1905-03-01

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certificate of the election and return of Emmanuel Bernard Devlin, Esq., for the electoral district of Wright, in the province of Quebec.



MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Emmanuel Bernard Devlin, Esq., member for the electoral district of Wright, was Introduced by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Hon. N. A. Belcourt.


Mr. URIAH WILSON asked :: 1.	How many immigrants were deported from this country during the fiscal year 1904, and up to the 1st of February, 1905 ?
2.	What were their nationalities, and what was the cause of their being deported ?
3.	How' many were deported for diseases, and for what diseases ? How many because they were liable to become paupers ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	During the fiscal year 1903-4 359 immigrants were deported. From 1st July, 1904, to the 1st of February, of the fiscal year 1905, 387 were deported, making a total of 746.
2.	Deported immigrants were of the following nationalities :-
Russians.. .. Syrians.. ..
British	
Japanese.. ..
Poles	
Armenians.. Hebrews.. .. Galicians.. .. Italians.. .. Germans. . . . Norwegians..
Finns


Austrians.   . .@: Roumanians. .
Swedes	
Danes	
Lithuanians.. Hungarians..
Chinese	
Turks


Austrians.   . .@: Americans.. . Buckowinians Icelanders.. .
173
23
24 23 22 22 17 16 15 12 11 11
5
4
2
2
1
Total			746
3. Deportations were for	the following
causes :-	
Trachoma		
Physical infirmity		
Consumption		
Insanity		. . . 19
Mental infirmity		
Favus		.. .. 13
Rheumatism		
Tuberculosis		.. . . 6
Crippled		
Epilepsy		
Poor physique		. .. 4
Heart disease		. .. 3
Bronchitis		.. .. 3
Melancholia		o
Syphilis		o


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Chronic dysentery	 2.
Varicose ulcer	 2
Blindness	 2
Rheumatism and heart disease. 2
Mixed conjunctivitis	 1
Conjunctivitis	 1
Gout and debility	 1
Idiocy	
1	.Tabes	;. ..	1Pregnancy	
1Deformity	
1Gonorrhoea	
1Deaf mute	
1Small-pox	
1Inflammatory rheumatism....	1Physical and mental infirmity..	1Cancer	
1Adenitis lymphatics	
1Haemoptysis	
1Imbecile	
1Broken back	
1Hernia	
1
660
Likely to become public charges....	60
Accompanying deported persons 16
Criminals	 6
Refused by United States officers	 3
Bad character	 1

 26
Total	746


CARRIAGE OF MAIDS BETWEEN COLD-WATER AND LOVERING.
Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Who is the present contractor for carrying the mails between Coldwater and Lovering ?
2.	When does the contract expire ?
3.	What is the remuneration per year for such servico ?
4.	What is the date of execution of such contract, and when does it expire ?
5.	Were tenders invited for such service ?
6.	If so, who tendered, and what was the amount respectively of such tenders, if any ?.


Hon. Sir WILLIAM MU LOCK (Postmaster General) :: 1.	W. H. Lovering.
2.	31st March, 1905.
3.	$130 per annum.
4.	13th day of March, 1901-31st March, 1905.
5.	& 6. Tenders were not invited in 1901, but were invited in 1897 when the contract was awarded to W. H. Lovering the lowest tenderer, at $130 a year, and on its expiry in 1901, was renewed as authorized by the Post Office Act with the same contractor at the same price.


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


Hou. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: Will the hou. gentleman let that stand ? I will have the information, I hope, to-morrow.


COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPHS.
Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	Were representations made to the Department of Agriculture in the month of April, 1903, in reference to the inconvenience of the long inscription required on copyright photographs ?
2.	Did the government take the request of Messrs. Wm. Notman & Son, of Montreal, Stephen J. Thompson, of Vancouver, B.C., and W. J. Topley, of Ottawa, into consideration ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation ini the near future to amend the Copyright Act on photographs, in conformity with the suggestions contained in the aforesaid communications ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The government did not think it was wise to introduce a special Bill for the purpose of making that amendment to the Copyright Act.
3.	The matter is under consideration.


CONVICTIONS BY JUDGE PRENDERGAST.
Mr. LAKE asked :: 1.	Were two men named Hamelin and Goselin sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for horse-stealing by Judge Prendergast in 1902 ?
2.	What' was the length of sentence in each case ?
3.	Were they released before sentence expired ?
4.	If so, at what date, and for what cause ?


Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK (Minister of Justice).: In answer to my hon. friend, it is contrary to the well established usage of parliament to answer questions of this sort; and if the hon. gentleman will permit me I will send him over the reference in Todd where he will find the rule stated.


FITTINGS OF THE STEAMER ' ACADIA.'
Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	What disposition was made of the furniture and fittings of the steamer ' Acadia,' formerly in the service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?
2.	At what time, in what manner, to whom, and for what consideration were these articles disposed of ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Min01' Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	They have' been stored.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


STEAM LAUNCH ' MAISONNEUVE.'
Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	What has the steam launch ' Maisonneuve ' cost the government since her purchase for the following (a) repairs, (b) fittings, (c) provisions, (d) fuel, (e) other supplies, (f) salaries and wages ?
2.	How many persons compose her regular staff and crew ?
3.	How many months was she in active service in 1903, and during 1904 ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONT AINE (Mmol' Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	(a) $1,640.85, (b) $1,243.98, (c) $450.22, (d; $274.61, (e) $1,482.09, (f) $3,388.13.
2.	Five, with three additional when employed in surveys.
3.	Three months in 1903 and seven and a half in 1904.


ANTICOSTI LIGHTSHIPS.
Mr. LEWIS asked :: 1.	What was, in each case, the stipulated contract price of the ' Lurcher ' and of the ' East Point,' Anticosti, lightships ?
2.	What additional amounts did the contractors receive in respect of these ships ?
3.	What further expenditure for alterations, repairs and renewals, have been incurred up to January 1st, 1905 ?
4.	According to the contract, upon what date or dates were said boats to be completed and delivered by the contractors ?
5.	Was there any forfeit stipulated in the contract for delay of delivery ?
6.	Were the contractors in any way penalized for failure to complete the contract within the time limit ?
7.	Is the ' Lurcher ' lightship in position at' the present time ? If not, why not ?
Eton. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE Minister of Marine and Fisheries). I would ask the bon. gentleman to move for an order for papers. The answer will be too voluminous


STEAMERS OF LIGHTHOUSE AND COAST SERVICE.
Mr. LEWIS asked :: 1.	At what port or ports did each vessel under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries call between the 31st' of October and the 4th of November, 1904, inclusive ?
2.	Where was each vessel on the 3rd day of November last ?


Hon. RAYMOND PREFONTAINE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I would ask the hon. gentleman to proceed in the same manner. There is no disposition to withhold the information, but it cannot be obtained without a good deal of trouble.


WHARF AT BIC.
Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	Some days before the month of November last did the government enter into a contract with one P. Ross for the purchase of land for the building of a road leading to a wharf that was to be constructed at Points a C6t6 at Bic ?
2.	If so, how much did Mr. Ross receive for his land ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (Acting Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No land was purchased from Mr. Ross ; but Mr. Ross gave, in writing a promise of sale of a right of way, to our resident engineer, on the 8th of December, 1904.
2.	No action taken.



RESIGNATION OF THE HON. CLIFFORD SIFTON.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIEIi (Prime Minister). I have to inform the House that my colleague, Hon. Mr. Sifton, has resigned his position in the government, and as Minister of the Interior. Mr. Sifton finds himself unable to agree with the terms of the Bill which has lately been introduced for the admission into the Dominion of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, his disagreement being confined altogether to the educational clause. After a conference with him, the following correspondence has been exchanged between him and myself :
Ottawa, February 27, 1905.
Dear Sir Wilfrid,-After giving my best consideration to the matters which we discussed last evening, I have arrived at the conclusion that it is impossible for me to continue in office under present circumstances, and that it is better for all concerned that I should act at once. I therefore beg to tender my resignation as a member of the government. I trust that the unhappy necessity which has arisen will not in the least impair the friendship with which you have been kind enough to honour me. Believe me.
Yours most faithfully,

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, G.C.M.G., Ottawa.
To this I answered yesterday in the following terms :
Ottawa, February 28, 1905.
My dear Sifton,-I received yesterday your letter of same date, whereby you tender me your resignation as a member of the government.
Thhre is no alternative to me, but to accept it, and with much regret, it will be my duty to place it in the hands of His Excellency.
After our conversation of the other day, I had left you with the Impression that the differences between us were more of words than of substance, and until I received your letter, I had cherished the hope that it would he possible ere this to find a comparatively easy solution.
Whilst I feel more regret than I can express , at this termination of our official relations, let' me assure you that should our old friendship be ever impaired, the fault will not be mine.
Yours very sincerely,
WILFRID LAURIER. The Hon. Clifford Sifton, Ottawa.
Tlio resignation has been placed in the hands of His Excellency, who lias been pleased to accept it.
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON.: Tlie statement made by the right bon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) necessitates a very short explanation to the House on my part. When it was determined that during this session of parliament legislation should be introduced creating new provinces out of a portion of the Northwest Territories, I felt called upon, in view of the history of Mr. HYMAN.
the educational question in Canada, to give very serious consideration to the position which I should take with regard to the legislative power to be conferred upon the provinces in regard to the subject of education. It was necessary that conferences should take place with members of parliament representing the Northwest Territories and with the representatives of the Territorial government, upon the subject of education and other subjects involved in the Bill. These conferences were unavoidably postponed until after the beginning of the new year, by reason of the absence of the Prime Minister, who, after the general election, was compelled to take a short rest, and was therefore absent from the country. Shortly before the time fixed for bolding these conferences I was compelled by my own state of health to leave Ottawa, and was therefore unable to be present at the discussions which took place. Before leaving I discussed with the Prime Minister most of the subjects that necessarily required to lie dealt with in the Bill which was to be introduced, and so far as I was able to do so at that time, I communicate(i my views to him upon the various subjects. I may say that when I went away I did not anticipate that it would be considered necessary to introduce the Bill for creating the new provinces, before I returned. As members of tlie House are aware, I returned to the capital on Thursday afternoon. I immediately took occasion to read carefully the speech which the right bon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) had delivered in introducing the Bill. I regretted that in the right lion, gentleman's address I found some principles enunciated with which I am unable to agree. On Friday, the next day after I returned, at the earliest possible moment, I procured a copy of the educational clause of the Bill which my leader had introduced. That clause is as follows :
16. The provisions of section 93 of the British North America Act. 1867, shall apply to the said provinces as if, at the date upon which this Act comes into force, the territory comprised therein were already a province, the expression ' the union ' in the said section being taken to mean the said date.
2. Subject to the provisions of the said section 93, and in continuance of the principles heretofore sanctioned under the Northwest Territories Act, it is enacted that the legislature of the said province shall pass all necessary laws in respect of education, and that it shall therein always he provided (a) that a majority of the ratepayers of any district or portion of the said province or of any less portion or subdivision thereof, by whatever name it is known may establish such schools therein as they think fit, and make the necessary assessments and collection of rates therefor, and (b) that the minority of the ratepayers therein whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, may establish separate schools therein, and make the necessary assessment and collection of rates therefor, and (c) that in such case the ratepayers establishing such Protestant or Roman Catholic separate schools shall be liable only to assess-

ment of such rates as they impose upon themselves with respect thereto.
3.	In the appropriation of public moneys by the legislature in aid of education, aud in the distribution of any moneys paid to the government of the said province arising from the school fund established by the Dominion Lauds Act, there shall be no discrimination between the public schools and the separate schools, and such moneys shall be applied to the support of public and separate schools in equitable shares or proportion.
That is the clause which is contained in the Bill which was introduced by the leader of the government. Between Friday, when . I procured a copy of the clause, and Monday morning I gave the subject my best consideration, aud I had the privilege in the meantime of having an interview with the Prime Minister on the subject. As the result of such consideration X determined that I could not endorse or support the principle of the educational clauses. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, my duty became perfectly clear, and on Monday morning I wrote to the Prime Minister tendering my resignation as a member of the cabinet. Subsequently, I expressed the desire that my resignation should be acted upon at once and to that wish the Prime Minister has now assented.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, not intending and not considering it proper at this time to enter into a discussion of the merits of the matter which has caused the difference between myself and my leader, I have only to add my regret that circumstances have compelled the severance of my official relations with my leader and with my colleagues with whom my relations have always been of the most harmonious and pleasant character, and with whom upon other questions I am in entire accord. The circumstances. however, in my judgment, make my duty perfectly clear-, and it does not seem possible for me to properly consider anything except the principles which are involved.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the hon. gentleman, the retiring minister (Hon. Mr. Sifton) that this is not the time to undertake the discussion of the principles involved in the Bill. But, with the two statements which have been read and with the reading of the statements and the causes which make the reading of the statements necessary this afternoon, we alone have to deal and with these I shall deal for a moment with your kindly permission. It did not come as a matter of surprise to this side of the House that the Minister of the Interior should at some early period read liis letter of resignation, or give his reasons for resigning to this House, nor do I think it came as a matter of surprise to hon. gentlemen who are within the secrets of the party on the other side of the House. We all remember the peculiar circumstances under which this Bill appears to have been
framed and to have been rushed before the House. It did seem an odd and almost unexplainable thing that a Bill of such importance should be framed in the absence of two of the most responsible ministers in the House as regards the country and the scope of territory in which that Bill was to be operative, and having respect to the declaration of policy which I think a year or two ago was made in this House when, with some new idea of a division of ministerial responsibility, it was announced that certain ministers were to be held more or less accountable for the particular provinces or sections from which they came. This was exemplied in the case of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) in his intermeddling with the militia matters of this country. During the last few weeks this important Bill has been framed and has been laid before the House in the absence of the hon. Minister of the Interior, who was especially charged with the supervision of and the responsibility for the Northwest Territories and the west generally. AVe were led to think that possibly the second chapter of what took place' on an almost similar line a year or two ago was being prepared for the House and the country. It is well known that at that time a most important railway Bill was conceived and formed and was almost, if not quite, presented to this House behind the back of the responsible Minister of Railways and Canals, whose office it should have been to have aided in the consideration and preparation of that Bill. We were of late led still more to suppose this from a remark which fell casually, but rather acridly, from the lips of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself, who, when, not long ago, asked about the time when we might expect the introduction of the Bill, gave as his answer that it would probably be introduced at a certain time, and when some inquiring mind of the many inquiring minds on this side of the House put the question to the right hon. Prime Minister as to whether the hon. the Minister of the Interior would be back by that time, the right hon. Prime Minister, as I say, rather sharply retorted that he did not know whether lie would or not, but that he, the Prime Minister, would be here. Taking all this with the history of this Bill into consideration it did not come as a surprise to this part of the House, and I doubt very much if it fell as much of a surprise upon hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. But, it is a still stranger thing that the hon. Minister of the Interior, a most important member of the cabinet at any time and a specially important member of the cabinet as regards the conception and arrangement of this Bill, did not actually know, although it is supposed that telegraph wires stretch from here to almost all parts of the United States of America in some particular portion of which the hon.

Minister of the Interior has been for the past number of weeks, of the educational clauses of this Bill until after he had returned to this city and to this House when he obtained a copy of the clause. One would have thought that on the general theory of responsible government, of a cabinet acting unitedly, of a cabinet acting wisely, consulting with every unit of the cabinet, as, I think it is in duty bound to do, in order to secure the united wisdom of the whole of the cabinet, that the hon. Minister of the Interior would have been consulted with, not even by telegraph or letter does it seem that the hon. Minster of the Interior was apprised of the one prominent clause in the Bill in which it would be supposed naturally that he would be very much interested.
The excuse, the reason, is given to-day- and we are bound to take the reason in a parliamentary sense-that the hon. gentleman is retiring because he could not find it consistent with his principles to accede to that particular clause in the Autonomy Bill, but from what I have stated and from what we have seen, it would be easily inferred, I think, by any member of this House that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not that was the cause of the resignation, as to whether the deliberate actions of the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet heretofore have not made it quite abundantly apparent that it was the intention to get rid of the hon. gentleman whether he got out on this particular clause of the Bill or on some other. The Prime Minister has not quite satisfied the curiosity of the House. Outside of the information which was conveyed to us by the bulletin boards there are other rumours which are abroad in the corridors of this House, abroad on the streets of the city and, I dare say, are tingling the wires, which stretch from Ottawa to different parts of this country even now while we are speaking. And why? It is stated that another important minister, another important member of the cabinet of the right hon. gentleman, is deliberating as to whether he shall not follow in the tracks-no, I would not put it that way-but follow, at least, the example of the hon. the Minister of the Interior who has retired, in also expressing his formal and unqualified dissent from this Bill. There might be some reasons which would impose on us the idea that there is truth in that. I could hardly reconcile to my own mind the idea of a Prime Minister and a cabinet undertaking to frame and to put before the country so important a Bill as this, involving no trivial and unimportant financial burdens, but involving very onerous and continuous and growing financial burdens upon this country, I cannot, I say, understand how a Bill of that kind could be conceived, put into form and introduce'd into this House in the absence of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible, if any man in the cabinet is responsible, for the Mr. FOSTER.
financial interests of this country. Was he also altogether and entirely in the dark with reference to this Bill? Did he know the clauses, financial or otherwise, before he came back to Ottawa and ascertained what they were by asking for a copy of the Bill? Was there such an urgent necessity for the introduction of the Bill that a delay of at least two or three days could not have been given until both the-Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance should have had opportunity to meet their colleagues in Council and by word of mouth and interchange of ideas, see if an amicable and united conclusion could not be had? Now, we would be very loath to lose the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: His pleasant countenance is always an inspiration to us-when it is not the opposite, and it is not often it is the opposite. But we would like to have this set at rest and to hear the Prime Minister state whether there is any truth in the rumour which is persistent that the Minister of Finance, not having been consulted, is not altogether at one with the rest of the cabinet in relation to this Bill. We must bid adieu to the Minister of the Interior with varying feelings. We do it some with sympathy ; some will say he has fought the fight and finished the course-I am not going to say how good a course it was-and he has entered into his reward. Probably he has had his reward before; possibly, like the late Minister of Railways and Canals, there is some glorious future awaiting him in some of the large official charges of this country. Anyway, if he leaves us as Minister of the Interior, he has not stated that he is going to leave us as member and we will still have him with us to remonstrate with and to counsel and as far as we can abiding iu good will and friendship.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York).: Mr. Speaker, partly as a question of privilege I desire to refer now to the question before the House, and I would ask the right hon. gentleman, who lives in the ramshackle house now, and who is the Samson who has pushed down the pillars and has the roof upon him and his co-ministers in the government? The other day the right hon. gentleman said I was quixotic. Well, there is this at least to be said about Don Quixote, that he was a country gentleman, a man of high honour and that he died with good Christian burial. If I must search for a historical reference to the hon. gentleman after what has happened here to-day, I could think of no one else than one of these autocratic Russian grand dukes of whom we hear at the present time. He has confessed here and the late Minister of the Interior has confessed here that in this House on Monday of this week when I asked where was the Minister of the Interior and the right hon. gentleman said it was for me to have him here, that he

knew then, as the House knows now, that he was not in his cabinet and was not in his administration. What is the reason of all this ? This autocratic Prime Minister that we have in this country eight years ago using the words of Bismarck said:	We
shall not go to Canossa. The right hon. gentleman has been to Three Rivers; he has made the treaty of Three Rivers, and in pursuance of that treaty he has chosen in his autocratic way to bring down a Bill dealing with the great questions now at issue without consulting his colleagues. It is said that in the preparation of this Bill he consulted only three of his ministers, of whom two came from his own province of Quebec. I do not propose to discuss the Bill, but I know now why the Minister of the Interior has left the government; it is now known that it is on the school question and it is on the land question as I said on Monday-* but it is more. The right hon. gentleman in introducing a certain measure in this House argued on three grounds, the constitutional ground, the ground of policy, and he argued for separate schools per se and it is because the proposition is for separate schools per se that the late Minister of the Interior has had to leave the administration.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I presume the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. P. Maclean) intends to conclude with a motion)


