should promote the public interests by building up our waterways. We are spending too much money elsewhere. We should spend it on our great lakes and inland waterways. We have the best of facilities, if our waterways were improved, for handling the traffic through the Welland canal and by way of Montreal, and I want to say to the committee that last year and the year before, grain was carried from Duluth to Quebec at one and a half cents a bushel by the Wolvin steamers through the Welland canal. I would be glad if the government could see their way clear to deepening the Welland canal. I wish to ask the hon. minister whether this is a proper amount to be expended on the erection of an elevator and whether this work is to be let by tender. Private corporations, when doing similar work, adopt the principle of tender and contract. The Canadian Pacific Railway have built elevators at Owen Sound and at Fort William. I believe that they paid for a first-class elevator 13 cents a bushel at the outside. Canada should have a twenty-foot waterway from Fort William to Montreal.


John Graham Haggart: If all the advantages from the expenditure at Port Colborne entailed by the erection of this elevator that my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) anticipates, were likely to be realized I am sure that the House and the country would have no objection to this vote. Let us see what the position is. In order to utilize the waterways we have at present he says that further facilities should be offered. We have constructed a harbour at Port Colborne a mile square with a

depth of 22 feet of water and there are only facilities for the erection of two elevators within that mile square. We all know about the harbour at Port Colborne, and we are aware that the difficulty of getting into the harbour was one of the objections to it. That is the reason perhaps why a good deal of the traffic was diverted to Buffalo. If you want to utilize the Welland canal without the deepening of Port Colborne harbour or the erection of an elevator why do you not send your barges to Buffalo and load them with the grain from the steamers there? Any steamer navigating the western lakes would rather go to Buffalo than to Port Colborne.


William Mulock: Why?


John Graham Haggart: The facilities for getting to Buffalo are much better than, notwithstanding your breakwater, Port Colborne will ever offer.


William Mulock: Why are the facilities for getting to Buffalo better ?


John Graham Haggart: I will tell you why. When there is a wind blowing on Lake Erie, Port Colborne is a difficult and dangerous harbour to enter.


William Manley German: There was no harbour at that place.


John Graham Haggart: The facilities you are providing do not remove the objections at all. They do to a certain extent but not altogether. However, If you want to utilize the Welland canal to the fullest extent why not load your barges at Buffalo where the steamers at present terminate their journey? What is the objection to it? You have a few miles more of a journey at a cost which Is infinitesimal. Now, the main question to be considered is this: a party has grain at Chicago, Duluth or Fort William which he wants to send to the sea-board. He goes to the stock exchange and asks: What can I get that grain to Liverpool for ? He does not care two cents whether it goes by way of New York, Baltimore, New Orleans, Montreal, or any other point. I quoted statistics here a couple of years ago to show that a fraction of a cent per bushel changes the destination of millions of bushels of grain from one port to another. Then, I ask the very pertinent question : Of what commercial advantage is the erection of an elevator at Port Colborne and the deepening of the harbour to the man sending grain from Duluth, Fort William or Chicago ? I thought perhaps that question would be the first that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals would ask of his department so as to be able to tell the committee the advantages which would accrue to the people of this country from the deepening of the harbour at Port Colborne and the erection of an elevator there: It seems to me he has not considered that question. I think this is the first and most 41-
pertinent question that can be asked in connection with the expenditure which we are asked to make of nearly $3,000,000. The expenditure involved in the deepening of Port Colborne harbour is not for the advantage of the Welland canal at all. The depth of water in the Welland canal for navigation purposes is 14 feet. They have a depth of 20 feet 6 inches at the Soo canal and the standard of navigation for that section of the country in American waters is 20 feet. What do you expend $3 000,000 or nearly $4,000,000 at Port Colborne for ?- to allow these vessels coming from the upper lakes to get into Port Colborne and tranship. Why could not these facilities already be given fifteen miles further down. This is a large expenditure for that purpose, an enormous expenditure and I doubt very much whether the facilities which are being provided by it will ever be utilized. The government ought to utilize what we have already paid an enormous sum of money for ; that is for the purpose of enlarging our canals. As my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Osier) said, you must remember one thing when you consider the question of diverting traffic. You must know how much traffic there is to be diverted. Look at the exports of grain from Baltimore, New York, New Orleans and other American ports and find out how much really goes from these ports.- You would be astonished to find that the total exports of wheat or the product of wheat from the United States to foreign ports do not amount to 100,000,000 bushels. Then, what do you intend to do? They are building canals for what ? For the foreign market ? They are building canals for the purpose of utilizing their own grain in their own country. As my hon. friend from Toronto says, four-fifths, yes, nineteen-twentieths of the products that pass through the Sault Ste. Marie canal and Lake Superior are consumed in the United States. What is consumed in that country cannot be diverted by any means whatever. You have to consider what would be used in this country and what portion of the traffic goes to foreign countries, or countries across the ocean that you can divert by offering facilities through your own country. You can divert the whole of the traffic from Chicago, Milwaukee and other western points if you go on to the stock exchange and quote to parties in London, Antwerp, Paris or Hamburg grain or any of the products of grain at half a cent per hundred pounds less because they do not care one cent what country it goes through.
-Sir WILLIAM MULOCK. They will get a better rate ?


John Graham Haggart: If they get a better rate through this country, you will divert the trade. You have to offer facilities1 through this country, and the government, when asking for a vote for such a large,



sum as this, should be prepared with a commercial proposition to show the advantages of these expenditures and what would be their effect. That is what I asked the Minister of Railways.


William Mulock: Does the hon. gentleman think that providing proper facilities at Port Colborne would or would not enable shippers to offer a better rate so far as that port is concerned '!


John Graham Haggart: Yes, you incur an expenditure of $4,000,000 and it may be possible to divert a portion of traffic by the expenditure of a million dollars for elevators. The reasoning and logic of the Minister of Railways was that if you make an expenditure for any facilities of that kind-you erect a breakwater and as a necessary sequence have to go on with all the other utilities, and have to erect an elevator for im stance in the harbour. I do not think that the expenditure at Port Colborne for the deepening of the harbour or the erection of an elevator will be at all compensated for by the benefit derived from it. I think you are going the wrong way in reference to your 'tuansportation (expenditure.


William Mulock: What would the hon. gentleman's plan be ?


John Graham Haggart: If the hon. minister bad listened to me I bad a scheme which I explained to the fullest possible extent and I showed the advantages of it. I am not against the minister to a certain extent in his reasoning. We have these facilities at present, we might have used them and by a moderate expenditure we could probably have made them more useful, but I say that the expenditure which has been made now is an abnormal one.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 12) respecting the Ottawa Electric Company. -Mr. Galliher.
On section 1,
Mr. LOUIS LAVERGNE moved that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
William Findlay Maclean: I was going to rise, before that motion was made, to point out that no one is here to-night representing the city of Ottawa. I am surprised that the members for Ottawa are not present. Perhaps they understood that the Bill was not to come up to-night. I wish to say Mr. HAGGART.
that a number of us have been here night after night to discuss this Bill, and it has been put over from time to time. In justice to a large portion of the community who are interested in this Bill outside of the city of Ottawa, a day ought to be set for the discussion of the Bill. We ought not to be obliged to come here night after night expecting to state our views with regard to this Bill, only to find it put off. If this happens again, some of us will have to bring up the matter in the House, and have some new rule made in regard to these Bills ; because It is very unfair that a Bill of this kind, which some of us consider prejudicial to the public interest, is skipped night after night without any reason being given, and then when there is an available opportunity, or those who are opposed to the Bill are absent, an effort is made to railroad it through. The government must take the responsibility of the repeated postponements of this Bill. While I am quite willing that the committee should rise and report pro-i gress, I think some notice should be given by the promoters of the Bill of the day on which they intend to bring it up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As this Bill was called to stand by the hon. Postmaster General on the last occasion when the order was called, it wTas thought by some that the government had decided on some course of action regarding it; and therefore it was the more surprising to-night to find so few members present, and especially to find both of the members for Ottawa absent, who above all others are interested in the Bill. I think the committee should rise and report progress, because the Bill is too important to be proceeded with when there is such a slim House as there is to-night.


William Mulock: It was simply as a matter of courtesy I asked that the Bill should stand, when I looked around and saw that the promoter was not here. It was in that spirit that I did so, nothing more or less. I would not desire an act of courtesy on my part to any member of the House to be misconstrued, as it appears to be by the hon. member for East Grey. I was speaking for nobody, but simply did an act of courtesy to an absent member.


William Findlay Maclean: I think the minister who is leading the House to-night realizes that Bills of this kind, which concern the vital interests of the people, ought not to come up unless public notice is given. If they are the first on the order paper for a certain day, that is sufficient, if they are proceeded with on that day ; but when they are continually postponed until there is a favourable House and they can be railroaded through, there ought to be a rule that such Bill cannot be called unless some previous notice has been given.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and committee rose and reported progress.

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 27) respecting certain patents of the Facer Solid Steel Car Company, of Perth, Limited. -Mr. Caldwell.
On section 1,
William Findlay Maclean: Has the government, as representing the Department of Patents, passed upon this Bill, or is the government willing that it should go through ?


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: I wish to suggest that as there are two or three other Bills of a somewhat similar character to this one, action on all these Bills should be deferred for the present. I know that certain parties desire to be heard in regard to other Bills of a similar nature before they are disposed of. I therefore desire to ask the promoter of this Bill not to press it until we have opportunity to look into it further.


William Findlay Maclean: The Minister of Agriculture ought to be here when a Bill of this kind is being considered. I deprecate the continual absence of ministers. The ministers who are responsible for the matters dealt with in these private Bills ought to be present and prepared to enlighten the committee upon them. I think this Bill should stand over until the Minister of Agriculture is in his place.


William Mulock: Since it has been suggested by my hon. friend that consideration of the Bill should be deferred, I think the committee might accede to that view. It is quite right that ministers should as much as possible be in their seats. It is also right that private members should be in their seats. I am afraid that on many occasions the seat of the hon. member for South York is vacant.


William Findlay Maclean: Not when anything in which I am interested is up.


William Mulock: Frequently. It was only the other day that he cafne over to this side of the House and begged us to put off something so that he might be present when it came up. We agreed to put it off, because we always deplore his absence.


William Findlay Maclean: Allow me to explain what the hon. Postmaster General has referred to. I was in my place by arrangement with the Minister of Justice, but by reason of some action of a colleague of his, the matter that he had arranged to come up had to go over. The minister then said he was willing to make an arrangement with me and fix a day, so that everybody would know when the matter would come up ; and it was because he was not there that I went to one of his colleagues and stated my case. I am always here when Bills in which I am interested come up.
41i


William Mulock: But the hon. member should be here every time.


William Findlay Maclean: Much more so should the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister and all the members of his government. This is on a line with what I brought up this afternoon. There is far too much absence of ministers.


William Mulock: And members.


Mr.  W. F.@: MACLEAN, Can the hon. gentleman tell us where the Minister of the Interior is to-night ? Who has seen him since this session opened ?


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman knows that he is absent through illness.


William Findlay Maclean: That has not been imparted yet. I thought he went on a hunting expedition.


William Mulock: The First Minister announced his illness yesterday ; but the hon. member for South York was not present.


William Findlay Maclean: I was here yesterday. The statement was not so much that he was ill, but that the First Minister did not know when he would be in the House.


William Mulock: He announced his illness, and the hon. gentleman knows of his illness.


Alexander Johnston: In view of what has been stated and in view of the importance of this measure, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and committee rose and reported progress.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 29) respecting the Canada Southern Bridge Company.-Mr. German.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the bridge commenced ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No ; it cannot be commenced until certain leave has been secured from the United States government. The matter was fully considered in the Railway Committee, and the Bill was unanimously concurred in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We usually provide a time limit for commencing as well as for finishing a work. But in this case the limit is for finishing only.


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the reason that it was dependent upon the consent of the United States government. It was thought advisable simply to provide that it should be finished within seven years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It gives them five years to get authority from the United States to commence.


John Graham Haggart: The Bill, as it has been furnished to me, gives this corporation a right to commence any time within seven years after the passing of an Act of Congress approving the construction, and they have five years from the passing of this Act in which to obtain that approval-making twelve years allowed for the commencement of the bridge.


William Findlay Maclean: Have the government a policy in regard to bridging the Niagara river and the Detroit river ? Is it their policy to facilitate the bridging of these rivers ? Apparently it is, and apparently the Minister of Railways has considered the subject. We see these Bills in regard to bridging these international rivers go through without a declaration of policy on our side ; but, apparently, the American government is very reserved about giving permission to bridge these rivers, so far as their side of it is concerned. While I am in favour of improving traffic facilities and of building bridges, because they are needed for the traffic, there ought to be some policy on the part of our government in regard to the matter, and that policy ought to be announced.


Mr. HYMAN.: Surely the policy of the government is plain from the position of this Bill. We give our permission to have the bridge built. The company have not been able to get the consent of the United States government. That government, I understand, owing to pressure brought to bear upon them by the shipping interests, have refused permission thus far.


William Findlay Maclean: We also have a large shipping interest.


Charles Smith Hyman: There has been no protest from the shipping interest.


William Findlay Maclean: The minister says, then, that the government have considered the matter, and they take the responsibility. That is what I wanted to know.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 24) respecting the Kootenay, Cariboo and Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Canada and Michigan Bridge and Tunnel Company.- Mr. German.
Bill (No. 30) respecting the Canada Southern Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the London and Saint Clair Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Henry Robert Emmerson: Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Georgian Bay and Seaboard Railway Company.- Mr. Grant.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Welland canal-elevator at Port Colborne, including foundations, $310,000.
['Monday, February 20, 1905.']
Henry Robert Emmerson: A good deal has been said by way of making a comparison between the advantages afforded by Port Colborne and the advantages of some other ports, particularly those in the United States. Now while there may be ports which have advantages over our Canadian ports, and while there may be conditions and circumstances more favourable than those which exist in Canada, I do not think that it is in accord with the sentiment of Canadians to-day that we should remain inactive and take no action in the way of availing ourselves of every possible facility for securing at least a portion of the lake traffic. Now the action of the government in connection with the Port Colborne harbour and works has been largely guided by the report of the transportation commission. I had supposed that the report had been laid upon the table, or that its contents were within the knowledge of this committee. That not being the case, it would be fair that the committee should have a knowledge of it, and I shall avail myself of this opportunity to place before the committee the contents of that interim report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Although that report has been called for twice, we were told it was not available, up to the present.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I had the report in my hand and was waiting an opportunity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was called for days ago.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not understand the hon. member to make reference to that commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was the leader of the opposition.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We cannot always hear what is said across the floor of the House, and I did not hear any reference made to this report, though no doubt, as the hon. gentleman says, it was called for. Had I heard it called for I could readily have told the hon. member that there were two interim reports, one of which has already been placed before the House of Commons, that relating to the harbour of St. John. The other report is dated at Toronto, May 6, 1904, and is addressed to His Excellency the Governor General
May it' please your Excellency :-
We have the honour to report that in carrying out the work entrusted to us as your com-

missioners on transportation, we visited on the 3rd instant, the town of Port Colborne, Ont., at the inlet of the Welland canal on Lake Brie.
This port, situated at the eastern end of deep water navigation on the upper lakes and at the beginning of the St'. Lawrence system of canals, [DOT]occupies an important position on the water Toute from Port William to Montreal. Passing along a level stretch of the canal from Thorold to Port Colborne, about thirteen miles in length, we were informed by the engineer in charge that between Port Dalhousie and Port Colborne the whole length of the canal had now the full depth of fourteen feet, and that *only two more centre piers required to be taken out' from the bridges over the canal, when there would be no obstruction to any width of vessel passing through.
Arriving at Port Colborne our attention was given to the condition of the harbour and its facilities for furthering transportation by the St. Lawrence channel.
In our examination we were favoured with the assistance and advice of Mr. J. L. Weller, superintending engineer of the Welland canai. Mr. A. J. Grant, the resident engineer at Port Colborne, and Mr. L. Coste, engineer of the Public Works Department.
Around the lake front at Port Colborne the water is shallow and the entrance to the canal has required a great deal of dredging through limestone rock.
The entrance to the canal from the new elevator piers to the guard lock is about 4,600 feet long, with a depth of 16 feet and 230 feet wide, except at the old east pier. Along the north end of this stretch, on both sides, is situated the town of Port Colborne, and on the east side, the small Grand Trunk elevator. At a distance of 4,600 feet from the guard lock, the new elevator piers have been built, the entrance is much wider and opening towards the lake, and all around the piers there is a depth of 22 feet, the rock dredging is still being continued to give ample facilities for steamers turning.
The elevator piers are built of concrete on a Tock foundation, their length being 700 feet by 200 feet wide, with a connecting pier on the north side 200 feet by 100 feet connected by an old pier which needs to be repaired. To the southwest of these new piers a breakwater has been built 4,500 feet long and situated 1,650'feet out into the lake, which will, no doubt, guard the site from any southwest or south storm, but leaving it still exposed to the south-east.
To guard this the Department of Public Works have plans out for another breakwater to the southeast 2,400 feet long, and commencing 600 feet from the eastern end of the present breakwater, which when built will fully shelter the harbour. The question of how to utilize the existing canal system is important enough to merit the most careful consideration.
At the present time, with no facility for discharging cargoes at this port, the use of the route from Fort William to Montreal is confined to steamers drawing not more than fourteen feet and of a size to pass through the locks, giving a maximum capacity of 75,000 bushels of wheat, and to tow barges hauled by tugs or by'steam barges of full canal size, 256 feet long by 42 feet wide, leaving entirely out *of account the large steamers passing through the Sault Ste. Marie canal and carrying 200,000 bushels of U'heat and upwards, able to carry grain on a 20 foot draught of water cheaper than any smaller 'steamer. The building of these larger steamers is a development since the Sault Ste. Marie canal was deepened ; they
have cheapened freights, and if the St. Lawrence route is to have equal opportunities with the American, facilities must be provided for the discharge of cargoes from large steamers at Port' Colborne, from whence it can be sent to Montreal in other Vessels of canal size.
Your commissioners have, therefore, the honour to recommend :-
That the work of putting in a suitable foundation and the erection of an elevator at Port Colborne harbour be proceeded with at once, the capacity to be not less than one million bushels, and placed so that additional storage bins can be added when found necessary. The elevator to be of the most modern and approved type, giving the quickest despatch to vessels loading and unloading, provision also being made for loading railway cars when connection is made. The government to retain the ownership, thus avoiding any possible complication or deflection of traffic from the St. Lawrence route ; the rates for elevation to be as low as possible, the main object being to encourage the route rather than to make a profit for the elevator.
That the old pier stretching from the elevator lighthouse to the shore line, now in a dilapidated condition, should be rebuilt and carried to a depth of 22 feet to provide for future dredging contingencies and that the pier on the east side of the channel spoken of as the old east pier be taken out as an obstruction to navigation.
That action should be taken to have the two remaining centre piers under the railway bridges over the canal removed as soon as possible.
Although there are two piers provided on which to erect elevators, your commissioners will not think it advisable to build more than one at present, have it tested, and see what effect it has in increasing the traffic on the St. Lawrence system, which we feel assured will be so beneficial as to require additional elevator capacity at an early date.
All of which is respectfully submitted, for the commissioners,
(Sgd.) JOHN BERTRAM,
Chairman.
Now, that embodies in very few words and very pointedly the policy of the government in respect to the proposed elevator at Port Colborne, and it seems to me that no more meritorious work could be undertaken by the government in connection with this; canal system. It is not a question as to the existence of the Welland canal. The policy in regard to the Welland canal wag adopted years ago. We must deal with; conditions and circumstances and while exception has been taken to the remarks which I made as to this being a natural sequence, of the expenditure already made I think that if you deal with it from the stand; point of the circumstances and conditions that prevail there no exception can be taken to the conclusions I have arrived at. The expenditure in connection with the entrance to the canals seems to have been preliminary to some such action. There may be a question as to the policy adopted ; that is as to whether the government should build and control this elevator or whether it should be left to private enterprise. It seems to me

that haying regard to the safeguarding of Canadian transportation interests the only proper policy to be pursued is the one adopted by the government in connection with this elevator and X submit that this sum. should be voted by this committee at this time with the view of carrying out that policy.


John Graham Haggart: We have some information from the reading of the report of the commissioners on transportation. If I understood the report as read by the hon, gentleman the distance between the entrance lock and Port Colborne proper, is 4,6O0( feet. Is that so ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Then that is the part that the authorities of the Department of, Railways and Canals are deepening to a depth of 22 feet. Perhaps the hon. minister; will explain why he has departed altogether from the recommendation of this commission, that he has appointed himself in reference to the erection of the elevators. If I understood the hon. minister rightly, he said that he was erecting elevators of a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels. The commission recommended that the two elevators be not constructed, that although there are foundations made for two of them only one should be constructed of 1,000,000 bushi els capacity. Why has the hon. minister departed from the recommendation of the commissioners in reference to that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On the ground of economy.


John Graham Haggart: On the ground of economy when you are expending double the amount ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Has the hon. minister been listening? I say that the commission has recommended that only one elevator of a capacity of 1,000,000 bushels should be erected for the present, and if I understood the hon. minister rightly he is erecting two with a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels.


William Manley German: No, only one.


John Graham Haggart: He said 2,000,000 bushels to the committee.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are erecting one elevator of a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels. That seemed to be an economical course to pursue. The commissioners recommended two elevators, or rather they recommended one elevator to be commenced with a capacity of not less than 1,000,000 bushels, but having foundations to enable additional bins to be provided so that it would have a capacity within the near future of 2,000,000 bushels, and it certainly seemed to be in the interest of economy to simply build the one set of foundations now and erect an elevator Mr. EMMERSON.
capable of meeting all the natural requirements of the traffic that may he expected, within the next two or three years.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Railways states what ? I understood him to state that he is erecting an elevator of a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels, having bins provided for use in case of emergency. The fact of the matter is that the commission have recommended only one elevator of a capacity of 1,000,000 bushels.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But that everything be done for an elevator of 2,000,000 bushels.


John Graham Haggart: No, they did not do anything of the kind ; they state that foundations be prepared for two elevators, and that in the meantime only one be erected of a capacity of only 1,000,000 bushels. He is now erecting an elevator of a capacity of
2.000.	000 bushels.


Mr. BARKER.: I would like to know from the minister distinctly whether he is asking for an appropriation for an elevator of 1,000,000 capacity or more ? Is this for an elevator of 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 capacity ? He has been talking, and so has the Postmaster General, of an elevator of
2.000.	000 capacity. I would like to know which it is that is contemplated under this estimate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will repeat to my hon. friend that this appropriation is towards the construction of a 2;000,000-bushel elevator.


Samuel Barker: Has that been recommended ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, it has been recommended ; and it is recommended here.


Samuel Barker: Let us hear the words.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They recommend here :
That the work of putting in a suitable foundation and the erection of an elevator at Port Colborne Harbour to proceed with at once, the capacity to be not less than 1,000,000 bushels.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Certainly ; but the report does not say how much larger the elevator should be. It goes on and advises this :

and placed so that additional storage bins can be added when found necessary.
The capacity is evidently intended by the commissioners to be greater than 1,000,000 bushels ; it must not be less than 1,000,000 bushels. It does not confine it, as he says, indeed, It rather


Samuel Barker: Last year, in the discussion in this House, the present Minister of Railways and Canals told us that it was uncertain whether it was desirable to construct an elevator at all. It was then a

question with the minister whether an elevator should be constructed by the government or by private parties. To-day we are told that the minister has decided upon government construction of an elevator of 2,000,000 bushels capacity. For an hour before six o'clock, we got from the minister not one word of explanation as to why there should be an elevator at all. The first explanation we heard was from the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), who told us that some gentlemen, I think one was a Mr. Wolvin, had made application to the government for permission to construct an elevator as a private enterprise and some other gentlemen in Toronto, great capitalists, friends of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), had proposed a rival private enterprise.


William Manley German: They were all good Conservatives.


Samuel Barker: It does not matter in the expenditure of this money, I hope, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives.


William Manley German: Quite right.