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I have certainly the right to speak somewhat from the standpoint of privilege, but I intend to conclude with a motion. There is another thing in regard to this question. There is a good old verse in the Bible which says that all they who take to the sword shall perish by the sword; and I say that all those who take to provincial rights and school questions will die by provincial rights and school questions. The handwriting is on the wall.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, and the right hon. gentleman has lost not only his Minister of the Interior, the Napoleon of the West, but that panegyrist of his, who set the right hon. gentleman up as the greatest statesman we have ever had in this country, and who glorified the late Minister of the Interior as the Napoleon of the West. The two of them are now joined together against the right hon. gentleman. He has lost his chief organ, the Toronto ' Globe,' or this question ; he has lost the Montreal * Witness,' another of his organs ; and I am afraid that he is now about to repudiate the last organ he appears to have left, ' Le Soleil,' that organ which, in its pontifical way, said the other day:	'We are the
organ of Sir Wilfrid, and every one must take note of it and govern themselves accordingly.'
I now come to the question of the school lands and the way little Manitoba is treat-59

ed ; and again I call the attention of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Greenway), wdio is now in his place, to this declaration of the leading organ of the right hon. gentleman, that it was the intention to punish Manitoba because she had vindicated provincial rights in connection with educational matters. The province of Manitoba has an area of only 74,000 square miles, while the proposed provinces are to have an area of nearly 300,000 square miles each. But the province of Manitoba happens to be in favour of public education, and she is to be punished ; and now the House and the country will be able to see how all this came about. If you extended the limits of the province of Manitoba to the west, the result would be that the portion of territory to the east would have the right to regulate its own educational affairs, while the other portion of the same territory would be shackled. That is the reason wThy Manitoba is being punished. And so it turns out, after all the taunts that I was met with here on Monday, that I was right when I said that Manitoba was being punished, and that the Dominion Lands Act would have to be changed in order to carry out the proposal made in the Bill. I was given what was called a categorical denial ; but to-day I have received a categorical affirmation from the late Minister of the Interior, I warn the right hon. gentleman that he is engaged in a quixotic career if he fancies that he and his party, which claims to be the party of provincial rights, can shackle the two new provinces of the west and impose a separate school system upon them without consulting the people. He does not consult his own ministers- the confession is made to-day. And what is to be the fate of that minister who today declares that he has not been consulted? He is to be Tartified and Blairified, like the other ministers w ho have resigned ; and the same fate awaits any one else who chooses not to come under this new czardom which we have in this country, under which not even a cabinet minister is to be consulted in regard to public policy ; under which that great free west, which feels more keenly on these great public questions than we do in the east, is not to be consulted through its recognized minister, but this hasty and ill-advised proposal is to be introduced into this House in >his absence.
I congratulate the late Minister of the Interior upon having the courage to come cut. I can say this at least of him, that he has justified to-day that mission which he made several years ago into my own province, into the county of Haldimand, to say that he came to the province of Ontario to ask for our sympathy because it was proposed to put shackles upon his province ; because, he said, if the province of Manitoba is shackled to-day, the time wriil come when the greater provinces to



the west will be treated in the same way. It turns out now that this treatment is being meted out by the czar of the Liberal party without consulting his colleagues. And this man of autocratic tendencies gets up In this House and reads us a lecture and calls us all kinds of nameo; and yet, within less than forty-eight hours of his lecture to me, everything I said has been justified and proved true. The right hon. gentleman to-day stands discredited in this House. He stands discredited of his own colleagues; he stands discredited in the different provinces, especially in the province of Ontario, and by his own newspaper, the ' Globe.' The right hon. gentleman quot-*ed George Brown. The right hon. gentleman actually read into the constitution the utterances of George Brown's newspaper and George Brown's speeches, in justification of this proposal of his to shackle these great new provinces of the west. The right hon. gentleman has failed. He has no justification for his proposal except as a matter of policy. But he has not made it a question of policy. He made a bogus constitutional argument, and then he made a moral argument, and that moral argument was what ? Many a time in this House the right hon. gentleman has read us a lesson about respect for our neighbours ; but there never was a more insulting statement made to the people of the United States than that statement of his that they were immoral, that divorces, lynchings and murders prevailed in their country, and that the reason of Canada's superiority in this respect was that dogma was taught in our public schools.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Findlay Maclean: 
An hon. MEMBER.: Thank you.


William Findlay Maclean: Nay, more ; I go further and say, I for one would not lift my hand to prevent the people of these western provinces having separate schools if they desire them. But my plea is that the question must be left to them-that we must not impose these schools upon them. I am ready to declare here or anywhere else -shall I say as a radical or a democrat ?- for the principle of the entire separation of church and state, so far as our constitution will permit it. The right hon. gentleman is in this House to-day as the champion of a new alliance between church and state, Again I warn him that he is on dangerous ground. Again I tell him that he who takes to the sword shall perish by the *sword. He who apparently, a few weeks ago, entered on a long career of office, is today face to face with the handwriting on the wall. I would like to see the right hon.


William Findlay Maclean: gentleman introduce great measures into this House, and not bring up questions of this kind. I do not want to say anything against my hon. friend who has retired from office to-day ; but if there is one thing he can recall, it is this : He came in on that wave ; he goes out on that wave; whither it will carry him I leave him to find out in his own experience.


Mr. LEIGHTON G. MCCARTHY (North Sirncoe).: Mr. Speaker.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There is still no question before the House.


William Findlay Maclean: I move the adjournment of the House.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has referred to matters which, perhaps should not have been referred to in discussing the question before the House. But, lest my silence should be misconstrued,
I desire to make a short statement. I occupy, on this question, a much different position from that occupied, probably, by any other member in this House. My hon. friend from South York refers to the campaign of some ten years ago in the county of Haldimand. The fact was referred to that, 011 that occasion, the ex-Miuister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) and myself stood on the same platform when we were fighting the men who are now calling in question the actions which have taken place and have caused that hon. gentleman's (Mr. Sifton's) retirement. Therefore, for the last ten years, my position on the school question lias been defined. I also fought on the school question in 1895 in Cardwell, and again in June 1896 was the school question fought out in my riding. From that day to this, I have remained firm and free, so far as my constituency was concerned, upon this question, and I have been thrice endorsed upon it. Therefore, I simply rise to announce to this House as I announced the fust time I spoke in the House and as I have previously announced to individual members, that I am, like the ex-Minister of the Interior, absolutely opposed to the education clauses as submitted in the Autonomy Bills ; that I will oppose them and oppose them unalterably.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I do not rise to anticipate the discussion on the Bill that will shortly be before us or to explain to the House where I stand on the question-I think my position is pretty well known. But I rise merely to say that, so far as the Prime Minister has given this House his confidence, and so far as he has explained the position, all is well. But some of us thought he might well have gone a little further. Perhaps to expect that would be to ask him to anticipate events. He did not indicate in any way who is to be the incumbent of the office

which has just been made vacant. However, that is something that concerns him more than it does us on this side of the House. But, in view of the loss from the cabinet of the representative of Manitoba and the Northwest,-and a man regarded by many as one of the ablest members of the cabinet to which he belonged, I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he does not think that it would be well to tell this House that he is prepared to drop that clause of the Bill ? I wish also to congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) who has just resigned, and to congratulate ourselves who are opposed to this feature of the Bill upon the acquisition by our ranks of that hon. gentleman and also of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy).


Mr.  L. G.@: McCarthy. Don't call the hon. member for North Simcoe an acquisition.
Mr. SPItOULE. I hope that many others on that side will find that open confession is good for the soul, and will rise and do as these hon. gentlemen have done. While I am on my feet I would like to say a word with regard to the number of copies of the Bill distributed so far. Eight days ago the Bill was introduced. Up to to-day each of us could only get one copy of the Bill. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that there was no objection to having a large number struck off. It would only take two or three hours to strike off a couple of thousand copies of the Bill. It seems strange to us, therefore, that up to the present, we have been able to get only four or five copies each. I made inquiry of the Printing Bureau and they told me : We were instructed to give no information as to the number of copies of the Bill to be printed. It seems strange that there should be such secrecy. I would ask the Prime Minister if he knows any good reason why we should not get more copies of the Bill, and whether he will give instructions that a much larger number be printed, because there is an urgent demand for them from many parts of the country. I myself have applications for at least a hundred copies of the Bill. Yet, though it is eight days since the Bill was introduced, I am able to supply only five.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton).: It is not my intention to speak on this matter, further than to congratulate the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) on the action he has taken in withdrawing from the present government. I take this opportunity of stating that, as soon as the Bill was introduced, knowing the action that the late Minister of the Interior had taken in 1895 and 1896, when the Manitoba school question was under discussion, though I had no consultation with the hon. gentleman, I had absolute faith that he would take the course he has taken to-day. In 591
justice to that hon. gentleman I may say that I am in a position to state positively, knowing whereof I speak, that it was his desire that the Manitoba school question should be kept out of the arena of Dominion politics and be settled in a satisfactory manner by the province. That was the wish also of many hon. gentlemen on the Liberal-Conservative side of this House. But the wishes of those gentlemen and of the late Minister of the Interior were not gratified. I felt that there was no other honourable course open to the late Minister of the Interior, than that which he has taken, and I had the most perfect confidence in his istrength of purpose and knew that he would not tolerate the infliction upon the Northwest of the clause in this Bill relating to education. I ask the Prime Minister; I appeal to his patriotism-and he pretends to be patriotic-in view of the fact that the Minister of the Interior has retired and that other ministers hang their heads when this Bill is mentioned ; in view of the fact that many hon. members behind him will not and dare not support him ; in the interest of the west and of the financial and commercial institutions that depend upon the development and progress of that great country, I appeal to him to pause in pressing this Bill. He cannot but know that the great tide of immigration now flowing toward that country, once checked will not easily resume its course. I predict, if he goes on with this Bill-and I am not the only one who predicts-dire disaster to this country.


An hon. MEMBER.: War.


Samuel Hughes: War ? Sir, if because a few half-breeds on the banks of the Saskatchewan refused to accept the new and reasonable method of survey instead of the old one to which they were accustomed, the First Minister would have been justified in shouldering his musket in their support, as he declared in 1885 he would have done, then far more would the boys in the Northwest-it will not need the boys from Ontario-be justified in shouldering their muskets in resistance to the tyranny the Prime Minister proposes in this Bill. His action, if he persists in it, will check the tide of immigration into that country and will produce a crisis in the financial and business affairs of the Dominion. I ask the First Minister to give his most careful attention to this idea. He can turn a corner as quickly as anybody can. It is not too late for him yet. Let him withdraw these clauses of his Bill, and leave it to the Northwest to settle this matter.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: I do not rise to discuss the Bill which has led to the resignation of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) but only to congratulate my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) on having already de-

dared his attitude. He is not a member of the cabinet ; but I presume that he was a prospective minister. I have been waiting to hear from another gentleman who sits close to that lion, member. I refer to the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Grant). At a by-election in that constituency, I had the honour to go there to say a word on behalf of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who was then a candidate in North Ontario. And one of the principal things brought against the hon. member for North Toronto in that campaign, was that he had supported the Remedial Bill, and if elected would advocate the granting of separate schools in the Northwest. That was the principal argument used in that by-election to further the election of the hon. member for North Ontario, and I now expect to hear from him that he will follow the hon. member for North Simcoe and declare the position he purposes taking when the BUI comes up.
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) On the motion to adjourn, moved by the hon. member for South York (Mr, W. F. Maclean) and oil which several members have spoken, some of whom have said that they are unalterably opposed to clause 16 of the Bills creating two new provinces in the Northwest Territories, I would say on my own behalf, speaking for myself only, that I am unalterably in favour of that clause 10 in the two Bills shortly to come up for a second reading. So far as I have been able to gather, the only point urged to-day is that made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who says that the Bills are hurried ones. Surely he does not mean that these are new Bills. I remember last session hearing this matter discussed, if not in the House at all events around the House, and likewise the session before that. They are, I submit, two of the best considered Bills that have ever been brought forward; and although they may not have been as fully discussed with some members of the government as they might have been, still I venture to say that during the past five or ten years no question has received greater consideration. If I read parliamentary practise aright, if I understand Todd's parliamentary procedure and May's usages of parliament, I believe I am correct in saying that it is the Prime Minister who should introduce measures of the kind we are now discussing; and if any of the members of his cabinet are not in accord with him, they have one duty to perform and that is to resign. If the exMinster of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) tound he could not support the government in this matter, he has taken the proper course; but as I understand the question, so far as it has now gone, there is a distinct desire on the part of hon. members opposite, evinced both in their speeches and their newspapers, to create some inflammatory condition in this


George Taylor: country which there is nothing in the Bills introduced to warrant.


Some hon. MEMBERS: What about the Globe ?


Mr. GUTHRIE.: I have read the editorials in the ' Globe,' in which that newspaper takes issue with the government regarding the educational policy laid down in the Bills presented to this House. I am sorry that the 1 Globe ' cannot see as the government do on this question, but the ' Globe ' is only one newspaper, and we are legislating for the whole Dominion. If the ' Globe ' cannot see eye to eye with us, that is no reason whatever why we should turn back from what we believe to be our duty. The majority of this House and the country, I am convinced, are of the opinion that the measure submitted to us is right and just; and in that belief I think we should go forward notwithstanding the Toronto ' Globe ' and the organ of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) and those other organs which are criticising these Bills very adversely at present.


George Eulas Foster: I do not want the right hon. the First Minister to forget the second question that I ventured to put to him so that he may settle, if it is in his power to do so, these disquieting rumours which have been given currency with reference to the attitude of some others of his ministers on this Bill. We have had a most important piece of information from the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. He has just told us that this Bill has been discussed for two sessions, and he has informed the House with all becoming gravity that it is still being discussed. Where ? Is there an inner circle somewhere?


Hugh Guthrie: I said around the House.


George Eulas Foster: Is there a circle within a circle in the party headed by my right hon. friend, and at the head of which is probably the right hon. gentleman who leads the government? Is there an inner circle which takes up these things in advance and discusses and settles them and brings them to a point where they are in the position of not being new matters but things well discussed and settled during these two years? Last year my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) was, I believe, present in this House and in his wonted health. He was also present the year before last in equally good condition. During all that time, as we have just been informed, the principles of this Bill were being discussed, and surely if any one of them was discussed it must have been that one dealing with the school question. But evidently the Minister of the Interior was not in that warm current.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Is the hon. gentleman bringing up some new matters? I would

remind him that he has already spoken once. *


George Eulas Foster: I spoke not on the adjournment but on the ministerial explanation, and I am now calling the attention of the First Minister to the question I have just put. I also want to call his attention to something else. It is in the interests of the country that we should know whether two or three days ago, after conferring with the Minister of the Interior, my right hon. friend still had hopes that the Minister of the Interior would accede to what was evidently a proposition put to him, possibly in modification of this clause of the Bill, and that his resignation at the last moment came as a disappointment. It would be interesting to the House to know whether the right hon. gentleman made any advance towards a compromise in the Bill as presented, in order to retain his colleague in the cabinet. 1 want to call to the attention of my right hon. friend two other matters, which I may as well bring before him now, as otherwise I should have to call his attention to them later. I find that in the printed Bill there are material alterations as compared with the Bill laid on the table, when introduced by the right hon. gentleman. What is the cause for these modifications? Have some modifications been made between the time this Bill was introduced and the time when it was sent to the printer, with a view of retaining in the government the Minister of the Interior or any other aggrieved minister? When my hon. friend here to my right asked for the printing of a larger number of copies of the Bill, it struck me that perhaps there was method in not printing too many copies, because, before the next printing takes place, it may possibly be that some other clauses will be modified in order to retain members who are at present recalcitrant, or to gain the favour of those who are opposed to the Bill as it stands. But I call my right hon. friend's attention to this peculiarity, that some of the clauses of the Bill which he put in Mr. Speaker's hands do not appear in these Bills, the swamp lands clause for instance.