Samuel Barker: I hope the Liberals will be all the more pleased if Conservatives spend the money. The hon. gentleman said that certain gentlemen in Toronto were rivals of Mr. Wolvin for the building of this elevator. We never heard a word of that when the minister asked us to vote this money. We were not informed that within the last twelve months there had been a solitary application to the government by any individual or company to construct an elevator ; not a word was uttered to us ; we were simply asked to vote this money for oue year's expenditure. We got the first intimation from the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), but having broken the, ice we heard something further from the minister, and he told us that nobody on either side of the House had heard a word of, that the Transportation Commissioners had reported upon this very subject. I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite, who, I think, owe a duty, every man of them, to their constituents and to the country, do they think it is right to sit behind the minister and blindly vote anything that is put in these estimates without inquiry ? I ask these gentlemen if they think that a million or so is nothing to this country, and that the criticism of these estimates should be left entirely to gentlemen on this side of the House ? Do they owe no duty to their constituents ? Have they no right to ask the minister why he asks $500,000 or $1,000,000 for a particular work ? Are they to sit mum, or say ' yea ' to everything that is put in these estimates 1 I hope not [DOT] I think that the criticism would come from these gentlemen far more effectively than from us. If one of these gentlemen should give utterance to his honest convictions on these subjects its influence
would be tenfold that of a criticism from this side of the House.
But I have been in this House for a few sessions, and I have yet to see one of these hon. members stand up and ask one question of the hon. gentlemen on the front benches as to why they propose any of these expenditures. Now, I appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite. There are, I know, very many of them who sincerely desire to do what is in the country's interest. I ask these hon. gentlemen, why cannot they stand up in this House and ask the hon. gentlemen on the front benches, civilly, respectfully and humbly, why these moneys are to be expended. These hon. gentlemen may think that we are asking these questions with the sole object of opposing them. Let me tell them that there are gentlemen on this side of the House just as anxious, possibly far more anxious to see public money spent on the Welland canal than half the gentlemen who sit on the government benches, so long as it is spent reasonably and in the interest of the country. Why cannot hon. gentlemen opposite criticise the government in the same spirit ? When we know that a minister will listen respectfully and considerately to the representations of hon. gentlemen opposite, why cannot they use their influence reasonably and fairly, and criticise, not in a hostile spirit, but in a friendly spirit, every one of these items, and ask the government why they are spending a million when perhaps half a million would do ?


William Manley German: I have listened with some degree of interest to the lecture which has been read to us on this question by the hon. member for Hamilton. I doubt very much, however, if there is a stronger political partisan in parliament to-day than the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, or one who would allow his party leaders to pass items through parliament with less criticism than he would. We are quite prepared, Sir, to criticise every act of this government; I have criticised some of the acts of this government when I thought that criticism was justified. As I said this afternoon, it was a moot question whether or not this elevator at Port Colborne should be built by a private company or by the government. For myself, I thought at the time that it would be better for a private company to build it. I am not sure that I have changed that opinion yet. The government decided that it was wiser, in the interest of the country, that it should be built by the government, in view of the fact that no company would build it-and this, in my opinion, is the only consideration that would justify the government in building the elevator-without insisting on having a monopoly of the rights in the harbour.


Samuel Barker: Why so ?


William Manley German: Simply because it was a speculative affair. I know what I am

speaking about when I say that neither the Wolvin syndicate nor the Toronto gentlemen who formed themselves into a company for the purposes of transportation would consider the building of an elevator at Port Colborne and the putting on of a line of boats without having an absolute monopoly of the rights in the harbour I was not sure myself that it would not have been wise to have allowed the Canadian company-I would never have agreed to allow an American company-to have had the control of the situation. I do not know that the gentlemen who are interested in the company would object to my giving their names, as you can find them in the Act of incorporation : they are Frederick Nichols, William Mackenzie, I think Mr. W. R. Brock
all Canadians and men of means and enterprise who are willing to go into the work of developing the transportation facilities through our Canadian water routes ; but they would not undertake it without getting a monopoly of the rights at Port Colborne.


John Graham Haggart: A monopoly of what rights ?


Mr GERMAN.: The rights for the construction of elevators on the two concrete piers which the government have constructed'for that purpose-not an absolute monopoly of all the rights in the harbour. No other company could have built elevators except at an enormous expense. The government built, with the approbation of parliament, these two concrete piers for the purpose of constructing elevators thereon, and they also built the breakwater which forms the harbour at Port Colborne. Prior to that there was no harbour there. Each of the two companies who were interested ill this matter told the government that they must have the exclusive right. The government refused to give the exclusive right to either company, and decided to build the elevator themselves.


William Manley German: They are on rock foundation. Now, the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) raised the Question this afternoon, whether or not the products of the Northwest can be carried to the seaboard cheaper by rail than by water. That is a question on which different people have different opinions.


John Graham Haggart: Have you any doubt about it ?


William Manley German: I have no doubt that they can be taken to the seaboard cheaper by water than by rail ; but bon. gentlemen who are interested in railroad companies as the hon. member for West Toronto is, and as I understand the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) is-


Samuel Barker: No, not a bit, and never was.


William Manley German: have an idea that the
products of the Northwest can be taken to the sea-board more cheaply by rail than by water. That was the basis of the argument of the hon. member for West Toronto this afternoon. There is one thing which has operated against the Welland canal. The action of the Grand Trunk Railway Company for years past has made it practically impossible to bring the products of the west through our water routes, by reason of the tact that the boats coming to Port Colborne had to lighter there before they could go thiough the canal. The quantity of grain they had to lighter at Port Colborne was so large that the freight upon it from Port Colborne to Port Dalhousie was such as to stop the traffic.


Mr. HENDERSON.: What did the piers cost ?


William Manley German: I have not got the figures The work was put up at public tender, and it has been carried on as all government work is ; and I might say further that, much against my will, the contract was given to a good thorough Conservative.


David Henderson: That is not the point. The point I wish to make is that the cost of constructing these concrete piers was not a difficulty in the way of a company establishing a transportation system and building piers for themselves. I understand that the piers cost only about $10,000.


William Manley German: I am not sure what the piers cost.


Samuel Hughes: Are the piers on a solid foundation or on piles ?


William Manley German: That has been going on for years and is the reason why the grain cannot be taken through the Welland canal. Now the idea is to have an elevator at Port Colborne and tranship from the big upper lake boats, carrying 250,000 bushels of wheat, into it, and thence into canal sized boats carrying 75,000 bushels to Montreal and Quebec. That is the proposition. Our canals have been bunt at an enormous expense. What are we to do with them ? I heard the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Blair) say in this House that he believed it would be an excellent thing for this country to have canals even if nothing were taken through them, because they would be a regulator of freight rates.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: But we cannot regulate Ine freight rates by means of our canals unless we have some system of transhipping our grain at Port Colborne. It has been said that the Georgian bay route, the Ottawa canal route, is a better route. That may be. That is a matter for discussion, but we have got the Welland canal route, we have built the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals. Are we to utilize them

or let them fall into decay and become useless ?


William Mulock: That is the question.


William Manley German: That is the whole question. My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) asked why not, instead of building an elevator at Port Colborne, take your boats to Buffalo and take the grain at Buffalo. But I ask him in reply, does he want to build up Buffalo at the expense of our Canadian towns and water routes ? And when the grain gets to Buffalo, it will go from there by railway or by the Erie canal to the sea-board. It will not be possible to get it back again. The only way we can get through our Canadian waterways the grain products of the Northwest at present, is to have an elevator at Port Colborne into which these large upper lake boats can unload, and from which that grain can be transhipped into canal sized boats which will carry it to the sea-board. And in this way the grain can be carried cheaper to the sea-board than by taking it to Buffalo and transhipping it from there through American routes. That is demonstrated absolutely. The hon. member for West Toronto, (Mr. Osier) said this afternoon that the season was so short, our canal system being closed up in November or early in December, that we could not compete with the American routes. But what is the United States government doing ? Notwithstanding the opportunities for transportation which they have from Buffalo to New York and Boston and the different places to which they send these products, they have made an appropriation of $100,000,000 to enlarge the Erie canal.


John Graham Haggart: The New York state government has.


William Manley German: Yes, the New York state government has made an appropriation of $100,000,000 to enlarge the Erie canal, and the Erie canal is closed up two or three weeks earlier than the Welland canal.


Samuel Barker: That is the local government.


William Manley German: It is the government of the state of New York. 1 cannot quite understand why the hon. gentleman should lay so much stress on this. I do not see how it can make any possible difference. It is the government of the wealthiest state in the United States, and the people of that state who, I suppose, have an idea of the fitness of things, believe that the expenditure of this money will be beneficial to that state and the public generally. In any case that is what they are doing. And all that this government asks is that, after having spent all the money we have done in connection with our waterways, we should now simply put the keystone in the
arch and do what must necessarily be done in order to give us a complete transportation system. All the government asks i$ that we should build an elevator at Port Colborne, which must be done unless we intend deepening the Welland canal to 22 feet. But no one, at present at any rate, would support any such proposition. No one would think of deepening the Welland] canal, at present at any rate, to 22 feet. But if you build an elevator at Port Col-, borne, whether it be a one million or two million bushel elevator, you must build one that will supply what is required. A two million elevator can be built for about one-third cheaper than you could build two elevators of the capacity of a million bushels each, so that the government will be saving money by building one large elevator instead of two small ones. And I firmly believe that in the near future another elevator of two million bushels capacity will be needed at Port Colborne. I am inclined to think that under private enterprise that, condition of affairs might be more quickly realized ; but I am satisfied with what the government is doing, because I believe most firmly that what it proposes to do will bring about the transportation of the products of our great Northwest through our Canadian channels at the cheapest possible rates. And if that can be accomplished, surely no one can criticise severely, if at all, this proposed expenditure.


John Graham Haggart: I am gratified at the remarks of my hon. friend because in fact they support the theory which I have always thought should guide us in the erection of elevators. He says that there were applications from two companies for the erection of elevators at this particular station, but that neither of them would undertake the work unless they were given exclusive privileges. But when questioned as to the exclusive privileges which they asked, it appears that all they wanted was the right to erect these elevators on the two foundations which the 'government are putting in. Was there any other exclusive tights that they asked for ? None. All the exclusive rights which these private individuals wanted was the right to use the foundations which the government are putting in for the purpose of erecting elevators at a cost of some $20,000 or $30,000 a piece. The hon. gentleman has a leaning towards the argument which I made in the former part of the evening, and I have no doiibt that he is convinced from the bottom of his soul that the policy of the government is a wrong one. Application was made by these companies, not only to erect elevators, but also to build steamboats for the purpose of utilizing the facilities which the government have provided by the deepening of the harbour. They were to have no exclusive privileges beyond the right of erecting eleva-

tors on the foundations built by the government. The whole of the harbour of Port Col-borne was open to any other private individuals who desired to j;rect elevators if they would, but on their own foundations. X need not appeal to my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) because he is too intelligent not to know that an elevator owned by private individuals, who have their connections by boats and who could put on a line of steamers to the upper lakes, would be far more profitable than a government owned elevator. Private enterprise will succeed where a government will fail. Fancy a lot of government officials running an elevator, who do not care two cents whether a bushel of grain went into the elevator or not from one end of the year to the other. But in what a different position would be private enterprise. These people would embark their own money in the scheme, and in order to get a return from their investment, they must have transportation facilities and connections. They would build up large boats which would carry the grain most economically to Port Colborne. But, when we inquire into it, they have no exclusive privilege except, as my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) has stated, the privilege of erecting an elevator upon foundations which the government built because they could build them more cheaply in connection with the other works. What right has the government to enter upon business which should be left to private enterprise ? What right have they to provide facilities for transporting grain, if those facilities can be provided by private enterprise ? Any person who knows anything of government undertakings of this kind, knows that they cannot successfully compete with undertakings directed by private enterprise. X need not enter upon that question now, nor need I ask the Minister of Railways whether he thinks that government railways can be managed as economically as railways that are privately owned. This domain of private business is one upon which the government has no right to enter. What right have they to go into the elevator business ? None whatever. This fostering of industries of this kind seems peculiar to this government. The hon. gentleman objects because my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) advocates the government ownership of railways and of telegraph and telephone lines. There are some public utilities that are peculiarly within the province of government. One of these is the post office and, as a legitimate part of it, the telegraph and telephone services. The question of the public ownership of railways may become a question for the people of this country to decide. But, even if the government owned the elevator, could not they lease it to a private individual to carry on business in connection with grain transportation, and
impose upon the lessee conditions necessary to protect the public interest ? In the world of private enterprise the interests of the public are protected by competition, and there is no business in which competition is keener than in the transportation of grain from the upper lake ports. The government have a commission to inquire into this business of transportation. That commission reports that certain facilities should be provided. But the Minister of Railways doubles the recommendation of the commissioners.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Oh, no.


John Graham Haggart: The commission recommends an elevator of


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not less than a million bushels.


John Graham Haggart: And the hon. gentleman draws the inference that that is justification for elevator capacity of a hundred million bushels.


William Mulock: Only two millions.


John Graham Haggart: If a recommendation of a million is justification for providing two millions, why should it not be made justification for a hundred millions ? Mr. Chairman, this question of transportation is a nice question. It is too late to discuss it fully to-night. But, though the question is so great a one, and though this expenditure at Port Colborne is so large, we have nothing from the minister to show that that expenditure is justified. The expenditure of the elevator will be about $1,000,000, is it not ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I stated the amount-including the foundation, $1,100,000.


John Graham Haggart: The deepening of the channel from the entrance locks to Port Colborne will cost $500,000 or $600,000 more


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would have to be done any way.


John Graham Haggart: The question of this elevator at Port Colborne can only be discussed in reference to the whole project. The expenditure for deepening Port Colborne and providing the second breakwater -the one additional to that already under construction-will be in the neighbourhood of $2,500,000. So you have here an expenditure of at least $4,000,000. The government must not find fault if we want the fullest information on the subject, or if we criticise that expenditure. We have been unable to get from the minister a single statement as to the commercial benefit to the Dominion to follow the development of the traffic of that port. We are simply asked to vote this money blindly. I ask him what trade he expects to develop. We cannot get any of the trade that goes to any port of the


John Graham Haggart: United States, except that to New England. The only trade we can hope for is a part of that which now goes from United States ports to Europe. We ought to have some statement showing what that trade is and what part of it we may hope to secure. We have not even a statement of the rates the elevator is to charge. I understand from the recommendation of the commissioners that it will charge such a rate as will barely pay the government for the expenditures. If it comes within one-fifth of that it will do more than most of the public works of Canada are doing under the management of public officials.


William Mulock: I am surprised at the persistent opposition of the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Haggart) to this most proper enterprise. For years he presided over the Department of Railways and Canals, and took part in framing the expenditure upon the Welland and St. Lawrence canals. For what purpose did he carry out the improvement of these canals ? Was it merely an ornamental work ? WTas it merely for the purpose of spending public money ? Surely he made that expenditure in the hope that when the work was completed it would prove of benefit to the people of Canada. The work has been completed, except the mouth of the canal, from | which must come the commerce which is to j justify this canal construction, which is to go down to Montreal and feed ocean shipping and make Montreal the Canadian port. Up to the time we took office that mouth had been left neglected, and in such a condition that it was practically impossible for commerce to go to the Port Colborne canal and supply the traffic for which it was constructed. He says that because there is a breakwater and harbour, there is no monopoly, even if we built an elevator, that the harbour is free to all, and therefore there is no danger of a monopoly, even if we gave the privilege to a company to build an elevator on the government dock. Nobody pretends that the owners of the elevator would thereby have a monopoly of the harbour ; that is not contended ; but, from the nature of the scheme and the work, the control of the elevator by a private citizen-


John Graham Haggart: It was stated by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) that they would have control of the harbour.


William Mulock: Not the harbour, no one talked about the control of the harbour, you might as well talk of controlling the lake, but that is not the point, it is the control of the traffic that would be enjoyed by the company to control the elevator. Take the Grand Trunk Railway between Toronto and Montreal ; it goes through a country where you might build scores of routes, but capital has not come in and duplicated the expenses alongside of
the Grand Trunk Railway, and practically the Grand Trunk, within the distance served by it, enjoys more or less of a monopoly. True we have tried by legislation, all governments have sought by legislation to control the railways in their dealings with the public ; but up to this moment the efforts of parliament in that direction have largely been a failure. Though you might say that other companies might build railways alongside of this, owners of capital will not invest under such circumstances, and so from the very nature of the transactions they are monopolistic. Now if the government owns the elevator the policy of the government will be so worked out as to encourage traffic to go that way, and to keep down the elevator rates to the lowest possible level, and in that way to help the farmers of the Northwest to get cheaper rates to market, instead of compelling them to send their traffic by rail. We want an additional outlet for the products of the farmers of the Northwest, and if, along with that, we get the earnings from United States commerce and get the grain raised in the United States, well and good. It will come down the St. Lawrence to supply freight to the shipping coming to Canadian ports. But my hon. friend would now practically close up the Welland canal. He left it with this unprotected opening, with its mouth at Port Colborne but without shelter from the sea ; he left it in such a position that it is impossible for ships to come to that harbour with freight, ships drawing 19 or 20 feet of water ; he left the entrance to that canal with 14 feet at most. How could ships have come to the Welland canal, modern ships, bringing freight and grain, with only 14 feet of water ? The canal must have failed to meet the expectations of the people. It was an unfinished scheme. Surely no engineers who devised the canal scheme ever contemplated that it was to be left without a breakwater and other protection whereby shipping could come to the entrance of the canal and make a safe transfer of their cargoes.
But my hon. friend complains now because we have dredged the harbour so as to allow ships to come in. What was the canal for ? Was it an ornament ? Was it to be as useful as the Tay canal 1 What became of that enterprise ? Does my hon. friend wish the Welland canal to have the same fate as the Tay canal ? Let me read an item from a paper that has just come under my eye, in order to show the result of the policy of the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart). That was a justifiable enterprise, a proper expenditure of public money, in the opinion of my hon. friend. He promoted the construction of this enterprise ; he who now, in opposition, is so careful about the expenditure of public money caused the construction of this canal. I think I am safe in saying that most of the ships that have passed over that canal since its construction were launches, skiffs

and canoes. If we adopted the policy of the hon. gentleman, the Welland canal would have the same fate as the Tay canal. I will read from the Daily_' Globe ' of February 17. It is headed ' Dredge the Tay canal.' This is to be the prototype of the Welland canal, the fate of the Tay canal is a fit fate for the Welland canal. I recognize his policy in this item.
Smiths Falls, February 16.-A petition will be presented to the Dominion government by the residents of Perth, asking that the Tay canal be dredged. For some time the banks have been settling and sliding into the water until the channel is only about half as wide as it originally was. Navigation is now almost impossible since the canal has been allowed to fill in with mud and weeds caused by the spring freshets, but if it were dredged the matter would be remedied to a great extent.
It is not the freshets that have allowed the weeds to grow, it is because there has been no traffic to disturb the waters. A pasture has grown up in the Tay canal. My hon. friend desires such a future as that, such a return as that to the people of Canada for the expenditure of $60,000,000 on the St. Lawrence and Welland canal systems. Now the canal system that I refer to, the St. Lawrence and Welland canal systems, called the St. Lawrence canals, was the policy adopted prior to confederation. Both political parties have at all times united for the completion and improvement of that canal system, so that our products might be carried by water on the cheapest possible routes to the markets of the world. That policy has had the endorsement of all classes in Canada. Every government that has been in office since confederation has had more or less to do with prosecuting this work to completion, but whatever may have been the cause of it, a great amount of time was occupied in the completion of the canal system. I never could understand why the late government delayed the thing so long. I have my own opinion but it may not be the correct one ; my own opinion is that the dilatoriness of the late government in completing the canal system and giving it those facilities which it was entitled to was largely attributed to railway influence. That may be wrong. It was either attributed to railway influence or it was attributed to the government itself not fully appreciating the importance to Canada of the early completion of the work. In that case the public interest was lost sight of and now that the canals have been deepened to 14 feet my hon. friend to-night tells us that it should be left to private enterprise to build elevators there and to build breakwaters.


An hon. MEMBER.: He did not say breakwaters.


William Mulock: He used the word ' breakwaters ' ; he may not have intended it and if so, I do not wish to make a point of it, but he used the word * break-


William Mulock: waters ' and he said that the construction of breakwaters and the erection of elevators should be left to private enterprise.


John Graham Haggart: Not breakwaters.


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman said so


John Graham Haggart: I was speaking about something else.


William Mulock: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman's calculation must be out somewhere because) the minister says it will cost $1,200,000 and therefore it must be over fifty cents a bushel.


William Mulock: l'am speaking of the construction of the elevator alone. There are other works outside of the elevator.


David Henderson: I thought you were speaking of the Tay canal.


William Mulock: I am speaking of it too.


John Graham Haggart: After the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) perhaps it would be proper for me to make a few remarks in reply. I was criticising very mildly the erection of an elevator at Port Colborne at the entrance to the Welland canal. I was asking for a justification1 of it. The hon. gentleman says that I was; opposed to the building of a 2,000,000 bushel elevator. I was simply arguing from the report of the commissioners in which they recommend a 1,000,000 bushel elevator.


William Mulock: No, they recommend not less than 1,000,000 bushel capacity.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman goes farther and says : Why is it that the
hon. gentleman did not secure a greaten depth of water in the Welland and other canals in order to bring the immense traffics of the Northwest to the port of Montreal ?| The policy of building the Welland canal| was approved of first of all by the reform, government, approved of by Mr. Mackenzie,) tlie contracts were let and it was built-i What is the necessity of a 14 foot canal) having a 22 foot entrance? You say that it is in order to bring down the boats that navigate the upper lakes for the purposes of transhipping grain. They can go out to a point 22 feet deep exchange their cargoes and then come into the Welland canal. The hon. gentleman says that he does not; understand the policy pursued by the late) government, that he does not understand) why we did not press to completion the Welland and St. Lawrence canals. Whatj single contract have these hon. gentlemen) entered Into since they came into power for the purpose of completing these works that was not entered into when the last) government was in power ?


William Mulock: It is not a question of what contract we have entered into that had not been commenced before, but a question of what we have done for the contractors. When the minister-I think it was the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hag-gart) himself-one of the ministry of his i lay, was being pressed upon this subject, I ihink it was in the Public Accounts Committee, we were informed that, at the instance of the ex-Minister of Finance, the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), it was the policy of that government to delay the completion of these works and to allow the contractors to prolong the work beyond the date limits of the contracts.


John Graham Haggart: Every contract was entered into and there were only a very few small parts of the St. Lawrence canal which required completion. The only new one on any work of any importance to be done was the contract of Mr. Davis to overcome the Galops. The Welland had been finished for years. Is there a single expenditure that they have made except the deepening of the long reach ? All of the contracts were let, the whole scheme was carried out by the late government, and if it is any benefit to the country the country must thank the late government for the expenditure upon the St. Lawrence and Welland canals. It is not true, as the gentleman states, that the work was delayed on part of the canals for about six months. It was not delayed, the contracts were entered into with certain parties for the construction of the canal and the option was given them I think that they might proceed quickly or slowly for the next three months at the instance, as the hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) says, of the then Finance Minister, because the finances of the country were not in the prosperous condition that they are at present. As

a climax to the whole affair, comes the Minister of Railways with the desire to put these works in the same condition as the Tay canal, ' his favourite work, the work that he undertook and completed.' was in ! Does the hoh. gentleman know that the Tay canal was in active operation before either he or I was born ; that an Act of parliament was passed I think in 1831 and that the Tay canal was built and run in 1834 ?


William Mulock: Then why did the hon. gentleman spend half a million dollars on it ?


John Graham Haggart: By the Tay canal charter the.company were given the right to build the canal and the Imperial government who had built the Rideau canal had the right to take it over at any time. The work was completed and it was taken over by the government of the country without giving to the parties who had invested large sums of money in it one single cent. The government of the country went on and made an expenditure for the purpose of making that canal of the same depth and tonnage as the Rideau canal. Did the hon. gentleman or any of his friends in this House object to it ? The expenditure was made in Lanark ; I represent that county and that was the principal objection to the expenditure. You do not hear a word about expenditures in other more favoured portions of the country on public works, in some counties of 16 or 18 expenditures being voted in one year-and for what purpose ? For the public utilities necessary for carrying on the government of the country in those particular counties. The hon. gentleman must remember that I was not a member of the government when the sum was voted for the expenditure upon the Tay canal. I was a supporter of the expenditure ; so were the hon. gentleman's friends in the House then. Not one of them criticised the expenditure until the hon. gentleman who represents South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) became a member of the government and then it was quite warrantable to make any possible attack upon a member of a Tory government. This canal has done good service to the Postmaster General and his friends in different parts of the country. They instance from one end of the country to the other the extravagance the enormous expenditure and the infamous job of building the Tay canal. None of them dare make the attack before my face. The first one who has made the attack is the hon. gentleman who has done so by reading a quotation from his organ the ' Globe,' as to the petition of the town of Perth to have certain obstructions removed from the Tay canal.


William Mulock: The grass and the weeds.


John Graham Haggart: If it was in the county of York or some constituencies I could name in the maritime provinces a Mr. HAGGART.
dredge would be sent there at an expense of $1,500 or $5,000 or any sum of money that was required, especially if the work had been required about September or October or November last. There has been no expenditure upon it, the work has been a benefit to that section of the country as every man knows who resides in that section. As the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) stated, we are not to judge the results by the traffic of the canal. It places the towns on the canal in the same position as if they were on the banks of the St. Lawrence, they are able to make arrangements with railway companies for a lower freight rate than they otherwise could secure. The amount saved annually to the people of the town in which I live is greater than the interest on the money expended by the government in the completion of that undertaking. Can the hon. gentleman justify other expenditures in that way ? Does he ever expect that the expenditure he proposes to make this afternoon in the building of this elevator will directly or indirectly bring to the people of this country a return for the expenditure ? Is it possible that the people will be so blind as to expect that what belongs purely to private enterprise can be effected as well by the government of the country ? That they can enter into competition in transport, the operation of steamers by the erection of elevators or anything of that kind and to do things as economically as a private individual would do ? If they cannot, they are not justified in the expenditure. This is not one of the public utilities of the country that justifies government interference ; it does not come within that category and they are infringing on what should be left entirely to private enterprise. I have no objection to this item passing with the criticism we have made.