Sir WILFRID LATJRIER.: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


George Eulas Foster: I think not. I had a copy of the Bill and read it, and I am sure that was not in the Bill. I merely mention flu matter so that the right hon. gentleman may notice it. There is one other thing I would like to speak of. We have had placed in our hands what purports to be a history from official sources of the legislation of the united provinces of the Dominion since confederation. I do not know to whose courtesy we are indebted for this. It is useful in its way, so far as it goes. But it has been stated in the public press that it was arranged and collated by the Secretary of State.
and publicity has been given to that statement, and it is believed by a great many people. I do not know whether that is the case or not. I have no objection to the government giving us ail and the fullest information with reference to the subject, but I do object to the government putting anything in circulation as official information if it has been done under the auspices I have mentioned, and as has been reported in the press, because the information is more than a statement of facts, and is shaped into an argument from the beginning to support, the contention of the government. I hope my right hon. friend will be able to say that this has not been prepared by the government or any member of the government, or officials connected with the government. It seems to bear the impress of being printed in the Government Printing Bureau, though that may not be the case. However, as that has been current, I bring it to the attention of my right hon. friend so that he may mention it, if he will be kind enough to do so, in connection with the other points I have raised.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: In order to emphasize some of the remarks of tile hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) I wish to draw the attention of the premier to a statement he made in the ministerial correspondence which he read as having taken place between him and his late colleague. It is to my mind a very curious statement. He said that in consultation with his colleague he hoped he would be able to yield somewhat to his views so as to retain him in the cabinet. Now what the House wants is a clear cut statement from the premier whether he is wedded to that particular clause of the Bill regarding separate schools, or whether he is prepared to do what his colleague wishes him to do in order to retain him in the cabinet, and in order to meet the wishes of a great number of his supporters in the House in that direction. The difficulties may be all removed, there may be such an alteration in that clause as that it may receive the support of the whole House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no observation of any kind to offer to the House on this occasion, because the occasion does not call for any observation from me beyond the statement which has been made by my-seif and by my late colleague, the present member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). The hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) knows better than anybody that on such an occasion ministerial explanations are to be given when a gentleman withdraws from the administration, and it is left to the prime minister and to the minister withdrawing to make such explanations as they deem fit. I rise simply to answer one question, though it is not at all pertinent to the issue, becairse everything that has been said here on this occasion bpyond that which

refers to the withdrawal from the cabinet, is aside altogether from the issue. But the hon. gentleman has questioned me with regard to a pamphlet which has been issued purporting to be certain collations from the debates of this House on a former occasion on the question of separate schools. I was rot aware until this moment that this pamphlet had been distributed, and I shall make inquiry and ascertain who is responsible for it. I do not mean any discourtesy to the House, on the contrary ; the House is entitled to the amplest information, and that it shall have at all times, and I hope before this matter is settled. But many of the matters which have been introduced today are absolutely foreign to the question which I was forced to bring before the House, that is to say the resignation of my hon. friend from Brandon. The other questions will come up at a later date. Some remarks have been made, for instance, by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) when he said that this Bill had been before the House for two sessions. That was evidently a slip of the tongue, and was easily answered. My hon. friend meant only to say that the question of autonomy had been discussed for two sessions. Everybody knows, especially the members who were in the old parliament, that for the last two sessions the question of autonomy for the Territories has been under discussion ; I presume that is what my hon. friend had in his mind when he spoke on this Bill. But the only object X had in rising was to refer to a statement-not a statement but an insinuation, made, I think, by the hon. member for South York. The hon. gentleman insinuated that in bringing forward this measure there was an intention on my part in some way to get rid of the Minister of the Interior. I simply notice the statement to give it the most emphatic denial that I can. Whatever may be the differences of opinion between myself and my late colleague, I am sure he will acquit me of having had any idea of acting deceitfully towards him. I am sure that no one knows better than himself that it is with extreme regret that X have to lose his valuable services, and if I could have retained them X would have done so with great pleasure. When the hon. member for South York insinuates that I was conspiring in some way to get rid of my hon. friend from Brandon he makes an insinuation which is absolutely without the shadow of foundation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are entitled to some information showing why we cannot get more copies of the Bill.
Sir W11. Fii 11) LAURIER, My hon. friend is very persistent in his question. I may say at once that this matter of printing is not in my department, it is in the hands of the Secretary of State. The hon. gentleman will not be surprised perhaps to learn Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
that I have many things to attend to these days, but I will not forget the subject and will communicate directly with the Secretary of State.
Motion (Mr. W. F. Maclean) to adjourn, negatived.



INSPECTION AND SALE OF SEEDS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 7) respecting the inspection and sale of seeds.
Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford) moved :: That the Bill be not now read the third time, but that' the same be referred to a special committee to be named by the Prime Minister and that the said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses on oath and such other powers as may be necessary.
He said : Mr. Speaker, in making this motion I desire to offer but a few' remarks. We have taken exception to various clauses of the Bill from time to time as they have been before the House, and though some few minor amendments have been made, I think that the Bill has not received that attention it should have received. We have called the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to various points in the Bill


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the hon. gentleman's motion is out of order. The rule appears to be that no amendment, not merely verbal, shall be made to any Bill on the third reading.


William Foster Cockshutt: I am not making an amendment to the Bill. This is a motion asking that it shall be sent to a special committee, and that it shall not go to the third reading at all. I have consulted an authority on the point. I am quite willing to abide by the ruling of Mr. Speaker. This is an amendment moved that the Bill shall not go to the third reading now, but that it shall be referred to a special committee, not a committee of the House, but a special committee to be named by the right hon. First Minister. I shall wait until Mr. Speaker decides the point.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I think the first motion should be to discharge the order, and then to refer this to the committee.


Mr. WHITE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Coclc-shutt) may move that the order be discharged for the third reading and that the Bill be referred to the special committee.


William Foster Cockshutt: I will move :
That the order for the third reading of Bill (No. 7) be discharged, and that the same be referred to a special committee to be named by the Prime Minister and that said committee shall have power to send for persons, papers-and records, to examine witnesses on oath and such other powers as may be necessary.

I was desirous of pointing out that various amendments have been made to this Bill since it came before the House. Borne of these we have been able to comprehend, others we have not. I must say that it remains in a very unsatisfactory state now, in so far as I have been able to gather the opinion of the House on the matter. The bon. Minister of Agriculture yesterday, for some reason or other, was in very poor voice for him. We could not very well hear what he said, and therefore we were unable to take that part in the debate which we should like to have taken. Therefore, I feel called upon to move this amendment which X have just offered to the House. In the first place, I desire to point out that the time mentioned in clause 1 is too limited. That I have previously drawn attention to, and it is not necessary to give further reasons than simply to say that this is a serious objection to the Bill. Then clause 3, providing for the placarding of the sacks, is also a most objectionable one. The hon. gentleman has had pointed out to him time and again that it was impossible to carry out this provision of the Bill, but he refuses to take any notice of that objection, which, all the trade will tell him, is absolutely well-founded. It is impossible to placard these bags even if we were willing, because if the seed should contain any of these weeds which are enumerated, it is necessary to placard the bag with the names of these weeds. It is impossible to do that. Further, seed for the foreign market would not be accepted in bags placarded in this way, and for that reason I desire again to point out to the hon. minister that it is impossible that this provision can be carried out. Then as to the exemption of the grower while the dealer is prohibited from selling this article, I desire again to point out that there are serious objections to this provision. The hon. minister announced that his object in bringing in this Bill was to ensure the purity of seed, but it turns out, in view of this provision of the Bill, that it is not for pure seed at all. If that were the object of the Bill, that clause should not stand for a moment. That particular clause cannot stand the test of good judgment at the hands of this House ; therefore, I think the hon. gentleman should recall that clause. Then in regard to the standard for seed that he sets up. I have submitted, and I am sure it has not been controverted by the hon. gentlemen opposite, nor can it well be, that it is impossible to comply with the provisions of clause 4, I think it is. It is impossible for us to get a large amount of seed of No. 1 quality. No. 1 quality will be a very scarce article according to the Bill. The Bill makes it difficult to procure No. 1 quality, but when you have procured that quality you have not a first-class seed by any means. That, I think, is a very serious objection to the Bill. The hon. minister sets up a standard for No. 1 quality, and after he has
obtained that quality, according to the test of purity which he makes, he has a very inferior quality of seed, as he takes no stock in the colour of the seed nor in the size of its development. These are two very important factors in seed which the hon. gentleman discards entirely. The evidence taken by the Royal Commission that inquired into the .matter in England discloses the fact that two of the prime necessities of No. 1 seed are that it shall be of large well developed size and have a good bold colour. Both of these items are absent in the hon. minister's estimate of No. 1 seed. There is another very good reason why the clause setting up a standard for No. 1 seed should meet with the opposition of the House. The requirements of the clause are such that only a limited quantity will pass the tests, and will not be the best of seed by any means. But it must be placarded nevertheless as inferior if it contains five out of a thousand weed seeds. That is surely a great injustice to a large amount of the product of this country, because having to be placarded it makes it comparatively unsaleable. It is placed at a discount on the market, because you have branded upon it all the various impurities which it contains, though they may be very limited in quantity.
It is quite possible under this Bill that these weed seeds may prevail to the extent of 10, 15 or 20 to the thousand, and still you will have a very much better article than you would have with a sample that is poor in germination, but true to name and which at the same time may have only five weed seeds to the thousand. Therefore, I think the hon. gentleman has missed the object of the measure entirely in setting up his standard. He has not got a good standard for No. 1 seed after having graded it according to this Bill. For this and for various other reasons that have already been adduced in the House, and that are convincing to the judgment of all men who desire to have a good practicable and workable measure, I believe that this Bill should be submitted to a special committee where the evidence of those well qualified to judge can be obtained and the matter can be fully threshed out before a committee of farmers, growers, dealers and all concerned. Let every clause stand on its merits and if it is found that the Bill will pass before this committee and is believed to be a workable and practical measure which will serve the best interests of agriculture in this country by all means let us pass the Bill. But if it is not found to be such a Bill as will pass the ordeal of a committee, either the Committee of Agriculture or a special committee to be named by the Prime Minister, then I think the hon. gentleman should introduce into it such amendments as will make it a satisfactory measure. I am sure that he has misgauged the feeling of the country to a

large extent. The farmers in the district from which I have the honour to come are, I believe, strongly opposed to this measure.
S.	Herrold & Son, of Brantford, who are well known to the Minister of Customs and [DOT]who are not political friends of mine write me a very strong letter in which they inform me that the farmers in that district are dead against the Bill ; that they are unalterably opposed to this Bill. I have letters from Mr. Bruce, who formerly sat in this House, from Mr. Ewing, of Montreal, from Mr. Hogg, of Oakwood, from Mr. Steele, of Toronto, from Mr. Keith, of Toronto, and others who stand high in the trade, every one testifying that they do not think the Bill practicable and workable. These men have spent their lives in the business and are thoroughly familiar with the requirements of the trade and of agriculture, and I maintain that if the minister persists in forcing this Bill through the House it will either drive out from the trade the men legitimately entitled to stay there or it will become a dead letter on our statute-book. Both of these results are undesirable and the minister cannot wish for either of them to come to pass. I ask then that in fairness to all concerned, this Bill should be submitted to a committee where persons, documents, and evidence may be adduced to show the various features of the Bill that are impracticable and unworkable or wherein it fails to meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman who has introduced. it. If this is done, I think we will secure a practicable and workable measure, and I again suggest to him that he should read carefully the evidence taken by that British committee of which I have spoken which was appointed to deal with this very subject. The members of that committee travelled from end to end of the British .Isles, took the evidence of all parties concerned and of every one interested in seeds and after having deliberated and taken evidence under oath they submitted that in their opinion it was not desirable that government control should be introduced. If this is the case in Great Britain and they are the best Judges of seed in the world to-day,-we have no men in this country who can equal them-I submit that the hon. gentleman should take a leaf out of the book of the British government and appoint a committee to deal with this matter, a committee who will thresh out every clause of the Bill. I wish to point out one of the amendments which the hon. gentleman put in with s-egard to the labelling of screenings which he allows to be held for export, whereas a large number of better seeds between screenings and No. 1 are not allowed to be held for export. Therefore a man must [DOT]either not hold these seeds or label good seeds as screenings. Surely he does not want to insist on trying to carry out so unreasonable a provision as that. The hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Bor-Mr. COGKSHUTT.
den) pointed out when this amendment was introduced that it bordered very close on nonsense and so it does. The minister allows the lowest grade to be held as screenings if for export, but the many intervening grades between screenings and No. 1 he refuses to allow to be held. Surely in view of this the minister will not insist on passing the measure through the House. It is very ill-considered, there is no hurry about the Bill, and I submit that it is far better to have a delay of two or three weeks and have a practicable working measure that can be carried out than to come to this House and insist without due consideration on the passing of this measure. I am sure that 50 per cent of the members could not hear the hon. gentleman yesterday when the amendments were introduced. We were asked to vote these amendments blindly and to take the whole dose down at once. It is surely not in the interests of enlightened legislation, not in accordance with the wishes of the members of the House of Commons of Canada, that we should endorse a Bill that contains so many imperfections ; there are as many imperfections in it as there are in the seeds which the hon. gentleman describes. Twenty-five varieties of weeds may be in the seeds and I am sure there are more than 25 imperfections in this Bill that might be easily remedied by reference to a committee. I have pleasure in moving that this Bill be not now read a third time but be referred to a committee.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Before you put the question, I would like to say in reference to the remarks of the hon. gentleman, that this whole question has been threshed out.
I think that everything the hon. member has said has been said iu the House by himself perhaps more than once. The hon. gentleman asks that the Bill be referred to a special committee, but the Bill has been through a general committee, through the Committee of the Whole House, and I do not think any better committee could possibly be struck to consider it any further. The Bill has been before the House not in every detail as it is now, but in principle, for the last three sessions. There is no question of precipitancy, there is no question of hastiness, there is no question of lack of consideration. The hon. gentleman himself and other gentlemen on both sides of the House have discussed every detail of this Bill over and over again. Every detail has been discussed in committee and now the Bill is up for its third reading. I cannot see any utility in delaying the passage of the Bill or referring it back to any special committee for any particular object. I can therefore only ask the House to reject the amendment of the hon. member and ask that the Bill be read a third time and be sent up to the Senate.


Mr. LENNOX.: I do not wish to say more than a few words, although I regard this as

a very important measure. The amendment leaves to the leader of the government the selection of the committee or the composition of the special committee to which this Bill might be sent. This is not a new question, but there are new features in connection with this Bill. It is casting no reflection upon the ability or the energy or the care of the hon. minister who introduced the Bill to say that if we submit this to a committee having special knowledge of the matter and having special facilities for investigation, good as the Bill may be, it will be greatly improved.
Throughout this whole discussion I have desired that this Bill should be referred to the Committee on Agriculture. What have we a Committee on Agriculture for if not to consider such questions as this ? The fact that it has been before the Committee of the Whole House is no answer to the present motion for a reference. It is provided by our rules, and sanctioned by our practice, that a motion of this kind may be made at any stage of a Bill. I do not wish to be considered as opposing the principle of the Bill. I recognize that the minister has devoted much time and care to it, and it is shorn of many of the objectionable features which it had when it was introduced, Although I believe, as the hon. member for Brantford has suggested, that it is still full of the seeds of imperfection, yet these might be very well eliminated if it were referred to a special committee ; and we have excellent examples for that course. We have the example of Great Britain, a country many centuries older than our country, where, after a full and exhaustive investigation, it was decided that such a measure was not adapted to the conditions of the country ; and there may be ground for pausing to see whether this Bill is adapted to the conditions of Canada. At all events, we would have experts on these matters, not only on the committee but coming before the committee to give evidence. We would also have, what the members of the administration, from the Prime Minister down, have been pressing in Railway Bills that those most interested can come before the committee as they cannot come before the House, and express their views. I am entirely in accord with the practice that has prevailed, of threshing out these matters before the House ; but this is a matter requiring special investigation, and the knowledge of experts and practical farmers. I believe it is highly in the interest of agriculture that the Bill should be referred to the Committee on Agriculture, with power to send for persons, papers and documents. and that there should be a thorough investigation in order that the faults still in the Bill may be eliminated, or, if not, that the Bill be discontinued.