William Mulock: My hon. friend still says that the construction of elevators is a matter for private investment. Elevators are as a rule associated with railways or canals. The hon. gentleman himself as a minister caused the construction of two elevators by the government, one at St. John and the other at Halifax.


John Graham Haggart: Are you sure that I did it ?


William Mulock: The hon. gentleman's government did it.


John Graham Haggart: I understood the hon. gentleman to mean that when I had charge of the Railway Department I authorized the construction of these elevators.


William Mulock: I do not care whether it was as a minister or as a supporter of the government. The government of which the hon. gentleman was a supporter, and of which for some time he was a member, erected these two elevators in connection with the Intercolonial Railway.


John Graham Haggart: I mentioned that in my speech.


William Mulock: If the elevators should only be constructed as private enterprises, why did this government erect these two elevators ? I hope that the elevator which we erect at Port Col-borne will prove of greater advantage than the one erected at Halifax.


John Graham Haggart: Or the one you erected at Quebec.


William Mulock: Although that elevator at Halifax has been erected for many years, I think I am right in saying that there has never been a bushel of grain pass through it yet. I am perhaps not right to the letter, but I think I am substantially right. My impression is that there never went through it an elevator of grain.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not as much as there should.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that the elevator has been burned down, and that you are re-building it.
is successful, the utility of the Welland canal is gone and this expenditure is absolutely useless. We also heard from the Prime Minister last session when one of his own ministers proposed the acquisition of the Canada Atlantic Railway, tiiat he objected to the acquisition of that road because, when he had visited a harbour on the Georgian bay, it had at once occurred to him that if the government owned that railway, they would have to build elevators, charter and look after ships, and come into compe-tion with private enterprise in grain carrying. That was the reason given by the Prime Minister for turning down the scheme of acquiring the Canada Atlantic Railway as an extension of the Intercolonial. Now, I am not objecting to this expenditure or to any expenditure that is going to facilitate the carriage of grain from the Northwest to the sea-board ; but I do say that we have not enough information before us to warrant the expenditure of millions of dollars on elevators at this port.


William Mulock: We are not investing a million on an elevator.


William Mulock: Yes, we are. We expect, with the improvements on the Intercolonial Railway and the diversion of the grain via the St. Lawrence route, to be able to send grain to that elevator when the St. Lawrence navigation is closed. But my hon. friend, having spent money on the erection of two elevators, now discovers that it is all wrong for the government to spend money on public elevators. It is to be regretted that his policy and his practice do not seem to fit in together.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think we are entitled to have the fullest discussion on this item, and that when we discuss it we are not to be accused of objecting to expenditures in the interest of transportation. I may bring to the remembrance of the House the fact that two or three sessions ago the government brought in a measure which they heralded with all the eloquence that could be produced from the government side, for the appointment of a transportation commission which was to take charge of all the great questions of transportation in Canada. This commission has passed through various stages and has had various chairmen. I think I referred last session to the fact that the commission had reported upon the silt that came down the River Don at Toronto ; that was all it accomplished up to that time. The commission is still in existence, and it has made a report upon this particular work, a very meagre report. Now, the government are making a very large expenditure upon the experimental surveys of a canal, which, if successful, will destroy the utility of the Welland canal. I refer to a canal coming in at French river and down from the north ; and I venture to say that not one member of the government will contradict my statement that if that scheme


Edmund Boyd Osler: On elevators and other works, because the other works necessitate elevators, whether private or public, and all together they will cost this country $4,000,000, perhaps more.


William Mulock: Might 1 ask the hon. gentleman what portions of the works at Port Colborne he objects to ? They consist of the elevator, the breakwater, deepening of the harbour and the construction of the piers. Does he object to all these works 1


Edmund Boyd Osler: When I spoke on this question last year or the year before, when the Hon. Mr. Tarte was Minister of Public Works, I objected very strongly to the enormous expenditure at Port Colborne, because there was not data enough to indicate whether or not it was going to be profitable.


William Mulock: Does he object to the breakwater ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I object to the expenditure of $4,000,000, which is now admitted to be necessary until the government have proper data to show to this House that it is going to be a warrantable expenditure. I say that the government put themselves out of court when they appointed a transportation commission and represented to this House that they would look to that commission to guide them in their expenditure for improving the facilities for transporting grain and other produce from the west to the east. That was their scheme, not the scheme of this side of the House, not the scheme of the late government. They pledged themselves to take the judgment of the commission which they themselves appointed, and from that

day to this they have ignored the existence of this commission. That being the case, we on this side have a perfect right to criticise most keenly and thoroughly every large expenditure in connection with transportation. So long as that transportation committee is in existence and is treated with absolute indifference by the government, so long as the government fail to ask that commission to report on any transportation scheme submitted to this House, it is our duty to criticise that scheme most minutely.


Mr. LENNOX.: I have listened pretty attentively for several hours to the discussion of this subject in order to find whether the minister in charge can give any reasonable ground for this proposed large expenditure. But what probably induces me more than anything else to address the House at present is the attitude taken by the hon. the Postmaster General. It is rather refreshing to find that gentleman of late years advocating the extension and utilization of our water-ways. It shows that even at this late date he has come to realize to some extent that the Conservative party had advocated for years the best policy in this connection, but it would be more satisfactory to the people if the government, before submitting a proposition of this nature, would obtain upon it a report of the transportation committee which they themselves appointed for the express purpose of investigating such matters. We are told by the Postmaster General that this is a unique proposition, and no doubt it is ; and it is both unique and peculiar in the way it has been brought before the House by the Minister of Railways and Canals. That hon. gentleman certainly has not been candid with the committee in the manner in which he introduced this matter and referred to the report. He led us to understand in the first instance that this was a recommendation for a two-million bushel elevator instead of, as it turns out to be, for a one-million bushel elevator only.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not less than one million.


Haughton Lennox: It is unique in another respect, because it is a matter on which the government, through its first minister, had already distinctly pronounced itself. We all remember in what a dramatic way the right hon. gentleman, in introducing the transcontinental scheme, referred to that memorable day when he stood on the shores of Georgian bay in company with Mr. Booth, and there came to the conclusion that a scheme of government ownership was not practicable in the interests of the country, because a government could not enter, among other things, upon the construction of elevators. But a change has evidently since come over the spirit of their dream, and the Postmaster General in particular has completely taken to the water. Only a Mr. OSLER.
few months ago it was heralded throughout the Liberal press that the Postmaster General had virtually brought about the completion of the Trent Yalley canal, and that, if he did not originate the scheme, at all events he had gone up and opened a lock, and in that way had, to a great extent, consummated that great work. Since then the Postmaster General has been engaged in other watery schemes. Just before the election he was approached by some of his old constituents in the townships of West Gwillimbury and Bradford and by some of his present constituents in North York and asked to supply them with a wharf, and if the wharf was to be constructed on the Holland river, it would naturally be on the village of Bradford side. A wharf was constructed and completed shortly before the elections, but not in time to be paid for before the elections took place. It was placed in my hon. friend's constituency, away from the village, it is true, but in his own constituency, because there had been a gerrymander by which Bradford had ceased to be in his constituency, and he placed it on his own side of the boundary, besides buying the land from one of his own supporters and giving to his supporter the building of the wharf. The wharf is there upon what was his supporter's land and has been paid for out of the public moneys. But the hon. minister has taken to the water in yet other ways. He has in fact allied himself to the water-ways most conspicuously in the last four or five months. Just about election time, when he was not too sanguine about the results in North York, he summoned together a number of the faithful in that constituency and laid before them a magnificent scheme of water-ways. He proposed, forsooth, to build what 1 To extend the Trent Yalley canal

a scheme which those gentlemen had denounced in years gone by. And he proposed to extend it where ? Into his own riding. He will have to negotiate with the Grand Trunk Railway to get it further than the Bradford bridge, but that no doubt can be done 'Very easily, because this government are now hand and glove with that company. He proposed to extend it to the town of Newmarket and the village of Schomberg. The hon. gentleman told the House this afternoon that they were an up-to-date government which appreciated the signs of the times, and that they understood how things work. Certainly the Postmaster General showed his astuteness by inaugurating this scheme on the eve of the last general elections in his own riding. Let me read a word or two from the Bradford ' Witness,' which is a paper not altogether published in the interests of my hon. friend, but published in the riding he formerly represented. The article is dated February 9th, and is headed ' The Trent Valley Canal Extension ' :
Our readers will remember that a public meeting was held in Newmarket last September

to consider the advisability of steps being taken to deepen the east branch of the Holland river via Holland Landing, Newmarket and Aurora and the west branch to Schomberg, in order to make these waters available for commercial purposes in connection with the Trent Valley canal system which will shortly be continued to Lake Simcoe. Sir William Mulock, the Hon. E. .1. Davis-
He Is a gentleman who forgets, but who remembered very well to be present on this occasion.


Mayor Kane, of Newmarket

Another good supporter of my hon. friend.

Mayor Daville, of Aurora, spoke in favour
of the scheme,

' Scheme ' is the very word.

and a large committee was appointed to
promote this great undertaking.


Samuel Hughes: Was the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) present at that meeting ?


Haughton Lennox: He was the chief spokesman in favour of this scheme to promote the general interest and prosperity of Canada through his own riding and through his own supporters. The hon. gentleman (Sir William Mulock) seems to have been the chief person on that occasion, as we would naturally expect him tb be.
Since that' meeting government engineers have made careful survey of the territory

It would need to be very careful if it favours the putting through of that canal.

and, although no official report has yet been
made, it is pretty -well understood that the engineers will report favourably upon the matter.
It will be interesting to the people of Canada, it will be very interesting to the people who know the locality, it will be most interesting to the people of North York who after all are not perhaps to be hoodwinked exactly in this way-and interesting to the people of West Gwillimbury and Bradford whom my hon. friend used to represent-to see what that report will be. I would like the Postmaster General to tell the members of this committee, if he can, that this is anything else than what it is called here, a 'scheme,' a bribe to the electors of North York to support my hon. friend in that election-an effort to win their favour by putting into the field at the time of the election a number of surveyors, to impress the people with the idea that the work would go on. The men were there, and it was told over the riding that they were actually at work. It was heard in South Simcoe, my own riding, in the township of West Gwillimbury, that these men were coming right in ; that the work would be extended to Aurora, and Schomberg, and Holland landing, and Newmarket-every hamlet in the riding of my hon. friend was taken in. And when, 42
it was extended there, they said, they would do something for South Simcoe as well-they would make a cut from the elbow of the river to the Bradford railway station. My hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), knows the locality and understands the case ; and he knows that if ever there was i farce played by a member of this House, it was played by the hon. member who has the distinction of being Postmaster General when he brought in this scheme upon, the eve of an election and told the people of North York that this was a great enterprise and that he was prepared to advocate its adoption in this House.


William Mulock: This is hardly the occasion to discuss a scheme that is not yet before parliament. The question before us is the Port Colborne scheme. But I may tell my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) that he will have an excellent opjjortunity to know more about the scheme about which he has spoken than he appears to know at present. On Tuesday next, there is to be a very influential deputation from that part of the country to wait upon the government and lay the merits of this scheme and the needs of that district before them. And I here invite my hon. friend to accompany that deputation. Perhaps, when he has heard their arguments he will change his views and think that, after all, this is a very good enterprise and one that should be supported. Prom what I know of the country and the circumstances, the scheme has my entire approval. I believe that such a public work would be thoroughly justified and I hope that time will see it brought to completion.


Samuel Barker: I hope the invitation of the Postmaster General will be accepted by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox)


Haughton Lennox: Certainly.
Mr. BARKER, I hope also that the Postmaster General will not fail to be present to advocate the scheme. The hon. gentleman knows, perhaps, more than any other member in this House, perhaps more than any one in that district the possibilities of the particular canal that was being surveyed. The hon. gentleman is a large proprietor of real estate in the immediate neighbourhood and he ought to know exactly what the situation would be. I, therefore, commend to him the advice he has given to the member for South Simcoe, to be present ana give his views on the occasion to which ha has referred.


William Mulock: I do not know what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) intends to insinuate by saying that I am a large landed proprietor in that vicinity. If he means to suggest that I am seeking to promote some enterprise for personal gain- Mr. BARKER. Not at all.



Sir WILLIAM MULOCK

1 will say j
tliis to him, that he will not find any person in North York, even of his own political faith who will attribute to me such motives as he has done.


Samuel Barker: I did not attribute motives.


William Mulock: Then, what did the hon. gentleman mean by stating that 1 was a large landed proprietor in that vicinity ? I happen to own a small holding, a farm of a couple hundred acres. It is not near this proposed canal. My farm is ii the township of King, and this canal will have no connection with my property ; it will be a long distance away. I think that when his remarks reach the people of North York his own friends will be the first to dissent from such insinuations as he has made. If I support the scheme, 1 support it in the interest of the general public.


Samuel Barker: I suppose that the Postmaster General in giving advice to thehon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) did not intend to insinuate anything against that hon. gentleman.


William Mulock: No.


Samuel Barker: I made simply the same remark to the Postmaster General


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.
Mr. BARKER

that he made to the hon.
member for South Simcoe. 1 told the Postmaster General, as a gentleman who is immediately interested in the district, that he ought to attend with the delegation and impress his personal views upon the government. 'I hope he will do so. From my knowledge of this district-and I do know a good deal about the district-I should he very glad to be present and hear the remarks of the hon. gentleman in advocating a branch of the Trent canal into it. I would like it to go upon record. I think it would be a very interesting thing for members of this House to have upon record, something that we might read to the hon. gentleman when he is lecturing gentlemen upon this side of the House upon ancient history in relation to public works.


William Mulock: I extend to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) as well the invitation to accompany the deputation.


Samuel Hughes: Why not to all ?


William Mulock: I extend it to all.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to say a word or two in a friendly spirit to the Postmaster General. We are neighbours ; we live in adjoining ridings.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Suppose we come back to the Welland canal ?


Samuel Barker: 


Haughton Lennox: If I have the gracious indulgence of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Emmersou) who has cast so. great a light upon this matter, I will refer to the gentleman who introduced the subject of the Tay canal. And I may incidentally, perhaps, refer to those who sit behind him and applauded him so loudly, and not one in ten of whom, I venture to say, could tell us anything about the Tay canal.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You cannot see it, it is grown up with weeds.


Mr. COCHRANE.: It is not as weedy as the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Einmerson's) mind.


Haughton Lennox: I am not discussing particularly the question whether branches of the Trent Valley canal should or should not be extended to Schomberg and Aurora. I have the habit-I wish the Postmaster General had the same habit-of not talking of a matter until I know something about it. Now I will talk of a matter that the Postmaster General cannot deny. I am sorry he does not appreciate the situation better than he appears to ; he seems to be | oblivious of the fact that it is a very grave offence, a very grave indiscretion in any member of parliament, and particularly a prominent member of a government, to go into a riding, particularly in his own riding, on the eve of a general election, when votes are to be won, and ought to be won by honest means, and there to hold out a bait to the people to vote for him. It is not a question of the policy of constructing the canal. When that matter has been laid before parliament, when this large scheme that has been foreshadowed by the speech from the Throne, it is quite time enough for any member of the government to go before the people and announce that he is in favour of the scheme. I venture to say, although a young man, a young member of parliament, that it is not becoming in a member of a cabinet, without consultation witli his associates, without the scheme having been officially before the cabinet council for consideration, to pledge himself in his own riding to promote a scheme, whether it is or is not supposed to be in the interest of his constituents. How stands the Postmaster General in regard to this matter? He stands as a pledged man, bound and shackled in regard to this proposition. He is not a free man to sit as a cabinet minister when that delegation comes here, and to give a judicial consideration to the question. No, he is one of the promoters, as it is stated here, he is one of those who advocated the scheme, he is one of the active men who initiated it, and therefore he cannot represent the people of Canada in this matter. He is a shackled man before this delegation comes to Ottawa to consult with the government. But the Postmaster General is not in an unique position. He talked about unique positions a little

while ago, but he is not alone in failing to grasp the niceties which surround the actions of cabinet ministers. He is on a par with the unfortunate position in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce stood a few months ago when, in discussing the Jackson transaction, he failed to see what was the real issue before the House, and ventured to condone an offence without realizing the enormity of the offence. So it is with the Postmaster General to-night. 1 regret it exceedingly, I regret it because of its effect on public life in Canada, I regret it as a Canadian on behalf of the people of this country, that a cabinet minister, a gentleman not new to the position, one who has been long in office, does not see the gravity of the offence he committed when he became a party to the promotion of a scheme which had never been foreshadowed even by the speech from the Throne.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I desire to say a word or two in answer to the stand the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has taken here to-night. He has robed himself in righteousness and made broad his phylacteries like the Pharisees of old. thanking God he is not like other men. He reads a lecture to the members of this House on honesty, integrity and straightforwardness. We had the spectacle last year, on the last day of the last session of the last parliament, of this self same hon. gentleman getting up on the floor of this House and attempting to besmirch the name of a member of parliament ; and to prove his statement he read a letter, and in reading that letter he purposely left out a sentence, he purposely suppressed a sentence in that letter which turned the whole force of the argument against himself, and left him with not a leg to stand on. That is the hon. gentleman uho gets up now, X would like to call him my cacological friend, and attempts to read us a lesson. He should be the last man to do a thing like that. A gentleman who committed a wrong like that last session has no right to get up and read a lecture to this House on honesty. It ill becomes the hon. gentleman to make a statement like that unless he is prepared to stand by every one of his actions, let alone his words.


Haughton Lennox: Somebody asks me to attend to this hon. gentleman. I do not think I will. There are a number 'of hon. gentlemen in this House who know exactly what the hon. gentleman is referring to, and it is not surprising to me that he feels sore. The hon. gentleman on that occasion had to admit-and I can furnish the ' Hansard ' with the whole discussion-be had to admit that he had been guilty of making statements which did not sound well in the mouth of any hon. gentleman or any member of this House, statements that were made far away from this House, out in British Columbia, statements that I read from 42}
papers furnished to me. It is right and fitting that this hon. gentleman should come to the rescue of the Postmaster General. If not a case of birds of a feather flocking together, it is a case of returning a service where the Postmaster General came to his rescue on that occasion. I told the hon. member that as certain papers had been placed in my hands of which I knew nothing at all about


An hon. MEMBER.: Nothing at all ?


Haughton Lennox: Yes, of which I knew nothing at all-hon. gentlemen had better not shout until they are out of the bush-papers of which I knew nothing at all had _ been placed in my hands to bring before the House, and I took occasion to tell the hon. gentleman that I would endeavour to bring them up at a time that was convenient to him. I had waited for some time-I think he was at Montreal-for him to return. We were friendly. I could not get an opportunity when the hon. gentleman was present until the last day of the session. The Postmaster General, acting on behalf of my hon. friend, came over to me and seeing that I had a bundle of papers before me said, I hope you are not going to read all those papers because the time is short. He said the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) wanted to leave soon on the train. I said, well, there are certain portions that I will read, and I went on to show the Postmaster General what I proposed to read. Well, he says, cut it short, just give a part of it, don't take up much time ; and so I promised him I would shorten it as much as I could.
I was not particularly familiar with the papers. They had been marked before they had been placed in my hands. I read such portions as I thought would be necessary, but not all that would be necessary if I had had more time at my disposal. These papers were in the hands of the hon. minister, and every one of the letters which I read was in the possession of the government, and was known to be in the possession of the government, for weeks before the discussion came on. It was not essential or reasonable that I should read the whole of the letters. Subsequently, the hon. acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hyman), whom I see in the House, got up and. taking some of the papers I had handed over, said that I had left out a sentence in a letter that would have qualified what I had read.
I was not professing to read the whole letter. He quoted it, and I said that I had not read such a letter,, and neither I had, according to the bundle in my hand and probably according to the papers in his hand. But the hon. gentleman who has just spoken says that I wilfully and deliberately suppresed a portion of a letter, that I did not make it as full as I ought to have made it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Macpherson), who has interjected something irrelevant in

the discussion, will receive attention at my hands on some occasion when the House is not so busy-in the dog days, in the good old summer time to come, perhaps; but I do not intend to pay much attention to him now. I am ready to refer to ' Hansard ' and to deal with the whole question, and if he; goes much farther, I will be liable to ask him certain questions that he will not like to answer. But I am not going to depart from the subject we have in hand now. It is quite right that he should come to the rescue of the hon. Postmaster General, and if there is any one who should apologize, it is the hon. Postmaster General, whom I endeavoured to accommodate.


Robert George Macpherson: I ask no man to apologize for me, and at any time the hon. gentleman wishes to follow up that line of attack upon me, he will find me doing business at the old stand. I want to say further when the hon. gentleman says here that I was obliged to retract something I said, he cannot find on the pages of the revised or unrevised ' Hansard ' anything to show that I was obliged to retract one solitary word.


Haughton Lennox: It is not remarkable that) the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macplierson) should be inexact as to what occurred many months or a year ago, when he cannot remember what was said two minutes ago. I did not say that he was obliged to retract anything, but I said he was obliged to admit certain statements, which he made at Vancouver, and which were read by me, to be true. That is all. The hon. gentleman says I can commence the discussion of the matter at any time I see fit. I am not going to do anything of the kind. The time of this House is too valuable for me to waste it in dealing with the hon. gentleman who has just spoken.


William Mulock: 
Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman is very funny. He tries to get away from the point. Does the hon. gentleman deny, as it is stated in the paper, that he was present at the meeting and spoke in favour of the scheme ? I read it, not only in this paper, but I read it in other papers, amongst them the Newmarket ' Era,' I think. While I was travelling on the train I met a gentleman who had just come from the meeting. I know it was discussed broadcast throughout the last general election, and I am calling attention to it here because I think it does not become a cabinet minister, on the eve of an election, to make promises to the electors which may influence their votes.


William Mulock: An abstract declaration of principle may be a very good thing. I attended the meeting in question, I addressed myself to the meeting as other citizens did, and I was saying what I am saying now, that the district would be advantaged by the construction of such a work, but the question of its cost and the question of its feasibility were matters entirely in the future, and the determination of the work must depend upon these considerations. That is my view to-day. I hope the result of the inquiry will show that the work is feasible, and that the prices come within a reasonable figure or as reasonable as will commend itself to support at the hands of this House.


Haughton Lennox: Is it a fact that engineers or surveyors were put on ?


William Mulock: When we come to discuss that question, the way it happened to come up at that time will be made quite clear. It grew out of the decision of the Railway Commission seriously affecting a great enterprise in our district. The people were seriously intending to move away -because of the railway freight rates. The matter came up in that way, and the people of our district were extremely uneasy lest this large enterprise should move away on account of the rates of freight charged by the Grand Trunk Railway Company on the commodities used and exported by that enterprise.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman has not answered me, but probably he will tell me now ?


William Mulock: About the engineers ?


Haughton Lennox: Yes.


William Mulock: The engineers have been in the field ever since, and I think they are in the field yet.


Haughton Lennox: I do not want to prolong this matter ; if the hon. gentleman will tell me now, that is an end of it-what large enterprise was it that was about to leave ?


William Mulock: Messrs. Kane & Sons.


Haughton Lennox: Of Newmarket ?


William Mulock: Of Newmarket.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, the gentleman who is named in this paper as the promoter of this scheme.


William Mulock: He is one of the firm.


Haughton Lennox: By what authority were these engineers sent into the field ?