Mr. BOYCE.: I am sure that the House cannot fail to recognize the labour which
*
the hou. Minister of Agriculture has bestowed upon this Bill, in the honest and faithful endeavour to obtain by legislation pure seed for the farmers of this country. But if, as appears to be the case, the Bill, which has been through several stages in this House, has, in some of its details fallen short of the object in view, if it does not go the length of providing the remedies desired, the hon. Minister of Agriculture should hesitate before he obstructs such further investigation as would throw light upon the Bill, and enable it to become more workable. The hon. gentleman suggested, I think, in committee, that I was here to oppose the Bill. I am not opposing it. I recognize that the principle involved in the Bill is one very much to be encouraged, and I would not detract one iota from the credit due to the hon. minister for the labour which he has bestowed upon it. There are three classes affected by this legislation- the seed merchant, the farmer who purchases seed, and the farmer who grows his own seed. The farmer who grows his own seed has a different line of argument to advance with respect to the provisions of this Bill, from those of the farmer who purchases his seed. The latter Is entitled to the fullest protection. In my opinion, which entirely coincides with that of the hon. minister, it is of the utmost importance that pure seed should be guaranteed to the trade at large. As the hon. minister has said, this Bill has been before this House practically for two years. That may be so : but when it came to be considered in committee during the first few days of the present session, it was found to be so weak and to fall short in so many important respects that the hon. gentleman was forced to withdraw it and have it feprinted ; and when it came down yesterday in its reprinted form, we found it to be still imperfect. In one clause especially, it had to be amended. So the hon. minister is learning day by day that even when this Bill goes through its final stages, there will be much in it to be altered ; and if it can be altered in one respect, it can be in others. I have not heard the hon. minister say that he has received expert testimony upon the clauses referred to by the hon. member for Brantford. It is of the utmost importance that expert testimony should be had before the various clauses of the Bill can be intelligently dealt with. I therefore submit to tlie hon. Minister of Agriculture that ft would be in the interest of the purpose of this Bill, as a practical working measure, to have it put into such form that it would serve the interest of all the glasses of people sought to be benefited or protected by it. There is one clause to which I have repeatedly, I fear with tiresomeness, drawn the attention of the House and the hon. minister, that is, subsection 2 of section 8. It is from my point of view an unheard-of thing to legislate that the honest agent for

the sale of seeds, who is entitled to the immunity provided by this subsection, should, notwithstanding that the section declares him to be immune and not liable to conviction, be mulcted in the case of conviction, while the principal, when his name is disclosed by the agent as a condition precedent to his statutory innocence being established, is also prosecuted. Now, I say in all seriousness and candour that it is an unheard-of proposition, that the innocent receiver of stolen goods, not knowing them to have been stolen, should be liable to prosecution as well as the thief. If it were only to save the innocent dealer, who does not open the package, who does not know the state of the seed, and who had no reason to believe that the seed did not comply with the provisions of the Act, and discloses the name of the person from whom he purchased the seed, and the date and the place of the sale, I say the Bill should be altered. If only for the purpose of protecting from prosecution a man of that character, a man who is innocent according to the spirit of the Act, it would be well for the minister to hesitate before pressing this Bill through the House. I sincerely trust the hon. minister will give his best consideration to the motion of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), if not upon all the grounds suggested by him, upon genera] grounds, and in order that we may have a useful and workable piece of legislation which would really protect the class of people it is intended to.


Mr. ELSON.: Representing a purely agricultural constituency and being a practical farmer myself, I have taken a very deep interest indeed in the Bill introduced by my hon. friend regarding the inspection and sale of clover and other seeds, and I desire to compliment the hon. gentleman for what I believe is an honest effort on his part to bring about such legislation as will enable our farmers to obtain clean and pure seeds. I fear, however, that the provisions of this Bill will not have the desired effect, either as regards the farmers or the merchants, and certainly not that which the hon. minister himself desires. I am convinced that if it should become law, it will decrease the price of clover seeds which the farmers have to sell and increase the price to those farmers who have to buy it, and who are the only members of our community who would after all require to purchase. Let me illustrate my argument. Let us take say four farmers who have each ten bushels of clover seed to sell. The Bill provides that a farmer may sell his seed to another farmer without coming under the provisions of this measure ; but if a farmer should have to go around among his neighbours and peddle his seed, that would not be only a humiliating position for him to occupy, but he would soon find that he would not get much sale for it. I fail to see how we can very well dispense with the services of the middle man or the merchant in the sale of Mr. BOYCE.
our seeds. Then when farmer No. 1 brings his ten bushels of seed to the merchant, the merchant, with his keen eye or glass, finds that It contains noxious seeds, and he says : There is an inspection law at present and this seed will not stand inspection and grade as No. 1, consequently I can only give you a low price for it. The farmer, who has no other recourse, must take the price offered. When farmer No. 2 comes with his ten bushels, the merchant says to him : Your seed is not quite so good as that which I have just got, because it contains a quantity of oxeye daisy, mustard and other bad seeds, and consequently I can only give you a low price. The farmer, of course, must take the price offered, and his seed is dumped into the same bin with that of farmer No. 1. Then comes along farmer No. 3, and the merchant says to him : Your seed contains a certain proportion of noxious seed, and I can only give yon a low price. The farmer again cannot help himself, and sells at the price offered, and the merchant dumps No. 3 seed into the same bin with the others. Then farmer No. 4 appears on the scene, and his- ten bushels are fairly good seed. The merchant says: I cannot detect very much noxious seed in your ten bushels and I will give you a fairly good price, and he buys it and dumps that also into the same bin. So that there are forty bushels in the same bin. Then the inspector comes along, dips out a little of the seed from the bin, examines it and grades it as No. 1. When a purchaser comes to buy some clover seed, the merchant says to him : I have here a bin graded No. 1 by the government inspector, but I must charge a big price for it; but the purchaser, of course, can do nothing else but buy, and he gets his portion from the top. Another purchaser comes, and another, and so on. But at each sale the merchant has to dip deeper into the bin ; and according as the quantity in the bin decreases, the quality of the seed becomes worse. But it has all been graded as No. 1, and the last purchaser pays the same price as the first. So that the farmer who sells has to take a low price, whereas those who buy have to pay a big price, and the profit is to the merchant, who. of course, in view of the uncertainties and difficulties with which the law surrounds him, is entitled to a fairly good price in order to enable him to handle the goods at all. Any legislation which turns against the interests of the farmer should be most carefully considered. If the Minister of Agriculture could devise some means for winnowing out the noxious seeds from the good, thereby giving to the farmer the clean seed on the one hand and the noxious weed seed on the other. There could be no objection to this measure, but so far, we have no machine which will accomplish that. But if the hon. minister could succeed in obtaining such a machine and have it put upon the market, he would certainly be rendering greater service to the

farmers of the Dominion than has ever been rendered by any previous Minister of Agriculture. We have heard, it is true, within the last three or four months, that certain gentlemen on the other side of the line, who are gifted with wonderful inventive genius, have invented a separating box which has been introduced into Canada, and which they guarantee will separate the sheep from the goats when an election is on, provided, however, that the person to whose lot it may fall to operate the machine does so as intended by the inventor. But although that machine was introduced into the province of Ontario at the last general elections, it evidently was one of those machines which did not meet with the approval of the larmers, judging from the tremendous vote they gave against the late provincial government.
I feel that legislation is against the agricultural interest of this country, is legislation in the wrong direction. Why, our agricultural interest is , the greatest interest we have, it is the foundation of our prosperity; and legislation that bears against that interest is an injury to our country. We are proud of the millions of acres of fertile land belonging to the Dominion of Canada where millions of settlers may make their homes. As each settler tills his farm, the soil yields its return to his labour. His children grow up about him, and as they grow their little hands do what they can to help their parents. And as they grow to manhood and womanhood they branch out and more settlers' homes are established. And the wealth that is produced, being greater than the people can consume, it is exported, and brings back to the Dominion gold for our exchequer. And, better than gold, better than diamonds and rubies, it brings to our shores the man of intellect and energy and ambition to settle upon our lands and till them, to build up our country until it becomes the strong right arm of the British empire. Now, Mr. Speaker, through you I desire to appeal to every honourable gentleman in this House, who, likejnyself, is a practical farmer and desires that the produce of his lands shall not be lowered in value on the one hand or overcharged for on the other-through you. I appeal to these lion, gentlemen not to support the third reading of this Bill, through you I appeal also to the professional gentlemen in this House-and there are a fine lot of them here. No men are more anxious than they that our farmers shall prosper, knowing, as they do, that, if the farmers prosper, they have a better opportunity to obtain all that is right and honest from that portion of the agricultural community to whom they may be called upon to give their professional services. Once more, through you, I appeal to the business men in this House. We know that none are more anxious than the business men of the country that our farmers should
prosper. They know that when the farmers prosper the whole country prospers, that bills are more easily collected, that, in fact, the prosperity of the farmer seems to oil the machinery of business so that it moves on smoothly and effectively, as we all desire that it should. This Bill has been discussed at considerable length, yet, what I would like to see is the Minister of Agriculture, of his own accord, lay the Bill over until next session. We are told that in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom. And I am sure the wisdom would be pouring in from hundreds of thousands of farmers all over the Dominion, between now and next session; and, undoubtedly a better Bill would result.
Here is what I would suggest to the hon. minister:	Instead of going on witll this
Bill let the government offer a prize of $1,000 or $2,000 to any person who will invent a fanning mill that will entirely eliminate the noxious weed-seeds from the good seeds and that can be sold at from $30 to $50. Such a machine would be within the reach of every farmer, and its use would overcome the difficulty that is sought to be met by this Bill. Every farmer would clean his own seed at home, and no noxious weed-seed would be taken to the market at all. There would be no difficulty for the farmers, no difficulty for the merchant, no difficulty for the Minister of Agriculture;-everything would be right and prosperous without the need of such legislation as is here proposed. In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the attention they have given me during this my first speech in the House of Commons.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to congratulate the farmers of Middlesex and of the country upon the able representative whom they have sent here to speak on their behalf. After the appeal he has made to the Minister of Agriculture, it is hardly to be supposed that that hon. gentleman will persist in forcing this Bill to a third reading at the present time. But I rose more particularly to refer to another question in connection with the Bill. While I support the motion of the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) that this Bill shall be sent to a special committee, where evidence from all sources may be taken in regard to the important questions involved, the committee to which above all others, this Bill should be sent Is clearly, in my opinion, the Agricultural Committee. Years ago we had an inquiry in this House which lasted for several weeks. Its object was to help in deciding whether it would be beneficial and in the interest of that important class, the farmers of the country, that we should have an Agricultural Committee, and that all questions affecting the interests of the farmers coming before this House, and all * measures and proposals for the benefit of

the farmer, might be considered by that committee. And for what purpose? So that the committee could call before them persons who could give evidence or information, and also consider papers that would assist them in reporting to the House suggestions to be carried out in the interest of the great farming class. That committee was established. It is a large committee. I believe that every farmer in this House is a member of that committee. What could be clearer than that it is to such a committee that this Bill should be referred ? Agriculturists are more interested in the subject of this Bill than are any other class; and the farmers on the Agricultural Committee would be more likely to pay direct attention to it than would any class in this House. , For that reason, it has been the rule to send questions of this nature to that committee. But the Minister of Agriculture, for reasons best known to himself, sees fit to avoid sending this Bill to the Committee on Agriculture. When a Bill comes up that is of interest to the railways, what is done with it? For instance. a Bill comes up relating to cattle-guards. The farmers are interested in that Bill on the one hand and the railways on the other. That Bill is sent to the Railway Committee, where railway interests always seem to be dominant. The government insist on sending it to that committee. And with what result? Such Bills are nearly always killed in the Railway Committee. Or, when a Bill is introduced in regard to ditches and water-courses, giving property owners the right to drain across the railways, though the farmers are interested, the Bill goes to the Railway Committee on railways, where the railway interests are dominant. So, when a Bill is introduced in this House which affects the interests of only one class, the agriculturists of this country, why is it not sent to the Committee on Agriculture?
Tlie Minister of Agriculture refuses to allow that Bill to go there, and I say he discredits the committee that he is responsible for appointing every session of parliament. He discredits the agriculturists on that committee and says by his conduct that he is not prepared to trust them, intimating that either they are not intelligent enough to do what would be in the interests of the farmers, as otherwise he would en-tiust them with the consideration of this Bill. It was for that purpose this committee was appointed. Years ago we had Bill after Bill in which the farmers were interested, every one of winch were sent to that committee, but when the present Minister of Agriculture took charge of the department, he who professes to be so great a friend of the farmer, he will not allow these Bills to go to the Agricultural Committee where we could take evidence and present the findings of the Committee to the House. The other day the minister said, speaking of Mr. SPROULE.
this committee, that the Committee of the Whole House was much better. But no one knows better than himself the disadvantage of discussing questions of that nature before a Committee of the Whole House. What are the disadvantages ? One is that you cannot bring the farmers here and get their opinion on it, but you can bring them before the Agricultural Committee. You cannot bring the seedsmen here and ask them questions before a Committee of the Whole House, but you can do so before the Agricultural Committee. You cannot take their evidence here, but there you can take the evidence of all parties concerned. While ,vou might name a private committee that would be perhaps equally valuable with the Agricultural Committee, still I hold that the Agricultural Committee is the proper one to deal with this Bill, where it can be considered from a farmers' standpoint, and where the farmers themselves can be asked their views upon it. If, after doing this, we could manage to prepare a Bill that would accomplish the object the minister has in view, it would be desirable to do so. I am not opposing the Bill, because I believe it to be one of great importance, but I desire to see the Bill, when it is passed, made workable so that it will be a real advantage to the farmers and to the seedsmen in carrying on their operations.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I simply desire to say that I am anxious that the Bill before the House should, if passed at all, be passed in the very best possible form. I am desirous that the farmers of this country should be put in a position to secure the best and the cleanest seeds that can be obtained. While I propose to vote in favour of this amendment, I distinctly desire it to be understood that I am in no way opposed to the Bill. The effect of this amendment may be to delay its passage for a short time, but I hope it will also have the effect of further perfecting the measure and making it what I trust the Minister of Agriculture desires it should be, a good Bill, a Bill in the interests of the agriculturists of this country. While I support the amendment, I do not wish to be understood as being in any way opposed to the Bill.


Mr. INGRAM.: I desire to duplicate the v ords just spoken by my hon. friend from ITalton (Mr. Henderson).
Mr. W'M. WRIGHT. When this Bill was in committee I expressed the conviction that ir would be found unworkable if it became law. I think the penalty clause of the Bill is objectionable. It provides a penalty for selling seed as No. 1 which does not come up to the requirements of this measure. 1 want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he knows that seed is sold by the wholesale seedsmen of this Dominion as No. 1. I know from personal experience that some of the largest wholesale seedsmen in the country do not sell seeds
18S1

by number. You might buy any quantity of seeds of any kind without their being numbered at all, although of course some are of a better quality than others. I may mention that some wholesale seedsmen classify their seeds-I refer now to clover and timothy seed-by the names of certain animals. A superfine seed they would call by the name of some fur bearing animal, for instance, the ermine, and they would classify other grades by the names of other fur bearing animals. Grasses are named in the same way. 'So these dealers might sell any quantity of seeds of any kind without being liable, under this Bill, for selling seed ns No. 1. I cannot find anything in the measure by which you would be able to touch them if they sold seed under some particular name. Then there is another penalty provided if the dealers do not put a certain brand on the bag or receptacle containing seed, giving the name of the noxious weed seeds it may contain. Suppose that the wholesale seedsmen of this country agree to put a particular label or ticket on every bag of seed they sell, showing that the seed may contain' the different weed seeds mentioned in the Bill ; they might put these labels on all the seeds sold and there would be no means of determining what they were selling as No. 1, they would be within the requirements of the Act and could not be punished. So there would be no remedy for a farmer if he bought impure seed. I object to the legislation passing through this House that will not be effective. I am heartily in accord with the Minister of Agriculture in his desire to get clean seeds for the farming community, and if the Bill was likely to be effective even in a small measure in bringing this about, 1 would give it my hearty support. But there are many ways in wrhich the penalties might be evaded, and a great deal of seed could still be sold without the purchaser beiug able to get at the wholesaler if he sold unpure seed. I think it would be well to have this phase of the Bill thoroughly looked into, and I think it would be well to send the Bill before the Agricultural Committee where we could hear, not only the farmers and the wholesale seedsmen, but a so the retail dealers throughout the country. These latter are an important class, and the Bill ought to be carefully considered from their standpoint, as well as from the standpoint of other persons interested, in order that we may crystallize all the information into legislation which will be a benefit to the farmers of this great Dominion.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Elson) in speaking on this Bill. He spoke as a farmer, and I speak as a farmer myself. We are all interested in any measure that is calculated to benefit them. Like the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), I am going to vote for the amendment, not because I am opposed to the principle of the Bill, but because I think that ii its present form it is not in the interests of the farmers. I think the Bill can be greatly improved by sending it to the Committee on Agriculture where the farmers can be heard on it, as I think they should be heard on it. I am opposed to it for several reasons. In the first place, I think in its present form it would be detrimental to the farmers in selling their clover and other small seeds, because it will amount just to this, that a few dealers who will go into the business after this Bill becomes law will be mulcted one or two dollars per bushel on every bushel of clover seed they sell. I am also opposed to it because it will have the effect of driving a certain class of people cut of the trade, who are to-day doing a great deal to supply farmers with good seed, I refer to the millers. I know what they are doing in this direction, I have been in the milling business myself for the last ten years, and I know to what trouble they have put themselves in order to get pure seed for the farmers at actual cost. I just wanted to offer my objection to the Bill os it is at present and I trust that the hon. Minister of Agriculture will not be so arbitrary but that he will be a little more lenient in his views and allow this amendment to carry and possibly next session, or at some time in the future, allow the Bill to be presented in a more practical form.
Amendment (Mr. Cockshutt) negatived on division.