William Mulock: By the authority of the Minister of Railways.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals whether there has been any money spent on this work of building the elevators during] the present year ? There was money voted for it, but was there any money spent, and when ' was the scheme undertaken by the government of building this elevator ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The matter was under consideration last May after the report of the Transportation Commission and during the summer. I asked parliament at the last session to make an appropriation of $400,000. Arrangements were then made with a view to having plans made for the foundations, and tenders were asked for. Arrangements were also made for the making of plans and specifications for the superstructure. The contract has been let for the substructure but the plans are not quite complete for the superstructure. I hope they will be ready within a week or two and then tenders will be called for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the $400,000 was ill the main estimates last year, which were published before the date of the Transportation Commission's report, the government's decision must have been reached before the report was received V


Henry Robert Emmerson: The $400,000 was not in the main estimates but in the supplemen-taries which came down in August.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This seems to me to be exactly the same scheme as that which was outlined by the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Tarte) and which he pressed on the attention of the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know what he did.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: His contention was that it was a scheme that should be undertaken by the government, and he urged it on the ground that the storage of grain there ought to be made as cheap as possible, and that for that reason it should be kept in the hands of the government, for on that would largely depend the possibility or the probability of a large amount of grain passing by that route. This is exactly the same scheme and therefore must have been undertaken before the Transportation Commission reported on it. Speaking of this report it seems to me that for a great commission, a commission supposed to be composed of able men, this was about .tlie most superficial report on the transportation question, so far as that locality is concerned, thai I ever saw. It does not pretend to say that another bushel of grain will be taken down the St. Lawrence on account of it or that a bushel will be diverted from the Erie canal. The commission simply seems to recommend what the government had already cfiscussed and agreed upon so that the government might be fortified in the policy to which they had practically committed themselves over a year before. If that is all the great Transportation Commission can do we had better avoid the expense of keeping that commission going in the future.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The report of the Transportation Commission is certainly brief, but it states facts ; it does not indulge in any prophetic visions or fancy flights but states facts as to the conditions which prevail there and points out why it is necessary to have an elevator built in order to utilize and develop to their full capacity the works which have been constructed at great cost to the country in connection with the canal. 1 do not know anything about any views which Mr. Tarte entertained ; I only know that after this report came in I brought the matter, in a report to council, to the consideration of my colleagues and that it was discussed during the summer. The item was finally put in the estimates to the extent of $400,000 with a view to carrying out the policy which is outlined in the report referred to. It has no connection beyond that with any views which might have been entertained by other gentlemen. There may have been those who entertained these views; I have no doubt there are because they seem to be wise conclusions and 1 trust that the good judgment of the people of this country and of the business interests of the country will concur in their conclusion and will approve of the action of parliament in making an appropriation.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) gave us to understand that there were two corporations prepared to build this elevator, and not only 1 to do that but to build boats suitable to pass

through tlie canal and handle the grain. We have heard a good deal of argument with reference to the possibility of the government building an elevator. As a business proposition we would readily understand that the men who are. building the elevator would be willing and ready at least to build boats to carry the grain both from Port Arthur to Port Colborne and from Port Colborne to Montreal. I would like to have the minister explain at least part of the arrangement into which these companies were willing to enter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Propositions did come to the department that were sent there by the member for Welland (Mr. German). He has very correctly stated that in view of the policy outlined by the Transportation Commission they were not entertained or taken into consideration. I think that in a general way they wished the government to construct the foundations and to give them the privilege of building elevators on the pier after it had been constructed, the company then to have the exclusive control of these elevators in connection with their transportation lines. The propositions were not taken into serious consideration for the reason that they seemed to be opposed to the best interests of the country, that it would be creating a monopoly in connection with the traffic whatever it might amount to and would not inure to the advantage either of the business interests of the country or of the canal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This elevator, I understand, is to contain not less than 2,000,000 bushels. Is it believed that there will be any great advantage in having a 2,000,000 bushel elevator there for the storage of grain at the close of the year. An elevator of the capacity of 2,000,000 bushels would be much better than an elevator of the capacity of 1,000,000. What object is there in putting in a large quantity of grain when navigation has closed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: In the first instance, the class of vessels that will furnish the products of the west to that elevator will be a large class, and those products will necessarily be transhipped in smaller vessels suitable to the canal navigation. It will be necessary to have an elevator of large storage capacity, because the incoming freight will be greater than the outgoing at particular times during the season of navigation. More than that as is outlined in the report of the commissioners, railway connection should be had with the elevator,! nud the grain that would not be taken through the canal, by reason of the closing of navigation, could 'be stored at the elevator and taken out from time to time by railway transportation. The commissioners recommend an elevator of not less capacity1 than one million bushels ; but they contemplate another elevator, because they say, prepare your foundation and have every-Mr. ARMSTRONG.
thing in readiness for even more than that* 'I he capacity of the elevator, in their judgment, must not be less than one million bushels, but they do not coniine it to that) capacity. One elevator of two million bushels capacity can be constructed for almost) a third less-so I am advised by a very competent engineer-than two elevators of one million bushels capacity each. Therefore) having in mind the almost certainty of requiring two one million bushel elevators within the very near future, it seemed to bs the interest of economy that one of the larger capacity should be built, especially as if could also be operated at much less ex* pense. One power of larger capacity could be utilized in connection with the two million elevator much more cheaply than could two powers for isolated plants in separate elevators of one million capacity each. There would also be a smaller number of employees iand officials. These are the reasons which led me, upon whom some responsibility rested in connection with the matter, to recommend to my colleagues the construction of one elevator of two million bushels capacity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does not seem to me tluu the reasons given are very strong. The principal one is that the grain might be stored there, and might be moved by railway after navigation closed. Is it likely that the grain would go such a long way roupd to be moved by railway when it could: go to Midland or Parry Sound? Not very likely. There is a reason to my mind why there might be a large elevator, that is, to store the large quantity of Manitoba wheat that is used in the Ontario mills in the winter time. With regard to the necessity of having a large elevator so that it would not get filled up during navigation, I am satisfied that if you had a million bushel elevator, there would be plenty of craft to take all the grain that reached it during the season of navigation. I would not think it likely that there would be a great blockade of grain there after navigation opened. But after navigation closed, it might be advisable to have more storage capacity, not for the purpose of having the grain taken to Montreal by rail, but for the purpose of having it there for distribution to the mills ini the province of Ontario in the winter time to be mixed with Ontario wheat. That .is the strongest argument that could be advanced, in myjudgment, for a large elevator. But the feature of the Transportation Commission that attracted my attention was this. The great object of the large expenditure at Port Colborne, as stated by the exMinister of rublic Works, was the desirability of diverting to the St. Lawrence routs the grain which goes from Chicago and Duluth via the Erie canal to New York. That, and that alone, must be the justification of this expenditure which when completed will be over $4,000,000. But this Transportation

Commission seems to have completely ignored that in their interim report, on which the hon. minister is acting in making this large expenditure, for they are silent on that point.


Samuel Barker: There was one observation made by the minister a few minutes ago which seems to me to emphasize the objection raised by the hon. member from' South Lanark to the government entering into this business which ought to be com ducted by private enterprise. The hon. gen-i tieman says' that the wheat will arrive at this elevator, will go into it, and will be subsequently forwarded, perhaps by rail, perhaps at the conclusion of the winter season by vessels. Has the hon gentleman reflected for a moment that that involves the government entering into a warehouse business ? If you receive consignments of wheat of different classes and grades and from various persons you will have to issite warehouse receipts. These will be handled by banks, large advances will be made upon them, pommercial transactions will occur, and all* in reliance upon documents issued by an agent of the government. I think it is a most serious question. Have the government considered it as it ought to be considered ? You are going to have perhaps two mililon bushels of wheat in your elevators at the end of the season. That wheat will be held on behalf of various companies, commission merchants, railways, ships and other interests.
A certificate from the government as to any quantity held in store will be commercial paper, negotiable in the banks, upon which enormous sums of money will be advanced. The government will be responsible for the documents issued by their agents ; and one of the most difficult matters to be conducted by any commercial body will be conducted by a few government appointees who were never brought up to the business and know little or nothing about it. I have had some experience myself of the difficulty of conducting an elevator business. There is no line of business in which the persons or_ company responsible run more risk than "in this particular business which the government are proposing to enter into. I am inclined to think that a hasty conclusion has been arrived at and that the government have not fully considered what the construction and management of this elevator will lead them to. It may be that the government are under the impression that they will build an elevator and then perhaps turn it over to somebody else, but we have not had a word to that effect from the minister. So far as we know, the government propose to become warehousemen. They propose to enter into the commercial business of issuing warehouse receipts and conducting all the enormous transactions involved in the business including the liability to banks, endorsers and tranferees. And all these various ramifications are to be conducted by some gentlemen of the civil service who have had no training in anything of the kind. The whole of this discussion from first to last shows that there has not been given to this subject the careful consideration that it ought to have received. For an hour the minister did not tell us one word as to the grounds on which he was acting. It was not until the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) told us about the proposition of a couple of private enterprises to build the elevators that we knew anything about that offer. And it was only after we got that information that (he Postmaster General told us about the report from the transportation committee.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I told you about that before the Postmaster General spoke at all-I read extracts from it.


Samuel Barker: If the hon. gentleman did, it certainly escaped my observation.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Postmaster General made no reference to it whatever.


Samuel Barker: I may perhaps be wrong in that respect, but I say it was not until after the hon. member for Welland told us about the proposition from two private companies that we knew that any such proposition had been made or that we heard a word about the report of the Transportation Commission. It was only then, for the first time, that we heard that the subject had been reported upon by that commission. We have never seen that report. It has never been laid on the table. We never heard until to-night that offers had been made by any parties to construct these elevators, and we are asked to grant millions of money without giving the matter as much consideration as a business man would give to an expenditure of $500.


Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask the hon. minister if the erection of an elevator by the government will prevent any private company from constructing an elevator in that harbour ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The government may prevent any other elevator being built on their concrete piers. I question whether there would be room for another on these piers.


John Graham Haggart: Would there not be room for 200 elevators in the harbour ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not merely the elevators but the slips in connection with the elevators which must be considered. There are quite a number of vessels prying over the lakes which will require to utilize the elevators and *will require advantages in connection with the unloading.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman says there is only room for two elevators. I asked him what is the distance from the entrance lock to the harbour and he said 4,050 feet.

Could you not put an elevator along the whole length of the canal from the entrance and the lock of the harbour ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am speaking of the two concrete foundations. You can build elevators away down at the mouth and there is no reason why you could not.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend
means that you can only put two elevators on the foundations for two. [DOT]


Mr.   BEAIN@: What I ask is that supposing private corporations wanted the privilege of erecting elevators would that be granted them or is it the policy of the government to monopolize the elevator business.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That point has not been considered in the concrete form in which my hon. friend puts it, but I am satisfied that if any private corporation wanted to build a elevator, it would be open to them to do it, on such conditions as the government might see fit to impose.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I was very sorry to find that on a question such as this a minister of the Crown or anybody else could drift away into ancient politics and go back (to the expenditure on the Welland canal in generations gone by and ask who was responsible for it. What is the use, in this day and generation, of going away back to make political capital out of the expenditure on canals, which were built under conditions which the most of us to-day know nothing about. What struck me in connection with this discussion as to the relative advantage of government ownership and the building of these elevators by private enterprise, is this : If the government build the elevators and these large vessels unload into them, where are they going to get the barges into which to tranship that grain ? But if a company should build these elevators, they would do so for the purpose of making money and would no doubt build the barges required to take the grain down the canal.
They would build an elevator for coni! mercial reasons-to make money. Having built the elevator, would that company also be in a position to build vessels of proper capacity for the canal to carry the grain from the elevator down to the shipping port at Montreal, Quebec, or wherever they *wished to go ? The hon. minister told us, with a great flourish of trumpets, about the number of vessels upon the upper lakes that would come down to Port Oolborne. I admire his faith in the development of the country, for I am a Canadian also. But, even if there are so many vessels as he says on the upper lakes, surely three or four of these vessels would carry enough to fill hisi elevator, and then where would he be if barges -were not provided to take the grain away ? Why, the whole traffic would be blocked. We may talk as much as we like, but we should not go beyond the bounds of


John Graham Haggart: common sense in dealing with this plain practical matter. It is too big and too serious a question to have our minds distracted by party politics when we are trying to deal with it. As a practical matter, I would ask how much of the grain that reaches Buffalo is ultimately exported from the United States. I have not the figures before me, and at my time of life I cannot carry these figures in my mind ; but I understand that a very small proportion of the grain that goes through the elevators at Buffalo is exported to foreign countries. If that is the fact, will the minister explain to me how he can possibly hope to divert any part of that traffic from Buffalo to Port Col-borne ? To say that this could be done' would be the most absurd proposition that could be made. All he can hope to secure will be a share of the grain that goe^ through Buffalo for export to foreign countries. The report that the minister has read is not complete for our purpose. It does not) go into figures, and so does not give us the information upon which to base an intelligent judgment with regard to this vote. I hardly like to venture to give advice to the minister, but I must say, whether they like it or not, that I have found a lack of readiness on their part to give this committee information that it ought to have. The Minister of Railways has read the report of the commission, not when he introduced the resolution, but, apparently-I hope he will excuse me if I am wrong-when it was dragged out of him and he could not help himself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) spoke of two other offers made to build an elevator at this point. It would not have been amiss for the minister to bring down information concerning these. We have an extract from the report of the Transportation Commission, but we should have the other too. It may not) prove valuable information, but I think it would be better if we had it before disposing of this item finally.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am quite ready to bring down any desired information, but I feel sure hon. gentlemen opposite will not seek to have the item stand over on that account. We have discussed this matter exhaustively. No item has been passed, and I think we ought to make some progress.
I would like to go on with other items. IJ have already agreed with some hon. gentlemen opposite to allow some of the items to stand because some gentlemen on the other side who wish to discuss them could not be present this evening. Therefore, I would like to get this item through. The report of the Transportation Commission was referred to by me and I read an extract from it that I happened to have. I did not know at the time that a copy of the full report was in the House. But again after I sat down, and the discussion proceeded, the chief engi-

neer told me he had a copy of the report here, and 1 brought it to the notice of the committee. I did so at the first opportunity. Hon. gentlemen opposite and on this side also wished to speak and I bided my time. It certainly would be an advantage to this vote, as hon. gentlemen opposite will admitl to have that report before the committee, and had I known that a copy of it was here,
I would have read the whole report. The extract that I did read, I read at the outset of my remarks in explanation of the vote.