Haughton Lennox: That the Bill be not now read the third time, but that the order for such be discharged and that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions to amend the 10th paragraph thereof by striking out the word' * five ' where It occurs between the words ' exceeding ' and ' hundred ' in the fifteenth line of said paragraph and substituting the word ' one ' therefor, and by striking out the word ' twenty ' from the said fifteenth line.
He said: I wish to direct the attention of the House to the wording of section 10 for a moment. The 10th section provides that any person charged with the enforcement of the Act may enter upon the premises of the owner or other premises, including the premises of a railway or steamboat company and may take samples and so on. Then it goes on to provide that any person who obstructs or refuses to permit the making of any such examination or the taking of such samples of seed shall upon summary conviction be liable to a penalty not exceeding $500 and not less than $25. The other section providing for penalties is section 8. I pointed out at an earlier stage of the discussion that the penalties under section 8 might amount to as high as $25,000, and the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), upon further considering the Bill saw his

way to amending tlie section and reduced the penalty so that the maximum in each case will not exceed $25. This is a large penalty and it is for a new offence, an offence which might arise without any intentional wrong on the part of the person who is to be fined. The Bill' provides that this fine may be imposed not only upon the owner but upon any person who is in possession for the time being of the seed. It may be a railway company, a common carrier, it may be any person on whose premises the goods are temporarily deposited or housed and it may be even a person who is driving a load of grain to market. If an officer comes up and insists upon making an examination and if this person refuses or obstructs in any degree he is liable to a fine of $500 if the magistrate sees fit to inflict a fine to that extent. This is, as the hon. minister said the other day, to some extent, an experimental matter. This is a matter of educating the people up to a certain standard and it is not advisable that we should have drastic legislation at the beginning. Would it not be manifestly unfair if a railway company which was carrying this grain from place to place, refused in such case to stop its train in order to permit of the examination here spoken of being made? Yet the result would be that if a railway company refused to delay its trains in order to permit of this examination being made it could be fined $500. We must be reasonable in these matters. A gentleman who has a number of people in his employment may be about closing his premises. An officer of the government steps up at about the time they are closing and says: I demand that I shall be permitted to go through and make a thorough examination of the goods in this warehouse. If you obstruct me you are liable to a fine of $500. The merchant says : I am going to close my premises and you may come back at some more convenient season. Then, he is liable to a penalty and to a penalty of $500 if he is taken before a partisan magistrate who sees fit to go to the full statutory limit. Other cases may arise. A merchant has married a wife and as scripture hath it, ' therefore cannot come ' to wait upon the government official forthwith, and he too therefore will be fined $500 if the instrument of the government for the time being should summon him be-for a partisan magistrate-and we have had glaring examples of partisan magistrates time and again. I feel that there is a bond of sympathy between the hon. Minister of Agriculture and myself as farmers engaged in the common undertaking of expediting the business of this House, as we are both trying to do to-day, and also in bring good results to the farmers, and I would say to my hon. friend that taking it all in all, as this is to some extenf an experimental matter, it is unwise that we should put this drastic measure in force in its present form. I therefore propose to change the maximum


Haughton Lennox: fine from $500 to $100 and make the lowest penalty $5 instead of $25. It will be carrying out the principle involved in the law, it will afford reasonable means of enforcing the law, it will be a protection to the man who until the law becomes known, bona fide objects to inspection, and at the same time it will give ample power to the government officials. And, if a further argument is required I will point to the fact that this penalty of $500 stands side by side with the penalty under section 8 which has been reduced to $25. Surely this penalty under section 10 might be reduced to $100.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would say in reply to the arguments of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) in the first place, that this question was discussed in the committee and the committee decided to retain the penalty as it is. I would say again that this penalty is not a penalty under ordinary circumstances for the contravention of the law, but it is the penalty for a person who obstructs an officer in the discharge of his duty, a serious offence, an offence which must be deliberate as the officer will have to declare what his duties are and what he is there for. The penalty of $500 is the limit. I can imagine circumstances under which a person would obstruct an officer in the execution of his duty in carrying out the law where $500 would not be at all too much as a penalty for the offence. But, the penalty of $500 is not necessary. The penalty is to be $25, and it may be increased up to as high as $500. Under these circumstances I do not think the penalties as herein described are too great, and I must ask the House to reject the amendment.


Mr. BLAIN.: I understand that this Bill, if adopted, will not interfere with the sale of seed from one farmer to another. I wish to draw the minister's attention to a new form of selling seeds in Ontario by one farmer to another and perhaps I can do so by reading the following advertisement:
Seed Fair, Town Hall, Brampton, Saturday, February 25th.
Under the direction of the Peel Farmers' Institute, Professor Zavitz, Guelph Agricultural College, will be present and deliver an address on ' Selection of Seed ' in the afternoon.
All persons having seed grain, clover, grass, corn or potatoes to dispose of are invited to bring samples (two bushels). Open to everybody, but exhibitor must become a member of Farmers' Institute.
Exhibits of new varieties are specially desired, even though not for sale.
The Institute will not assume responsibility for quality of seed.
Send in your" entries as early as possible, stating variety, quantity for sale and price per bushel.
This is a splendid opportunity to sell seed. The demand will be good, as seed is scarce.
G. Downey,	T. J. Cumberland,
President.	Secretary.

The point I want to ask is whether this Bill if adopted will interfere with the farmers' institutes having seed for sale in the manner set forth in this advertisement.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not prepared to give a legal opinion hut I would say that the Bill would tend to the sale of pure seed and to the sale of seed under the circumstances mentioned.


Richard Blain: Clause 2 of section 3 of the Bill says :
The provisions contained in this section shall not apply to the sale of seed that is grown, sold and delivered by any farmer on his own premises, for seeding by the purchaser himself, unless the purchaser of the said seed obtains from the seller at the time of the sale thereof a certificate that the said seed is supplied to him subject to the provisions of this Act.
Here is a clause which states that a farmer can sell to his neghbour farmer on his own premises without being subject to the penalties under the Bill. Here are farmers who bring the seed together in large quantities at what is called a seed fair, and I do not think it would be in the interest of the farmers or of the country that a Bill should be passed that would prohibit the farmers from bringing their seed in and selling it at such a seed fair as that to which I have just referred.


Mr. LANCASTER.: In reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Simcoe <Mr. Lennox) the minister has not disputed that this is a new offence which has been created and if he does not realize it I can assure him that so far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that the penalty is very large for a new offence. What is the offence ? The offence is one that might very innocently be technically perpetrated by a man who would then be fined $500. It is not necessary under the section that the person proceeded against should he offering this seed for sale at all. Anybody who happens to have seed in his possession that some informer thinks might possibly be sold-and of course anything we have might possibly be sold without our being in the selling business-anybody, a professional man or a manufacturer or a clergyman without having anything to do with the growing of seed, who may be the custodian of seed which he holds in trust for somebody else, may be fined, for the informer does not have to prove that he is advertising it for sale or recommending people to buy it or in any way advancing the idea that he has it for sale. Under these circumstances there should be a very small amount of fine if it is only a trivial offence as is likely. The offence is not as serious as striking a man over the head yet a magistrate for such an offence as that could fine a man $1 only.


Haughton Lennox: But he is not a great government official.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, as my hon. friend
very properly interjects he is not a government official but at the same time I think these things should be looked at seriously by the Minister of Agriculture. Here is a matter that many people would not consider an offence at all and there could be no unanimity as to whether it is proper to fine ' an offender under it, yet there is no chance for a magistrate to levy a fine of less than $25. If the rules of the House would permit it, I would move an amendment to the amendment making the minimum fine $1 instead of $5. I think we should vote for the amendment to make the minimum fine at most $5 and the maximum fine $100.
Amendment (Mr. Lennox) negatived on division.


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

['The understanding was that Jhe Bill was to he reprinted so .that we would all be able to have an opportunity of seeing what the amendments were, and the intention was to draft it rather carefully so that it might meet the case.']
Hon.  H. R.@: EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply. He said: It has been usual in years gone by, to such an extent that it has become a custom of parliament, for the Minister of Railways, before the House takes into consideration the estimates relating to his department, to make a statement to the House with regard to the conditions prevailing in connection with the Intercolonial Railway during the preceding fiscal year, and also with respect to the conditions prevailing on the railway during the current fiscal year, particularly with regard to the financial aspects of these conditions.
Last year it was my duty to present a statement covering more than half a year, during which I was not connected with the administration of the Intercolonial Railway. The figures for the year ending the 30th of June last were given to the House before prorogation; so that I am in the position of having presented a statement covering a part of a year for which I was in a measure responsible, and I am now called upon to deal with Intercolonial affairs for another year which is but a little more than half spent.
That hon. members may have the facts clearly in mind, however, let me briefly state the results for the year 1903-4. The earnings amounted to $6,339,231, being $14,908 more than those of the preceding year. The expenditure was $7,239,982, being $1,043,329 more than those of 1902-3. This left a deficit of $900,751, which was considerably the largest in the history of the government railway.
I am quite aware that nothing I can say in explanation of that shortage will prevent hon. gentlemen opposite from criticising the administration of the intercolonial from the

standpoint of financial results. They will, in accordance with what are deemed to be legitimate parliamentary tactics, make the most out of the bare fact that there has been this large deficit. I would say very freely, let them do so. I propose to state the facts with the utmost frankness, and leave the matter to the honest judgment of those who are disposed to fairly take Into account the conditions which brought about that deficit. How was the increase of $1,043,329 in the expenditure made up ? Let us look at the items in detail. The increases in the operating expenses were as follows :-
Increases.
Wages, engin-emen and firemen	$118,551
Fuel	   123,202
Repairs to locomotives	 184,779
Oil, waste and tallow	 4,167
Water	T	 3,909
Repairs to passenger cars	 28,629
postal, express and baggage 21,352 freight cars and vans.. .. 188,418 Wages, conductors, baggagemen and
brakemen	 153,384
Wages, trackmen	 52,708
Ties	 1,125
Timber and lumber	 21,572
Repairs to wharfs	 9,208
Clearing ice and snow	 41,172
Wages, station masters,.. &c	 94,025
Salaries, general offices	 16,117

The difference between this sum and the smaller figure quoted arises from the fact that there were small decreases under other heads.


Mr. BARKER.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him, when he is giving some of these increases, such as those of station masters, to say whether there was an increase in the number of men employed or only an increase in wages ?


Mr. EMMERSON.: I quite appreciate the question of my hon. friend, and before I am through, I will fully explain that. I think I can the more briefly do it if I bring it in its order ; because I do not wish to weary the House, and I want to get through with these figures, which are necessarily dry and ptosy, in as concise and brief a way as I possibly can. It will be seen that the main item of increase is to be found in the bill for wages. The increases in wages last year as compared with 1903 were as follows :
Enginemen	and	firemen	$118,551Conductors	and	trainmen	
153,384Trackmen	
52,708Station masters	and operators	
94,025Mechanics	
78,304Total	$506,972
This shows a total increase in the matter of wages alone up to June 30, 1904, of $506,972. X am not disposed to apologize for that fact. It is an item to which exception Mr. EMMERSON.
can only be taken on two grounds, namely, that the government is paying more for skilled and ordinary labour than is being paid by railway corporations and private employers, or, that the Intercolonial Railway is employing more clerks and more men than are necessary to operate the railway. Neither assertion can be made in fairness. We are not paying any more than is being paid by other railways or by industrial corporations throughout Canada, and, indeed, for some classes of labour we are paying less. It is of course true, that we have been giving employment to more men than was the case formerly, but let me point out that the number of men required on a railway is directly connected with the volume of traffic, and it must be remembered that within six years the business of the Intercolonial Railway has more than doubled, and that during the past year even, there was an appreciable increase in the traffic of the Intercolonial Railway.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 12) respecting the Ottawa Electric Company.- Mr. Galliher.
Wilfrid Laurier: This Bill was approved by the Private Bills Committee, to which it was referred, and reported with some amendments. I understand that the city of Ottawa took exception to the Bill, and takes exception to it even in its amended form. It has been suggested to me that, perhaps, the interests of all parties, the promoting company and the city of Ottawa itself would be best served by referring the Bill to a special committee, so that the parties might have an opportunity of discussing it. I do not know much about the Bill, except from what I have read about it casually and from a cursory reading of the Bill itself. I understand that the Bill has merit, but also that the provisions go much further than the city of Ottawa would like. The reference to a special committee will not commit the House to anything. It is true that it is usual for the House to approve the report made by a committee. Yet, in view of the strong opposition made by the city of Ottawa, which is very much interested in the Bill, it has been suggested to me, and I make that suggestion to the House, that, instead of proceeding with the Bill, the order be discharged and the Bill be referred to a special committee to be composed of Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Haggart, Mclsaac, Monk, Galliher, Bergeron and Dugas. Or,

if there are some hon. members whom it is particularly desired to add to the committee, I would have no objection. But, I think this is a fair, representative committee that would do the subject full justice and give a satisfactory report.


George Eulas Foster: Would that committee have any special power more than any other? Would it simply hear the parties?


Wilfrid Laurier: The committee would have no power except those ordinarily possessed by a committee. The object I had in view was to have the representatives of the parties, the Ottawa Electric Company and the city of Ottawa, come together and present their views, so that the House might have a report upon which it could reach a satisfactory conclusion.


William Findlay Maclean: I have no great objection to the committee as named, but 1 would like to see on it some one who represents the views of the cities in regard to these questions. I do not quite say they are entitled to representation. We have heard a great deal about vested rights. Now, the city of Ottawa has vested rights, as other cities have. The cities of this country have a vital interest in the maintenance of their rights as against the aggressions of corporations that receive franchises. I cannot object to the proposition of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), for it is evidently the beginning of a new day that will be welcomed by those who are trying to defend municipal rights as against the inroads being made not only in this legislature but in every other legislature. I say it is an indication that things are changing. And I congratulate the right hon. gentleman upon the fact that at last he thinks it worth while to call a halt in a Bill of this kind and send it to a special committee foi- consideration. If that is his wish, I cannot object. But I tell him now that the principle involved in this Bill is important, and the raid on the rights of municipalities so direct, that, no matter what the committee may say, unless they deal with the vital point and strike out the clause which enables the company to violate a solemn agreement with the municipality, the Bill will not be satisfactory to the organization of cities of this country. Still, as this is an indication of change of heart on the part of the Prime Minister, and of a determination to try to do better, I cannot but accept It. I would advise the city of Ottawa to be heard before this committee. And I trust that the cities all over the country will be heard, as the question is one of supreme importance.


George Eulas Foster: I believe it has been stated by some in the city of Toronto who favour the municipality's contention, that 60
they had no opportunity of appearing and making their statement with reference to the Bill. While the city members are here and represent the city in that respect as in others, yet, if a special committee is appointed, as my right hon. friend suggests, due notice can be given and the representatives of the municipalities can be heard. I quite see that the vital point in the Bill is as to the powers of muncipalities, that they shall not be overridden by corporations. I would sugest to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that he might well add two members to that committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) that I feel very much gratified that for once, at all events, I have been able to satisfy him. I accept his compliment ; when he is reasonable he will always find me reasonable. When he makes a proposition of this kind that has merit, I have no objection to it. Both he and iny hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) suggest the addition of names to the committee. I do not think I could do better than add to the committee a gentleman who has taken a deep interest in municipal matters, my hon. friend from St. Antoine Montreal (Mr. Ames), and also Mr. Zimmerman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why not put on one of the members from Ottawa?


Mr. BELCOURT.: Both of the members for Ottawa will consider it their duty to appear before the committee.


William Findlay Maclean: Could not the Prime Minister add to the committee Mr. Macdonnell, of South Toronto ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, We have nine members, and I think that is about as many as we ought to have for such a committee. I think it is a fair and representative committee. I know that the city of Toronto wants to be heard, and, no doubt, they will be represented by counsel and, probably, also by the mayor. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
Wilfrid Laurier: That the order be discharged, and that the Bill be referred to a committee composed of Messrs. Fitzpatrick, Haggart, Mclsaae, Monk, Galliher, Bergeron, Dugas, Ames and Zimmerman.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 28) to incorporate the Northwest Telephone Company.
Mr. TURRIFF.: As this Bill has been sent to be reprinted, I move that the com-

rciitee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


George Eulas Foster: For what reason ?


William Findlay Maclean: The understanding was that Jhe Bill was to he reprinted so .that we would all be able to have an opportunity of seeing what the amendments were, and the intention was to draft it rather carefully so that it might meet the case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 82) to incorporate the Dominion Annuity Company-Mr. Bole.
Bill (No. 83) respecting the Alberta Rail-\\ ay and Irrigation Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Huron and Erie Loan and Savings Company.-Mr. Cal-\ ert.
Bill (No. 85) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr. Harty.

['There is a Bill stand ing in the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries which I think it was understood would come up to-morrow. If that does not come up or if it is not ready we will go into supply and the Minister of Railways Will continue with his estimates.']
Hon.   H.@: Ii. EMMERSON. When the House separated for dinner recess, I was rointiug out the fact that in this country tc-day there were conditions prevailing which necessitated the payment of larger sums to wage earners. Every one familiar with the progress of events in Canada knows that during the past seven or eight years we have been passing through a period of unparalleled prosperity. The demand for labour has been such that the scale of wages has steadily risen year by year. Every employer has had to grant large increases, and the Intercolonial has not been able, even though an effort had been made in that direction, to escape from these conditions. I lay it down as a principle that the government of Canada, under similar conditions, cannot be expected to pay a lower scale of wages than is established by the rates current on the corporation railways and in private workshops. It will be said however, that ordinary railway corporations and private employers have been able to meet these new conditions in the labour market without loss. That may be so. Such an argument does not meet the case of the Intercolonial. Ordinary railways and ordinary employers are able to make adjustments which the Intercolonial cannot at present make ; they can raise their rates or charge more for the products of their factories and workshops. The Intercolonial has fixed rates. There may come a time when it may be necessary to depart from this policy, but that is not likely to come until parliament has equipped the Intercolonial as it should be equipped, and it is then still found impossible by a large sum to make ends meet. Nor can it be said that Mr. TURRIFF.
the Intercolonial gives employment to more men than are necessary for its proper operation.
Now let us look as this matter of deficits fairly and candidly. As has been often said, and* as I endeavoured to make clear last \ear, the Intercolonial was never built to pay. Its location and its purpose make tiiis impossible, even though it were desirable. What are the facts ? If the administration of the Intercolonial be criticised along the line of relative party responsibility, during the eighteen years of the ' Conservative regime, the deficits aggregated $3,730,733, or an average of $203,901 per annum. From 1S97 to 1904 the total net shortage has been $1,65S,856, or an everage of $156,381 per year, nearly $50,000 per annum less than the average during the eighteen year period I have referred to. In face of facts such as these it appears to me that we ought to -be in a position calmly to look at this matter without recrimination or the introduction of a jiartisah spirit. All said and done, the management of the Intercolonial should be judged on its merits, apart from partisan' considerations. It is a national railway, constructed for a special purpose, and operated under conditions which make it unreasonable to judge of the results by a comparison with those achieved by railway corporations.
Heaving that view aside for the moment, let liie point out that an important consideration in the management of a large railway Is the expenditure on maintenance of way. The Intercolonial Railway has probably the best roadbed in Canada, and it is good policy and true economy to maintain it in such condition. Last year the cost of maintenance, as compared with the previous year, was : For 1904, $1,491,673 ; for 1903, $1,386,350, an increase for 1904 over 1903 of $105,323 in the matter of maintenance of way charges alone. The clearing of ice and snow cost $130,652, or an increase of $44,172 as compared with the previous year. This was efitirely an unavoidable result. The cost of ties put in, of which 5,000 more were laid down than in 1903, was $194,458. There was an increased cost of $1,125. Take another item of the fixed expense, the cost in connection with our stations. A comparison shows a decrease for the year of $5,298 for fuel, oil, light and so forth, indicating economical management, while there is an increase of $94,025 in the salaries and wages paid. This was unavoidable in fairness to our staff. As showing the expansion of the Intercolonial Railway, I may say that in 1890 it cost $303,796 for salaries and wages in connection with our stations as compared with $738,964.
It is. however, in the mechanical operation of a railway that serious leakages may occur, and experts are disposed to analyse the expenditure under this head with some care. The cost of the mechanical de-

partment last year was $2,796,909, showing a net increase of $672,100 over the preceding year. This increase was made tip as follows :-
Enginemen's wages	$118,551	00Mechanic's wages	
78,304	67Fuel	
123,201	93Rolling stock replaced	
312,872	59Material	
39,170	77Total	$672,100 96
The number of men employed-and here I trust to have an opportunity of answering a question put to me by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker)-in the mechanical department, which includes enginemen ar.d trainmen as well as mechanics, was increased during the year from 858 to 957, thus accounting for a part of the added cost. The betterment of wages represents a greater proportion of the increase, however, and I shall be prepared at any time to give details in respect of the wages paid to the mechanics and to the other employees on the Intercolonial Railway. In this connection, I might call the attention of the House to a comparison of the number of men employed. The statements which I have before me refer particularly to the conductors, baggagemen, brakemen and trackmen. As to the conductors, the statement Is as follows :-
Year.	No. of Conductors.	Maximum Wage per day.	Minimum Wage per day7.
		$ ets.	$ cts.
1896, 30th June....	134	2 50	1 901903, 30th June.. . .	219!	2 75	2 001904. 30th June....	221	3 25	2 50
Railway. As to brakemen, the figures are as follows :-
Year.	No. of Brakemen	Maximum Wage per day.	Minimum Wage per day.
		$ cts.	8 cts.
1896, 30th June....	301	1 00	1 251903, 30th J une....	507	1 75	1 301004, 30th June....	517	2 15	1 50
(Showing, as respects the brakemen on the Intercolonial Railway, a very material and very substantial increase in the rate of wages paid to them. I would mention this fact, and I think it but fair to say, that in the statement as to the baggagemen employed in the year 1896, five of the twenty-two we then had were paid $50 per month. The result is summed up in this table :
Total wages of conductors, trainmen, baggagemen and brakemen taken from statement in car expenses for the year :
1895-6	$255,412	681902-	3	
497,753	651903-	4	
651,137	08
While it does not properly come in at this moment yet it may be opportune to now refer to the trackmen's wages. The trackmen regularly employed in the month of June 1896 and 1904 numbered :
1896	
1904	 851
The average monthly number of regular trackmen employed during the years was :
1896	 ,	643
1903	S68
1904		
The wages paid to the foremen and trackmen were :
As between 1903 and 1904 there was a difference as between the minimum wage paid of fifty cents ; that is to say, that in 1904 the minimum wage paid was fifty cents higher to conductors than it was to 30th June, 1903. Now, as to baggagemen, the results are as follows :-
Year.
1896, 30th Jure.
1903,	30th June
1904,	30th June.
No. of Baggagemen	Maximum Wage per day.	Minimum Wage per day.
	$ cts.	$ cts.
22	1 00	1 3041	1 85	1 3082	2 35	1 00
Showing increases ranging from twenty-five to fifty cents in the rate of wages paid this class of employees on the Intercolonial 00}
x- ui eiiieu,



[Stage Direction]
1896	
$1 60	$1 151903	
1 75 to 2 00	.	1 301994	1 85 to 2 25	1 30 to 1 40 & 1 50
The difference between the maximum wage paid to foremen and trackmen both in 1903 and in 1904 is accounted for by the location of the men. The men employed at terminals and large divisional points, and in the large yards In the centres of population, are paid a higher schedule of wage than are those who are employed in rural sections and along the line generally, that being under an arrangement entered into with the_ organization of trackmen based upon the idea that the cost of living at these larger communities is greater than in the rural communities. The wages of other important classes of employees have been increased in even a larger proportion, as I shall show in the committee stage.
The increase of $123,201 in the fuel bill is accounted for by the consumption of 33,213 more tons' of coal, owing to the increased
[Stage Direction]
equipment and also to the severity of the weather last year and also, in part, to the higher price, by about 25 cents per ton, paid for coal during the fiscal year 1903-4 as compared with the fiscal year 1902-3.
The charges against repairs to engines, which were increased by $184,000, were incurred in an effort to improve the efficiency of the motive power. Eight new locomotives were purchased at a cost of $149,350 to replace an equal number which were worn out or which had become obsolete, as against three thus treated in 1903. Four new locomotive tenders and three new boilers were also built and charged against this account. The increased charges against car expenses amounted to $231,000 and are to a certain extent explained by the payment of higher rates of wages and the higher cost of material. The particular reason, however, lies in the desire of the management to maintain the efficiency of the rolling stock. During the year, 402 new freight cars and one new second-class passenger car were purchased at a cost of $357,000. charged against maintenance account. This shows an increase of 100 new freight ears purchased out of revenue as compared with the number purchased in 1903, the difference in cost being $100,314. Three express and baggage cars were also purchased to replace similar cars, which accounts for the increase of $21,351 under that head.
John Graham Haggart: You are talking of revenue account altogether ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Altogether of revenue account; I am not referring to the capital features at all, and while I have been definite in the statements I could not venture to impose upon the House any more wearying details but I could go into further figures showing accurately the increase in the operating expenses of the Intercolonial Railway for the year 1904 as compared with the preceding year. I shall speak of it now in a general way and perhaps hon. members can elaborate for themselves, and can well understand why it is that with certain objects in view the management, in carrying out these objects or attempting to carry them out, necessarily incurred very much larger expenditures during 1903-4 as compared with the preceding fiscal year. These efforts and these expenditures were put forth and incurred in an effort to give a modern service to the public.
The causes for larger expenditures may generally be summed up under the following heads : 1st, increased traffic ; 2nd, better service for the travelling public, involving more trains, faster schedules, and more comfortable travelling ; 3rd, more luxurious and more expensive passenger cars ; 4th, increased number of cars and improved service for freight traffic. I might mention in this connection that for the year 1903-4 we had on the Intercolonial what was known as the fast freight, a train specially design-Mr. EMMERSON.
ed to serve the business interests of Ontario and Quebec-an expense which in the preceding years was not incurred. This train was put on for the purpose of furthering the interests of Canadian imports and exports through Canadian shipping ports, and in order to meet the wishes of the business men of Toronto, Montreal and ether manufacturing centres. That train ran on practically express time from Halifax to Montreal, and connected at Truro with Sydney, and at Moncton with St. John. So that I can very well emphasize the statement that one of the features of the increase in the working expenses of the Intercolonial for 1903-4 was the improved service for freight traffic. The fifth head would very naturally be heavier and consequently more expensive engines. The sixth is increased cost of materials. That is recognized not only in the east but in the west. Lumber and all other materials necessary in connection with repairs and construction work have all increased. Here I want to make one statement which may be contrary to the ideas that prevail throughout Canada to a large extent, but of which I defy successful contradiction, that every kind and description of material required in the operation of the Intercolonial, and in the repair of its rolling stock, its station buildings, its roadbed and its right of way, is purchased at a less price, certainly at no higher price, than is paid for similar materials by other great railway corporations in Canada. I know that to be a fact by comparison. The last and by no means the least cause of increased expense is the higher rates of wages to enable us to command efficient service. Constantly increasing expenditures under these heads are absolutely necessary if we are to keep pace with' the advances of other railways in Canada. We have either to bear the cost of improvements or refuse to meet the requirements of the public. When I say the requirements of the public, I mean the requirements of the people of all Canada ; because all the people of Canada are interested in the Intercolonial Railway. Despite anything you may say, there is not a province that is not deeply interested in the success of the Intercolonial-in its efficient and proper management. Another item to which I have not referred, for which I have not the exact figures, and certainly a not unimportant item, is the cost to which the railway is put by unusually expensive repairs. Accidents occur on that road as they do on all other railways, and unfortunately, during the last year as well as during the current year, there have been some accidents that have involved very heavy expenditures in the way of repairs and in the payment of damages resulting from the destruction of freight.


John Graham Haggart: Were they paid before the 1st of July last ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes. Those to which I refer were paid before the 1st of July 1901; but unfortunately, we have also had during the current year some expenditures in that direction which have gone to swell our total increased expenditure. Now, I have endeavoured as briefly as I possibly could to deal with the financial conditions of the railway during the fiscal year 1903-4.
I shall deal now with the six months periods between the 1st of July, 1904, and the 1st of January, 1905 ; and it would naturally be expected that I should give a statement of the results of the operations for the current year, and at the same time forecast the net result on the 30th of June next. If that forecast is not a rosy one, if it is not bright bued, it is through no fault, as I contend, of the management of the Intercolonial or of the head of the department.


Mr. ICEMP.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question before he leaves the 1903-4 statement ? He has told us the amount of the extra expenditure owing to the increased price of materials and the advance in wages. I did not hear him say what extra traffic or revenue that brought.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will deal with that in committee. As I stated to the House at the outset, I did not wish to impose upon the House too many wearying details and figures, and I have reserved for consideration in committee some of the minutiae of the expenditure and of the results of the year's operations. I will endeavour to satisfy my hon. friend as to that. There was an increase in the revenue in 1903-4 over that of the year 1902-3. The increase was not so very large, and I do not feel called upon to go into the details of it; but the increase in the working expenses of the road have been so very great that I felt it was due to the House and the country that I should explain the various causes which led to it. I think I can fairly claim that for the six months from the 1st of July to the 1st of January last, the operations of the road were carried -on with care and with due regard to economy, but there were conditions during that period which naturally produced results that are not pleasant to contemplate. For the six months ending 31st December last, the earnings were $3,621,263, and the cost of operation $4,103,402, leaving a deficit for that period of $482,139. As compared with the same period last year, 'the revenue shows an increase of $226,629 and the operating expenses an increase of $412,572. In this period considerable increases of salary and wages took place. These increases applied chiefly to the mechanics in the shops and the clerks.


John Graham Haggart: Did the hon. gentleman say that the operating expenses for the six months ending January last, as compared with the six months of the preceding year, show an increase of $412,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: To be exact, $412,572. For several years the clerks who, as a class, were receiving low compensation, had been pressing for general increases. I did not think that the financial conditions on the Intercolonial Railvvay warranted action of that character, but in December last, I went carefully over the salary list and made a i e-adjustment. I informed deputations who * waited upon me in February and March of last year that the matter would require considerable study and that whatever advance I was able to allow would date from the 1st July, last. This was in order to be perfectly fair with the clerks and not make them suffer from any unavoidable delays which might occur. Let me say right here that no large railway in Canada is carried on with a smaller cost for management and clerical help than the Intercolonial Railway. I have had occasion to make comparisons between the salaries on the Intercolonial Railway and those paid by railway corporations, and the figures do not in any way demonstrate that we are paying the Intercolonial Railway staff proportionately as high as those railway corporations pay theirs. Looking ahead, I am unable to predict anything else than a large deficit tor the current fiscal year. The conditions which have prevailed for months past, and which practically are prevailing now, point to that unfortunate result. We have had a winter of unprecedented severity in the maritime provinces. The snow fall has been phenomenal and the weather conditions such that the Intercolonial Railway and all other railways have been practically paralysed. For days together all traffic has been stopped, storms have followed each other at short intervals, and all this has meant the burning of the candle at both ends. On the one hand we have an extra cost of operation and on the other a decrease in our revenue. The delay to trains on the Intercolonial Railway during the past twro months have been startling, but it has been entirely unavoidable. Crewrs are started out, they get to a certain point and are there stalled up by reason of storms. They cannot make their crossings regularly, and crews that should go a run in eight hours are obliged to devote perhaps twenty-four or thirty-six hours to making it-all at the cost of the railway, not at the cost of the men. Every one in this House is so familiar with the conditions that govern, that it is not necessary for me to go into details. The severity of the winter and the extraordinary snow falls will necessitate very large expenditure in connection writh the spring work. Hundreds, even thousands, of men have had to be employed all the way from Sydney to Montreal and St. John to Halifax, and on all the branch lines, in shovelling snow. On account of the depth of the

1900'
snow, the snow ploughs have been practically useless, and every train had to be accompanied by an army of men to clear Hie road. But unfortunately we have not been able to succeed in keeping our trains moving from one end of the line to the other. Halifax has been closed for days at a time from the outside world, so far as railway communication is concerned. The l;ne from Truro to 'Sydney was blocked for a long period. The mails could not be carried, passengers were stalled at all points, so that practically traffic has been paralyzed. It we had more locomotives, we would certainly be in a position to overcome in some degree the shortage of cars, but coupled with ail these other drawbacks there has been a shortage of motive power. When I say a shortage of motive power. I want to make this statement-and I make it unhesitatingly-that the Intercolonial Railway on December 1, 1904, instead of having the number of engines it ought to have, was short of the requisite quantity by fifty. At least fifty additional locomotives are required. Further, I am told by those who ought to know, that there should be seventy-live additional locomotives for the purpose of attending properly to the traffic and the freight.
I do not attach blame to any one on that account. There has been an increase of traffic; but there has not been always money at the disposal of the department to purchase additional engines. During the present winter it has occurred that, for days and days, there would be from 1,200 to 1,500 loaded freight cars on the Intercolonial Railway which could not be moved, because of the want of motive power. If we had more engines we could overcome, in a measure, the shortage of cars on the road. We only have about 12,000 freight cars altogether, and there certainly should be more, considering the length of haul as compared with other lines. Take the Intercolonial Railway between Montreal and Halifax, as compared with the Canadian Pacific Railway between those points. We have not twice the mileage, but we have a much greater mileage than the Canadian Pacific Railway in placing our ears at the point of destination. The Canadian Pacific Railway, by reason of its shorter haul, can get its freight cars to destination in comparatively quick time and return them for use, or have them in use along the line. Weather conditions this winter have intensified our difficulties in that respect, making it impossible to meet the requirements of the traffic. There has been a universal cry, from Montreal to Sydney, for additional cars to accommodate the ordinary business of the country. I was at Moncton on one occasion, I think in the latter part of December, when one great flour company in Montreal made a call for 100 freight cars-wanted them immediately. Yet the conditions of the Intercolonial Railway only enabled us to furnish at the


Henry Robert Emmerson: time twenty cars, or one-fifth of the numbei-tliese shippers needed for immediate use. Thus it will be seen that there have been many drawbacks in the operation of the Intercolonial Railway within the past few months, and that the road has been handicapped in these things.
Now the financial results on the Intercolonial Railway have been unsatisfactory during the past two years-certainly very unsatisfactory. iBut that has not been' caused by mismanagement or lack of foresight. No blame can be attached to the administration. As I said, the drawbacks have been due to conditions beyond the control either of the minister or the officers of the railway. What we need is better and more complete equipment. I feel that the time has come when lion, members on both sides should realize this and, in a fair and generous spirit, provide sufficient equipment to enable the road to operate without being handicapped by the disadvantages under which it works at present. There has been an expansion of traffic on the road during the past six months, as compared with a like period during the preceding year, an expansion which only heightened our difficulties because of the want of motive power and of cars. The want of motive power increases the difficulty arising from the lack of cars. There has been, a general increase of the traffic, and a steady increase, during the last few years, as shown by the additions to the revenue. We have had a better service, not merely passenger, but freight service. Quicker time has been made in the transportation both of freight and of passengers, and there lias been greater regularity in delivering traffie at its point of destinataion. We are gradually improving our passenger service ; and I am sure that the inauguration last year of the new train known as the 'Ocean Limited* will be recognized by all who have knowledge of that service as a distinct improvement in the accommodation for passengers on the Intercolonial Railway. From about the beginning of July until the middle of November we were operating two through passenger trains between Montreal and Halifax, and between Montreal and the maritime seaports. These trains |were very handsomely patronized. The ' Ocean Limited ' was an experiment. It was an additional fast service, a limited express, with only a stated number of stops. Passengers who boarded that train at Montreal, with a view to reaching Halifax or St. John, knew to a certainty almost that they would be there on time. The running time was shortened very considerably. And, when that train is again placed upon the route, as I hope it will be during the coming summer, I believe the time will be further shortened at least one hour between Halifax and Montreal.


John Graham Haggart: What was the actual difference in time between it and the Gana-

dian Pacific Railway between the same points ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think we made about the same time.