Richard Blain: 
Henry Robert Emmerson: My recollection is that at that time the decision had not been reached in the matter. The subject was under discussion in May, when I brought to the notice! of my colleagues by the way of report, the contents of the report of the Transportation 'Commission. The matter was not finally settled even at the time the House was asked for the vote.


Richard Blain: But let me read to the minister his own statement to the House on the 3rd of August, 1904, as reported in ' Hansard ' of that year, page 8380 :
It occurred to me that the elevators might be free even if the canals were not. But I would naturally expect that the public who use these elevators should pay for them. It is a question of policy as to whether a private corporation should have the right to build an elevator or whether it would be better for the government to do it.
The policy adopted is that the government shall do it, there being so many different shippers whose interests might clash. Therefore, the government would charge the ordinary elevator dues. That would be my idea.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then it was settled at that time. Without referring to the record, I was under the impression that ib had not been settled at that time. But ib is only a question of date.


Richard Blain: That is the all important question before the committee, and I do not wonder at my hon. friend from Northumber-j land calling the attention of the government to the fact that they are unwilling at times to give us information. Here is the fact that an important transportation commis-l sion had already reported last year, the report being in the hands of the government, and still the government have allowed this matter to come up involving the expenditure of nearly $3,000,000, as stated at that timej
to build a 2,000,000 bushel elevator. They a'lowed the committee to go on and discuss that, and all the time they withheld from the committee the report of the Transportation Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was no object in withholding it. I have already stated i that I was under the impression that that report had been presented to parliament, as indeed the interim report with regard to the ; St. John harbour had been presented to parliament. Until the question arose here tonight I certainly had no idea, but that it was within the knowledge of the House.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend does not pretend to say now that he was of the opinion that the committee had this report in their possession last year.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Richard Blain: I am amazed at that statement. because this question was up then. Was it printed and distributed to the members ? No more important document could be printed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought it had been placed before the House with the report concerning the St. John harbour.


Richard Blain: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement when he says he understood the committee had it in tlieir possession. But the fact remains that the minister allowed this discussion to take place last year, involving an enormous expenditure, and he did not give the committee the report of the Transportation Commission, nor did he give it to the House at the beginning of this session. This item was up for discussion last evening, and still there was no mention of the report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say a word with regard to the suggestion of the minister that we allow this item to pass, because wo have been discussing it for some time, and he has no objection to bring down these offers later on. There is this inconvenience about it, that after we have voted the money it cannot be of the same interest to us. it is before we vote the money that we require the information to enable us to judge whether we are going right. I have no desire to obstruct the passage of the vote, at the same time I think we ought to see those offers before we dispose of the item. We desire the information so that we may act intelligently.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They cannot affect the question materially. I acknowledge that the House should have these offers, but they do not bear materially on the question of this vote. It must be borne in mind that parliament is already committed to this work. There is no departure from the policy of the government constructing the elevator, This parliament committed itself a year ago

to a policy of that kind, and authorized the mation that I speak of it at the present government to expend $100,000.	time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And that without the information which was in the government's possession.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Parliament was evidently satisfied with the information it had at that time. There was no reason why hon. members should not have had it. I couldi have no interest in withholding it, as it is information that entirely supports the proposition made by the government. But parliament having committed itself to tlm principle of constructing an elevator at that point, and placed at the disposal of the government $400,000, it seems to me that my hon. friend, in asking the matter to stand over now, is not serving the purpose that he desires to serve. Hon. gentlemen whoi were here last session will bear witness that whenever I promised to bring down infort mation, that promise was fulfilled as early as -possible. 1 can promise my hon. friend that the information he requires will be furnished on Monday.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that the House committed itself to this expenditure last year, and that it did so without information. But last year we were confronted with two dilemmas. We made an effort to get information and we could not, and were obliged to let many items go through without information. First there was put up a plea that the minister was a new minister and therefore was not familiar with the business, and out of charity wo had to let him pass over many things without the explanations we would have exacted from an older minister. Moreover, we| never knew when there was any information in the possession of a minister. I am not applying that remark to the present minister, because he is better than some of them ; but we never knew whether the information was in possession of a minister and he was so obstinate that he would not give it, or whether he had not the information, and in many cases we were obliged to go blindly. Does he not see that if we did what he desires us to do, that if wa should let it go without this information, we would be practically repeating the same blunder that we have committed in Other instances. -Suppose, for instance, that these two offers were much more favourable than we might reasonably anticipate they were,' we have not that knowledge because the information has not been given to the committee. We have voted about $400,000 and we are asked to vote $310,000, because wei have committed ourselves to it already, but, we are just adding to it. We are increasing the degree without increasing the intelligence with which we are doing it and it is on account of the absence of that infor-


Edward Cochrane: I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the statement of the hon. minister just to show how absurd his proposition is. He says that he very generously gave us the information when we asked for it. We did not know anything about this report being in his possession. Here is a commission that we were paying, and the members of which are the servants of the people, but I think the trouble arose largely from the fact that the present ministers think they are czars, and that they are not the servants of the people. Here is a commission that the people are paying, obtaining information that an humble member of the House of Commons like myself cannot obtain. If the hon. minister! will consult his deputy when I conclude the few remarks which I propose to make, I will) be very much obliged to him. If he were as anxious to get information -when he was out of the House as he is in the House, we would not have all this trouble in getting information from him. What reason has the hon. minister for having a report in his possession that is made to him in his capacity as minister when he has not thought it necessary to have it printed and given to the public, so that the public might understand what that commission has been doing in the interest of the people who are paying for it ? He tells us very blandly, and with that generous smile he puts on


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not put on. It is natural. Do not be unkind.


Edward Cochrane: It is not put on ? I thought it was, because it is so bland that a wayfaring man, even a fool, might read that it is deceptive. If the hon. minister upon getting that report had printed it, we would have known what it contained. I fancy the trouble is that the hon. minister -I do not blame him and I do not criticise him more than I do other ministers-fails to get any information in reference to the .estimates until he comes down to the House and asks the committee to vote them. Then he has to talk to his deputy and get the information that he should have in his hands when he comes before the House, instead of having to refer to his deputy or some one else to ascertain whether the criticism made of his estimates by some hon. member is well founded or not. A minister of the Crown is the servant of the people just as I am. We are paying him for his services as a minister. We paid that commission to give us certain information which they gave to the minister, and from the fact that he neglected his duty by failing to have that report printed and put in the hands of the committee, we have had three or four hours of discussion-useless discussion, perhaps. There is the whole trouble in a nut shell, and if ministers only realized that they were delaying their own estimates by


Henry Robert Emmerson: their-I was going to say ignorance, but I will not use that word-but from the fact that they do not post themselves in connection with their estimates, thus causing the country to expend a lot of money for useless talk, I am sure they would make an effort to prepare themselves more thoroughly. If they would get that information and give it to us, it would save the country a great deal of expense and save a great deal of talk in this House and hard feelings, as well as those humiliating conversations between the hon. minister and his deputy.


John Graham Haggart: You have a preliminary report of the- Transportation Commission ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is the report in respect to the St. John harbour.


John Graham Haggart: No, I am leaving out the St. John harbour and the special report you brought down this evening. Have you a preliminary report besides these ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not that I am aware of.


John Graham Haggart: Well, I am taking the answer of the right hon. Prime Minister :
Before the orders of the day are called, would the right hon. first minister tell us when we are to expect the preliminary report of the Transportation Committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will be brought down very shortly.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a preliminary report, and the report in regard to St. John harbour is a preliminary report.


John Graham Haggart: We had that a year ago. You do not call that a preliminary report of the Transportation Commission ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do.


John Graham Haggart: Where there is a special reference to a particular portion of their work, and only giving their opinion on that -you call that a preliminary report ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do.


John Graham Haggart: That is sufficient. It may impose upon somebody.
Rideau canal extension, $50,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a revote of $50,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is there any of it expended ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes ; there was expended on surveys $566.66.


Edward Cochrane: Are you going to take the weeds out of the Tay canal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. There is a certain mill property belonging to certain parties- I forget the names, but I think they are Tott Brothers-for which a very large sum of money is claimed, and in order to build the locks at that place it will be nece'ssary
to have that property. The matter has not been gone on with. The surveys were not completed fully in time to go on last season, but in addition to that there is another difficulty arising in connection with this property.


John Graham Haggart: This is for the purpose of establishing communication between the canal and a certain lake ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mud lake, Devil's lake and Desert lake.


John Graham Haggart: Yes ; for the purpose of developing what was represented by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) as a large mining section.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: I hope the mines are there, that is all I can say.
Sault Ste. Marie canal-construction, $100,000.
Mr. SP-ROULE. What are you doing there ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is $100,000 we are asking for in addition to the $170,000 asked for last year. About $150,000 will he required to complete this work. The canal is cut through St. Mary's Island. It is 14 miles in length. The canal proper has a depth of 22 feet of water in the prism, with 24 feet 4 inches of water on the mitre sill of the lock. The deepening of the lower entrance to a depth of 21 feet 5 inches has been completed. The above amount is to be expended in removing shoals and deepening what is called the Vidal shoal and dredging and deepening the Upper Entrance so as to give a uniform depth of 21 feet 5 inches ; also to make a safer passage of vessels. There is, under contract, an extension of South Entrance Pier at lower entrance of canal of 800 feet. The substructure is of timber crib work with a superstructure of concrete ; at present there is only 18 feet in parts of upper entrance. Hinckler Bros, had a contract for deepening a portion of upper entrance at upper end of Vidal shoal. Their contract is completed. Tenders were advertised for; hut 011I3' one was received. Rate. 80 cents per yard. Tenders were called for in September, 1894, for deepening the upper entrance from eastern end of the entrance piers to the eastern end of what is known as the Vidal shoals. Five tenders were received. The work was awarded to the lowest tenderer-
0.	S. Boone, Toronto, at $1.74 per yard. No work has been done yet. Work is also under way in the extension of south entrance pier at lower entrance which will be finished next summer. Tenders were called for. Seven bids were received. The lowest tenderer, W. Birmingham, of Ottawa, was awarded the work at schedule rates. There was expended up to 30th November. 1904, $37,501.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: When was the contract awarded to Mr. Birmingham ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was sometime after the vote of parliament. It was between that time and Christmas. A contract was also entered into with Messrs. O'Boyle Bros, for extending the south entrance pier, at the upper entrance of the canal. This is an extension of 800 feet and consists of a timber substructure capped with a concrete wall. This will make a safer entrance and avoid the cross current. Three tenders were received. The work was awarded to the lowest and amounts to $59,280.


John Graham Haggart: What sum more will be required to complete the improvements V


Henry Robert Emmerson: About $150,000 more in addition to the $50,000 I spoke of.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If the minister would allow this item to stand there is a great deal of information that we would like to obtain.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can give all the information now and I would like to make some progress in connection with it. I would like to get the item through.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The discussion might take some time and I think the work would be expedited by rising now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Trent canal matter was to stand by arrangement. I want to make an amendment now. You will notice under the Trent canal an item.
Damage by flooding, $7,000.
That was stricken out in the original and it has been put in here by a clerical mistake. It has been transferred to the income account and I would like that stricken out. It is transferred to the supplementary estimates of 1904. I would move that that item of $7,000 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Henry Robert Emmerson: I have agreed that the item of the Trent canal should stand.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir WILLIAM MULOCK moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: If we should reach government business on Monday, what will be taken up ?


William Mulock: If government business is reached, the Minister of Agriculture will proceed with his Census Bill and after that the House will be moved into Committee of Supply. The Minister of Railways and Canals will continue his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 12.05 a.m., Saturday.
Henry Robert Emmerson: Monday, February 20, 1905.