John Graham Haggart: What was the difference in the time of. starting ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: About fifteen minutes or half an hour. We served a section of country that the Canadian Pacific Railway did not serve. We got a tourist business which they could not possibly get. We catered to the watering places on the lower St. Lawrence and at the head of the Baie des Chaleurs and all along the north points, of New Brunswick, while the Canadian Pacific Railway did not reach these points. We catered also to the Cape Breton tourist traffic. Now, we have had, and we have on the Intercolonial line, especially during the last eight months, more luxurious passenger cars. I am sure this must be self evident to the travelling public. Our cars to-day cost very much more than they did, not that they cost more than they should, but the character of the cars is such that they cost more than we were paying for cars some years ago but the different classes of cars are the same. We carry more passengers on those cars ; so that there is not merely increased freight but more passengers carried to-day. There is increased safety as well, because the style of cars and the way they are constructed make them much more safe to the travelling public than the cars which in times past were furnished for the use of passengers on the Intercolonial. I have adverted to the fact that we have a better freight service, and we have added to the freight service. I have also adverted to the fact that we have an increased number of trains, meeting the requirements of the public on all sections of the road. All this goes to prove that we are advancing the interests of the whole country in thus furnishing to the people of Canada a better passenger service and a more regular and frequent service, because the people of today require that. A few years ago it was not necessary; one train a day was then sufficient, the people did not look for more. Today they are expecting more, nay, they are demanding more; and it is for the Intercolonial to furnish a service that will meet the requirements of the country through which it passes, that will meet the requirements of the people of all Canada, because all Canadians patronize that railway. Now that we have heavier engines, of course they haul heavier loads. These locomotives cost more. We have, as I have explained, replaced a number of old locomotives with new ones out of current revenue account. Those that were replaced cost a great deal less than did those which were previously in use. Now I think I have given to the House a clear, certainly a full, statement of the financial conditions of the Intercolonial,
not only during the fiscal year 1903-4 but for the six months between the 1st of July and the last of December, 1904.


John Graham Haggart: On the fiscal point, before the minister leaves it, would he be kind enough to tell me what the expenditure on capital account was for 1903-4 and for the six months that he mentions up to December ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Before coming to that I want to answer a question that was put to me by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) as to mileage. I have pointed out the increased cost of coal, giving the reasons therefor, showing that the heavier traffic involved an increased consumption of fuel and of oil and waste. I do not know that 1 have explained with respect to the six months, and perhaps I should do it now. The increased charges in the motive power department for the six months of 1904 from July to December, compared with the corresponding six months of the previous year, and amounting to $261,000, are principally accounted for by the larger amount of traffic handled. This increased traffic is indicated by a much greater locomotive and car mileage, amounting to from 12 to 14 per cent ; a greater amount charged against wages of engine crew, $70,400 during the six months as compared with the like six months of the preceding year. That is due, one-half to the increased engine mileage, and one-half to the higher rates of wages. The heavier traffic involved an increased consumption of fuel to the value of $125,000, and of oil, waste and so forth, to the value of $4,800, thus accounting for the increased expenditure during six months between July 1st *and December 31st last as compared with the like period between July 1st, 1903, to January 1st, 1904. There is an increase in the cost of repairs of locomotives for the six months amounting to $51,500. This is partly accounted for by the increased engine mileage, it being 4,690,000 for the six months of 1904 as against 4,050,000 for a like period in 1903. The remainder of the increase was made necessary by the higher rates of wages generally prevailing ail over the country which we felt constrained to accord to our men from the 1st July, 1904, and aggregating about $100,000 per year for the whole mechanical department. That accounts for $50,000 at least of this increase of upwards of $400,000.
Now these figures I have just given account for a total of about $252,000 out of the $261,000 of extra cost, that is the $261,000 in connection with the motive power department. The increased cost in the car department, amounting to $29,000 is properly accounted for by the increased rate of wages and the increased car mileage. The car mileage increased from 40,000.000 in the six months of 1903 to 45,500,000 in 1904. Summed up, the six months from July to December, 1904, we have the larger

traffic, the engine mileage increased from
4.047.000	in the six months of 1903 to 4,-
690,000	in the like period of 1904. About
200.000	miles of the increase of 600,000 was due to the ' Ocean Limited ' express. I may say that the ' Ocean Limited ' express held its own, and there was no loss particularly on that train as compared with other trains in the service. The cost of engine crews and fuel was largely increased during the period. We paid higher wages to the shopmen in order to meet the market rates but we did not pay our shopmen appreciably higher wages than those paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am making comparisons between the wages paid at Moncton by the Intercolonial and the wages paid at Mc-Adam, the headquarters of the mechanical department of the Atlantic division of the Canadian Pacific Railway. These increased rates could not consistently be denied however much they have affected the balance sheet. It was due to the men. It was only in accordance with the conditions prevailing in the country in connection with other railways and in connection with manufacturing and' industrial establishments throughout Canada. Taking it all in all I think it can be said that the cost of the Intercolonial Railway in respect to its mechanical department, its operating and track departments and in maintenance of way and operation of its trains, is not extravagant as compared with the cost of like services on other roads.


Andrew B. Ingram: What number of engines were not in proper state of repair on the 30th June last, and on the 30th of January of this year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have not that statement here. I will furnish the information at a later stage when the estimates are under discussion. I was asked by some hon. members for the increase in the capital expenditure.


John Graham Haggart: I was asking what the capital expenditure was for the last year and the last six months. The hon. gentleman quotes the ordinary revenue and expenditure.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought I had the capital account with me but I shall furnish my hon. friend with it. I am not dealing with the capital expenditures. I have not seemingly brought the papers to the House I could give the working expenses.


John Graham Haggart: There is an item in the minster's report which gives the expenditure as $1,880,856. I suppose that is expenditure on capital account ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: But, there is nothing about the six months. I would like to know that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman at the head of the Railways and Canals Department (Mr. Emmer-son) in treating of the Intercolonial Railway, has at least given us a candid statement of the position of that road. Where is the glowing future that was promised us three or four years ago after the acquisition of the Drummond County Railway,

190$
after the bargain for the entrance into the port of Montreal by an expenditure of $140,000 ? Life was to be put into the old road and the expenditure was to be justified in the future. The minister at that time compared the position of the road to that of a business concern moving from a back street into a front street; there might be a large expenditure but he promised it would be fully recouped to the country. The hon. gentleman has given a candid statement in reference to the condition of that road. We have expended on the Intercolonial Railway, on capital account alone, $72,000,000. Besides that, if I remember rightly, that does not include last year's acquisition of that road in New Brunswick, that great addition to the Intercolonial Railway for the purchase of which we expended $1,250,000, and perhaps an amount nearly as large for the purpose of making it a road fit to travel on.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would say to my hon. friend that only $800,000 was paid for that road.


John Graham Haggart: If I remember rightly the minister was to pay nearly $900,000 in cash and there was an amount required for equipment which made it $1,250,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) is certainly forgetful of the facts ; the amount was simply $800,000 in cold cash and that is all there was.


John Graham Haggart: There is no expenditure besides that on the road.?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nothing.


John Graham Haggart: $800,000 in cold cash for the purpose of acquiring that road on which the total revenue was in the neighbourhood of $37,000. I think that perhaps I am doubling the amount and it was not able to pay the expenses during the year.
There was also an expenditure on account of the Drummond County Railway of $1,400,000. The minister promised, when he acquired the road in New Brunswick, that a separate account of it would be kept so that we would know what the acquisition had cost the country, but we have not that statement-the hon. minister has evidently forgotten his promise altogether-and it is very difficult to separate the accounts from those of the Intercolonial. The hon. gentleman makes a comparison between the railways and the canals. He says that the expenditure on the canals amounts to $87,000,000, which counterbalances the expenditures on the Intercolonial. Unfortunately, it does not do anything of the kind. Let us look at the expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway for the last few years. The hon. gentleman states that the deficit for 1903-4 is in the neighbourhood of $900,000; but looking at the statement of the actual receipts and expenditures given in his report, I find that the actual deficit is $871,398. The expenditures on capital account on the Intercolonial Mr. HAGGART.
Railway for the last few years have been as follows : In 1896, $259,000; in 1897, $145,OOo; in 1898, $252,000; in 1S99, $1,081,000; in 1900, $1,796,000; in 1901, $3,633,000; in 1902, $4,621,000, and in 1903, $2,254,000. Now, let us look at the receipts. In 1898 there was a surplus of $70,000, in 1809, a surplus of $210,000, in 1900 a deficit of $150,000, in 1901 a deficit of $525,000, in 1902 a surplus of $57000, in 1903 a surplus of $110,000 and in 1904 a deficit of $871,398. The hon. gentlemau says that for the last six months the deficit will he in the neighbourhood of $482,000. The hon. gentleman stated last year, when he was addressing the House, that the deficit on eleven months of the year was $585,000; but the result at the end of the year is a deficit of $871,398.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said at the same time that there would be a very much larger deficit.


John Graham Haggart: Here is what the hon. gentleman said:
In 1903 the receipts for eleven months were $5,790,876 ; expenses, $5,720,550. This shows a: profit for the eleven months ending May 31, 1903, of $70,317.63, as against a loss during eleven months of 1904 of $585,382.39. It also shows that the receipts for the eleven months ending May 31, 1904, were $5,621 in excess of the same period in the previous year.
Applying the same system of calculation this year the deficit will be in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000. However, the fact remains that for the last four years we have been expending on capital account on the Intercolonial Railway an average of over $3,000,000 a year, and we have a larger deficit besides. Now, when is this going to end? The hon. gentleman says that we cannot help it-that the only prospect in the near future is that when the Intercolonial has the proper equipment there will be an increased revenue. He says that the reason for the deficits is that from Montreal to Halifax the Intercolonial runs along the St. Lawrence river and along the sea coast. The modem idea is that a canal along the line of a railway assists the railway instead of being an injury to it financially. Probably the most prosperous railways we have in Canada run along the St. Lawrence river. Is this thing to go on for ever? Are we always to have a capital expenditure of over $3,000,000 a year and a deficit of over $1,000,000 upon the Intercolonial Railway-a road which was managed by myself with entirely different results. We have also the extraordinary statement of the hon. gentleman that this road could not carry the freight which offered last year for lack of freight cars and locomotives, and that to equip the road fully we require seveuy-five more locomotives. Yet it was only about a year and a half ago that there was such a plethora of locomotives that the Intercolonial Railway was able to lease 36 to the Canadian Pacific Railway. What amount of

increased freight has there been during the last year ? Looking at the figures I find that there has been a very small increase. The hon. gentleman says that the increased expenditure is occasioned partly by the increased cost of mechanical repairs-that he has to pay more for engineers and workmen than formerly. This is a pretty state of affairs.
The hon. gentleman and his predecessor have been furnished to any extent with new locomotives and freight cars, and yet expenses for repairs are greater now than ever they were in the past. He states too that one of the reasons for the large expenditure is that you have to pay the men modern wages. Well, we heard the same thing last year. He then accounted for the deficit by saying he had to pay men up to the standard paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway and other railways. Have we got an increased standard now? Has the standard increased since last year to such an extent that he is enabled to account for the deficit between this year and last by the increased expenditure on this head. But the generosity of the hon. minister is easily accounted for. He says that in December- perhaps it was in November-occurrences happened which caused him to make an arrangement that I think is without precedent in any railway management or corporation in this or any other country-an arrangement under which he only provided for an increase of wages in the future, but for an increase during the six months past. That is a generosity which no doubt should commend itself to the Canadian people ? The particular time in which these occurrences happened is rather significant. True, the hon. minister said it was the beginning of December, but I am strongly inclined to believe that though the Order in Council may have been passed at that particular time, the understanding, from one end of the road to the other, was that the men were to receive six months increase of pay on account of the severity of the fall or the piobable severity of the winter which was to follow.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was a mere coincidence.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman must not take this in a joking manner. There are two or three things to be considered in this connection. Can a government conduct a railway as economically as a company can ? My experience on the Intercolonial Railway shows me that the government could, as the minister says he can, purchase anything for the use of that railway as cheaply as any railway company. 1 believe he can do it cheaper for the merchants prefer to deal with the government; and I believe he can get men for cheaper wages than any other corporation in Canada can.
Mr.	EMMERSON.	Do	yon	think we
should ?


John Graham Haggart: I think that you do it. I think you get them as cheap as any other railway in Canada does.
Mr.	EMMERSON.	You	said	we could
get them cheaper.


John Graham Haggart: Yes.
Mr.	EMMERSON.	Do	you	think we
should ?


John Graham Haggart: The wages in the maritime provinces are cheaper than in the west, and we are paying higher wages on the Intercolonial Railway to our employees than the Canadian Pacific Railway pay their employees in a similar portion of the country.
The hon. gentleman tell us of the advantages he offers the people of the east-that he has put on a fast freight train for the purpose of accommodating the people of Ontario and Quebec. But the hon. gentleman should show some facts or results to warrant the enormous expenditures lie lias-made. Can he tell me that the through freight has increased at all during the last eighteen or twenty years ? I tell him that the through freight over the Intercolonial Railway, notwithstanding its extension to Montreal, notwithstanding its right to pass over the bridge into Montreal, is less than it was fifteen or sixteen years' ago. Then he has made an enormous expenditure on the ' Ocean Limited.' , What was the necessity for that ? Yrou have an express running down from Montreal to Halifax, but in addition to that you put on another in competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway and as he has told us it starts, these two express trains start within fifteen njiu-utes of each other and arrive at the same time in Halifax. Why was that done ? I venture to say that the hon. gentleman lost over $200,000 per year on that train.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It paid its way.


John Graham Haggart: He says there was noloss, but he must take into account the amount of passengers and freight it takes from the other express train on the Intercolonial Railway from Montreal to Halifax. I have heard railway experts say that the loss to the country for the time the hon. gentleman has been running that train, say five months in the year, would be $225,000. It is all very well to give the finest possible accommodation to people travelling on that road, and the people in this section of the country have no objection to anything of the kind, but what we require is that there shall be some economy in management and some reasonable proportion between expenditure and revenue. There can be no justification for saddling this enormous deficit on the surplus earnings of the people of this country ; and no sane man will for a moment entertain the idea that this $4,000,000 of

a deficit could not. be much better expended than losing it in that sink hole, the management of the Intercolonial Railway. The hon. gentleman has made a candid statement. Every year we have had promises from this government of more economical administration and less unsatisfactory results, but, as I shall show at another stage, the expenditure has been increased from year to year. Take for instance the Prince Edward Railway road, on which there has been no increase in the mileage. From 1888 up to 1898 there was an expenditure on capital account of only about $8,300 and since then it has amounted to $17,541 in 1898, $22,000 in 1899, $53,000 in 1900, $280,000 in 1901, $829,000 in 1903 and $098,000 in 1904. I suppose that includes the branches built to that road. In 1S90-91 the working expenses were $257,990 and the gross earnings $174,258. In 1891-92 the working expenses were $289,706 and the gross earnings $157,442. But let us come down to modern years. In 1900-01 the working expenses were $261,766 and the gross earnings $193,833. The following year the working expenses were $270,159 and the revenue $197,999. In 1902-03 the working expenses were $259,637 and the gross revenue $217,714. Last year, 1903-04, the working expenses increased to $335,693, as compared with gross earnings of $234,-3yU, showing a deficit of $100,000 in that one year. This is but a sample of the inmease in the working expenses and in deficits on all the railways under the control of the government. The hon. gentleman says he is going to remedy these things in the future when he has sufficient rolling stock.
He requires at least seventy-five locomotives in order to furnish an efficient service. But he does not think it likely that he will get more than twelve locomotives a year. That is, six or seven years must pass by before he can have the road in what he considers an efficient working condition. Last year the hon. gentleman got twelve locomotives and about $1,000,000 for capital expenditure. The year before he got $3,000,000 or $4,000,000. In order to get the road up to the standard the hon. gentleman contemplates we must expect a large expenditure. But it is noteworthy that both the hon. gentleman and his predecessor have carefully avoided telling the House and the country what these proposed improvements will cost, or when we may hope to have the road upon a paying basis. For my part, 1 protest against all this. I believe that, with proper management, but without increase of the passenger rates or the freight rates, the road could be operated without a single cent of deficit. I know parties who looked into the matter, and they came to the conclusion that, with ordinary good business management, the road ought to yield good returns. And they were willing to take over the road and pay a handsome sum for it, believing that good profits would accrue under efficient management. There is no reason why Mr. HAGGART.
the Intercolonial Railway should be used as a political engine to further the ends of hon. gentlemen opposite. Any advantage from such a course must soon cease. The time will come when the repetition of these things to win political favour will be a weakness rather than a strength. If the hon. gentleman wishes to show successful management, let him run the road as other roads are run. Look at the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Northern-look at every enterprise in the country that is managed on commercial lines. For the last two or three years the condition with them has been one of plethora. But we find the reverse on the Intercolonial Railway. That road has been going from bad to worse. If the present negligent, loose management continues, instead of a deficit of $4,000,000 a year, we may find the operation of the road to cause even greater loss to the people of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital- Intercolonial Railway-to increase accommodation at Sydney, $81,500.
George Taylor: The minister will please make an explanation of each item as it comes up.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of this $81,500, $66,000 is a revote. This was the old balance due on the station building under construction there and other improvements. The improvements and the need for them was explained last session.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is this being built by contract, and who are the contractors ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is under contract, the contractors being Messrs. Chappell Bros.
Intercolonial Railway-original construction,


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is to settle claims for land and damages that come up from time to time which, apparently, have been overlooked in the construction of the road. We got $2,000 last year for that purpose, but I believe we expended, up to 1st January last, only about $14. But, as a precautionary measure, we ask for $2,000.
Intercolonial Railway-to strengthen bridges, $142,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This is a revote.


Mr. BENNETT.: Last year the amount voted was $385,000. How much of that vote has been expended ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Only about $8,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do I understand that only $8,000 has been expended of a vote of $385,000 ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes ; and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) will readily understand it. This vote was not passed until late-too late for much work to be done.

Of course, contracts were let. There are a-number of bridges for which tenders were asked and contracts entered into. The works are now under construction. There are several	contractors-the	Canadian
Bridge Company and the Dominion Bridge Company have the greater number of the contracts.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much is under contract to-day ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Sufficient to require about $235,000 to be paid to these companies up to the 1st of July, and this $142,000 revote will be required from the 1st of July iu the next fiscal year.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then do we understand that $250,000 will be required up to the 1st of July for the work now under contract V


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, $243,000 to be exact.


Albert Edward Kemp: Could not a portion of this money be properly put to revenue account instead of capital account ? Is it not actual repairs to some extent ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: Well, repairs to bridges.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is another item altogether.


Albert Edward Kemp: What did that amount to last year ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a separate item. This is for the purpose of making stronger and heavier bridges. We are using a class of locomotives that will, in many instances, be double the weight of those that were in use on the Intercolonial a few years ago. Necessarily we have to have all equipment to correspond, the bridges, the roadway, the round houses, the turntables, everything must correspond as to quality, class and size.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is it all for new bridges ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: What was done with the old bridges ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: As a rule they are doubled up and put into smaller spans, making them stronger ; that is making them equal in strength but with shorter spans.


Mr. A. MARTIN.: Where are the new bridges ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: They are on the Intercolonial. One of those bridges taken from the Intercolonial, that is the south-west Mirimachi bridge, has been removed to Prince Edward Island and is being put up over the Hillsboro' river. It is not up yet, but it is in course of erection.


Albert Edward Kemp: The point I was trying to get at this : It seems to me a part of this money should be charged to revenue account. The cost of the original bridges was charged to capital account, then the new bridges which are to replace them are charged to capital account. There is a certain amount of wear and tear, and it seems to me it is putting into capital account that which should properly go to revenue account.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The same system of book-keeping has been in existence for many years.


Albert Edward Kemp: As a matter of fact, last year capital account was nearly $2,000,000, and I see in capital account a very large number of items that should properly go into revenue account. Of course if you do that, it will increase the deficit, and I suppose the hon. gentleman wants to avoid that as much as possible.


William Humphrey Bennett: As I understand the minister, there are now under contract $243,000 worth of bridges. Will he give us a list of those bridges, where they are, and the cost of each of those that are under contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is the .Sack-ville bridge, which will cost upwards of $62,000. I have stated that there were bridges under course of construction on which we would require to pay $242,000, which is part of the $385,000 voted last year. There is the Laplante bridge, a small one requiring $6,930 ; the Sutherland river bridge, $21,619 ; Salmon river bridge, about $19,800 ; Nicolet river bridge, $59,000.


Albert Edward Kemp: Are you already strengthening bridges on the Drummond County Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We want a class of bridges that will meet the strain of the heavy engines. That is one of the disadvantages under which we labour in connection with the operation of the road between Levis and Ste. Rosalie. Then there is another Nicolet bridge, No. 2, $55,000. Then there are some smaller bridges, making a total of $242,000.


Albert Edward Kemp: Are the heavier bridges necessitated on account of the freight traffic or passenger traffic, or both ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: On account of heavier engines used for both passenger and freight traffic.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is the hon. gentleman contemplating going into the grain carrying business to Halifax again, or is any of that traffic being taken over by the Intercolonial the same as the season previous ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We were obliged this year to refrain from entering into a contract in connection with the Allan Line of steamships for certain export trade of the maritime provinces, in consequence of our inability to furnish cars for that grain. We hope with the facilities that will be furnish-

ed before next j7ear, that we can engage in that traffic.


Albert Edward Kemp: I see that in the months of November and December, 1903, and January and February, 1904, there was a considerable amount of grain carried from Parry Sound to Halifax for export, wheat and corn The arrangements which were made with the Intercolonial required the rate of freight to be divided between the three roads over which this grain *went, the Canada Alantic Railway, the Grand Trunk Rail wav and the Intercolonial. One rate was 515, another 4'90, and in one case, 4'94. I see 31,836 bushels were carried from Parry Sound to Halifax, at 4 90 per bushel. Now the mileage was 346 miles for the Canada Atlantic Railway, 34 for the Grand Trunk, and 828 for the Intercolonial. The rate was divided in this way : The Canada Atlantic Railway received their share 2:15 cents, the Grand Trunk. Railway -60 aud the Intercolonial Railway 215, exactly the same as the Canada Atlantic Railway while the Canada Atlantic Railway mileage was 346 miles and the Intercolonial Railway mileage was 828 miles. Is that a proper way in which to conduct this kind of business ? Can the Intercolonial Railway enter into a bargain of that kind and consider that it is profitable ? I would like to have an explanation from the hon. minister.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I can easily give the explanation that has already been given to this House. That was a transaction iu connection with the carrying of certain traffic to Halifax and at the same time the bringing back of certain imports brought in by steamer to Halifax, and the two together-this traffic going down in the cars and the other traffic coming up in the return cars-made a profitable transaction for the Canadian Pacific Railway. That transaction was deemed to be, from the financial standpoint, in the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway, taking into consideration the traffic that came in by the steamers at Halifax and was transported to Montreal and other ports.


Albert Edward Kemp: I may say that I do not take any stock in the explanation which has been furnished the hon. minister in respect to this transaction. I look upon it merely as a political transaction. On almost every occasion when it is thought that there is an c-lection coming on it seems necessary to demonstrate to the people of Halifax 'that in some way or other Halifax is to become a great grain shipping port. This is one instance, and an instance of a similar character occurred a few years ago. The fact of the matter is that the Canada Atlantic Railway did not make very much money on the carrying of that grain 346 miles for 2:15 cents and if that is the case with the Canada Atlantic Railway, what a loss must the Intercolonial Railway have stiffer-Mr. EMMERSON.
ed in carrying it at the same price 828 miles? it stands to reason to my mind that this Is a transaction that will not stand argument on its merits. I say it is a political transaction rather than a business one.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend is not warranted in making that statement. It is easy to make such a statement. It does not prove anything. I think the traffic manager of the Intercolonial Railway ought to be quite as competent and quite as capable as the hon. gentleman in reaching a contusion. This matter was not preceding an election. This was something that trans-p'red in the fall of 1903.


Albert Edward Kemp: When it was thought there was to be an election. The election was postponed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Nobody thought that but somebody who wanted to figure and speculate on elections. You can hardly have a business transaction without connecting it with some loolitical occurrence, and if these things are to be discussed purely from, that standpoint, if every expenditure on the Intercolonial Railway is to be a political transaction it is a very strong argument against the government ownership and operation of railways, I grant you. But, it does not do away with the statement which I have made on the authority of the traffic manager that the two transactions, the carrying of the traffic down to Halifax and the entering into a contract to bring a certain quantity of imports up to Montreal made it, certainly, if not a very profitable transaction, at least one that was in the interests of the Intercolonial Railway. We had the cars and we had the men, we wanted to give them employment, we wanted the traffic, and if that traffic can be secured and that employment given without serious loss it is to the advantage of the Intercolonial Railway.


Albert Edward Kemp: Why is it that the earnings are divided up in that peculiar manner when the mileage is more than double on the Intercolonial Railway ? Why will the hon. minister allow7 the Canada Atlantic Railway to get so much more than their fair share in respect to a transaction of that kind ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: For the reason that all traffic arrangements in connection with the Intercolonial Railway aud all passenger arrangements have to be calculated on the basis of the least mileage ; that is to say that a passenger ticket from Montreal to St. John on the Intercolonial is sold at the same price as a ticket over the Canadian Pacific Railway to St. John, although the route over the Canadian Pacific Railway is much shorter. That is necessitated by reason of the conditions. Whether w7e have the traffic or not wre have to run our trains. We have to base the rate at the minimum mile-

age and of course it places the Intercolonial Railway at a disadvantage. But, it is better for the Intercolonial Railway to take flat traffic down, because these cars are furnished with a return traffic in the imports which are brought to Halifax by the steamers. ' Instead of taking the cars down as empties, we have the advantage of this traffic down and it gives business to Canadian ports. The earnings arising therefrom make it a paying transaction for the Intercolonial Railway and it is to the advantage ot the Intercolonial Railway to accept sueh traffic.
Mi-. KEMP. The St. John mileage is 346 miles. It is the same mileage as that of the Canada Atlantic Railway, yet the Intercolonial and the Canada Atlantic Railway had exactly the same earnings.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is based on the minimum mileage. The mileage of the Canadian Pacific Railway would govern. We have to make a detour around by the St. Lawrence and the Baie des Chaleurs, but in the calculation of the freight rate of the mileage we are controlled and governed by the shortest distance from Montreal to Halifax by way of the Canada Pacific Railway.


Albert Edward Kemp: I have been unable to make myself clear, I am afraid. The shortest mileage is 346 miles, -while as a matter of fact the rate which the Intercolonial Railway got was exactly the same as that which the Canada Atlantic Railway got for 340 miles. That is the point J have been endeavouring to make clear to my hon. friend.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I recognize the point made by my hon. friend, but to the extent of that increased mileage on the Intercolonial Rail-way the Intercolonial Railway suffers because it has to accept freight based on the shorter distance although its own mileage is greater.


William Humphrey Bennett: May I ask the hon. minister how much grain, if any, was received and exported through the government elevators last year at St. John and Halifax ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Ho you mean the current year ?


William Humphrey Bennett: During the season of navigation of 1904.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a return. I
cannot carry it in my mind, but there was some.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman has officers there, perhaps they could tell us within 2,000,000 or 3,000.000 bushels how many bushels were received at St. John or Halifax ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot tell. There is a return before the House. It was brought down last session. It was no very substantial amount, but my hon. friend over there has been telling us about it and there has been a discussion about it already.


William Humphrey Bennett: My reference is to the quantity of grain carried in 1904, and I am serious about it because of the fact that I am informed that the Canada Atlantic Railway carried more grain to Depot Harbour last year than in any preceding years, and I wish to learn who took care of that grain afterwards and whether the government got the benefit of carrying it over the Intercolonial.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend is asking about the period between July, 1904, and this date. We have not carried any and I explained to the committee the reason why we did not carry any. We were unable to undertake to enter into any agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway and the Allan Line of steamers to accept certain export traffic that was offered because we could not furnish the cars to go on the Grand Trunk road, and we feared to enter into this engagement lest we would be held for damages by the Allan Line of steamers. That is to sa5', there was certain traffic offered by way of our maritime ports and in order to secure it, it would be necessary for us to send our cars up on the Grand Trunk Railway. They had not the cars, they would not furnish them and we could not, and therefore we had to decline the business. I hope in the interest of the Intercolonial Railway and of Canadian maritime ports that that difficulty will be removed, and removed this session of parliament, by a vote that will enable us to have sufficient rolling stock to meet the requirements.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: I would like to make a few remarks on this item with regard to the carrying of grain to Halifax. In the last campaign one of the great arguments used by government candidates was that by the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific to Moncton that road would be in a position to carry freight from the west to Moncton, and that it could be taken from there to the ports of Halifax and St. John by the Intercolonial Railway. If the Intercolonial Railway to-day is not in a position to carry grain, then I think the hon. minister should show to this House to-night when it will he in a position to do so, and what the cost will be in order to make that railway callable of carrying grain. There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this is a great industry, and that the road to-day should be in a position to carry all the grain that can be taken to St. John and Halifax. We have been told for many years in parliament that these two ports were to be the great winter ports of this country, and that Portland, which is now used by the Grand Trunk Railway will not be the port which will be used by the Grand Trunk Pacific but that they

will use St. John and Halifax. I think that if these two ports are to be used for the export of grain and other commodities from the west, the minister should fully explain to this committee how much it will cost and when he will be in a position to put that road on a fair and proper basis for the carrying of these products.


David Henderson: I do not quite understand the relevancy of the remarks of my kon. friend from Prince Edward Island. He started out by speaking about some argument used by government speakers during the last campaign to the effect that Grand Trunk Pacific traffic was to go to St. John and Halifax by way of Moncton. Undoubtedly that will be true, but that freight will go over the Grand Trunk Pacific, which does not go over the route of the Intercolonial Railway. The argument made by hon. gentlemen opposite and especially by the hon. member for Toronto, as I understand it, is that it is impossible to carry traffic over the Intercolonial Railway because of the greater distance. A great deal of that difficulty is imaginary in the mind of my hon. friend, but if that is a difficulty it will be obviated by the shorter distance over the Grand Trunk Pacific to Moncton, the direct short line through New Brunswick. The Intercolonial will not take charge of the carrying of all that traffic down to Moncton and I assume that the cars when they reach Moncton will go on to St. John and Halifax.


Albert Edward Kemp: What I wanted to make clear was that I thought the Intercolonial Railway was not getting a fair share of earnings so far as the mileage is concerned.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The mileage is apportioned by the shorter distance and we must be governed by that distance. Although our actual mileage distance may be longer, we cannot collect for the full distance as by arrangement among all the railways we are bound by the shortest distance between certain points.


Albert Edward Kemp: You call the haul 340 miles from Montreal to Halifax.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot recall the exact figure; of course my hon. friend would not expect ime to be familiar with such details. I am only speaking in a general way. I know it is much less than the actual distance, but we are governed by the short haul distance.


William Humphrey Bennett: Do I understand the minister to say that the two elevators at St. John and Halifax were standing practically idle last year and that no grain passed through them ? Can the minister tell where the grain was exported that the Booth system took in at Depot Harbour, because I understand they received over 15,000,000 bushels last year.


Angus Alexander McLean: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not in a position to say : I know it did not go over the Intercolonial Railway.


William Humphrey Bennett: Was any received at either St. John or Halifax ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have said that from the 1st of July down to the present time this year we have not received any grain at the elevator at Halifax or St. John. I cannot make myself any more explicit.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is there a staff at each elevator, and what is the cost of keeping it up ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are watchmen there, wTe do not keep a staff of men ; we only keep men when there is business and unfortunately, on account of the conditions prevailing this year, we could not accept the business and therefore could not do it through these elevators.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much grain was exported by the Canadian Pacific from St. John ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I cannot say.


William Humphrey Bennett: I would think a matter of that kind would be of some interest to the minister or to the officers of his department.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That information is not in our possession ; we cannot get that. My hon. friend could possess himself of that information as readily as I.


William Humphrey Bennett: The department could easily find the sailings of the different ships during the season.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not all grain.


William Humphrey Bennett: The quantity of grain could be arrived at pretty well.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think the department is chargeable with any negligence for not having that information.


Haughton Lennox: I understand the minister to say that they could not carry this grain because of not having the proper equipment of freight cars. I also understood from remarks of the minister and of the hon. gentleman from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) who replied to him that a large amount of money is now required in order to properly equip the line. We also had a statement in the House to-night that we have been spending on capital account during the last seven or eight years, millions of money yearly, not only to keep it up to an efficient condition, but to place it in a more efficient condition than it was before. In 1903, in the matter of passenger cars, which we need not deal with at present, and in the matter of engines and freight cars, the Intercolonial was represented to be one of the best lines in Canada. In that year the Grand Trunk Railway had for every 100 miles of its

railway 775 freight ears, and the Intercolonial 774, a difference of one; and for every 100 miles the Grand Trunk had 22 locomotives and the Intercolonial 21. So that practically these two lines were upon the same basis as regards equipment for carrying freight. Since 1903, the Intercolonial has not been going back, but going forward, by leaps and bounds, in the matter of expenditure on capital account for equipment. Therefore it seems extraordinary that the minister should be in the humiliating jiosition to-night of having to admit that the Intercolonial is practically unable to compete for the carrying trade of the country by reason of not having the necessary means of transportation either in en gines or cars. Will the minister explain how that happens ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I thought I did explain.
I said that in order to get that traffic the Grand Trunk complained of a very great shortage of ears and that the Canadian Pacific Railway was in an equally deplorable condition. I also said that the Grand Trunk required us to furnish cars to go on its lines to gather up the traffic that would go over the Intercolonial and that we were not in a position to do that.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister state what equipment per mile or per 100 miles the Intercolonial should have in order to promptly handle the traffic which would legitimately come to it?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not in a position to state that.


Haughton Lennox: Then, how are we to deal with this question? The hon. gentleman is not in a position to handle the freight delivered at the elevators on his own line.


William Humphrey Bennett: That was easy, because there was none.


Haughton Lennox: He is not in a position to tell us the amount of freight carried by the rival railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway. These are matters that an up-to-date minister, such as we have, should know. He is not able to tell us what equipment the Intercolonial requires. How is the committee to judge what amount of money should be voted, if the minister, who is substituted for another minister who was not found to be efficient, cannot tell us the first conditions which should be the basis on which we can vote this money.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I must say that I have not the information down to the niceity that my hon. friend would like.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is any part of this expenditure to be on the Prince Edward Island Railway?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. This is simply for the Intercolonial Railway proper.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman tell us what he proposes to do on the Canada Eastern Railway respecting the bridges?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is not involved in this vote at all.
Mr. INGRAM, it is involved in my question, and there seems to be no other item on which I can discuss it. The hon. gentleman stated that the government had paid $800,000 for the Canada Eastern Railway, and he left the inference to be drawn that that was. the total expenditure on that road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hope the hon. gentle man will not draw any such inference.


Andrew B. Ingram: That is the inference I was justified in drawing from the hon. gentleman's bald statement that the road cost this country $800,000; t>ut,tliat statement is not justified by the facts. In the first place, the government must know that it will require a very large expenditure to put that road in a good state of repair. We should be informed whether the government intends to use large engines, to strengthen the bridges and to replace the iron on that railroad or not, and we will wait with a good deal of patience for the hon. gentleman to give us some information on these points.


Mr. GERVAIS.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals whether or not he intends to grant passes on the Intercolonial Railway to the twenty-four legislative councillors of the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, I know that the members of the Legislative Assembly of that province have been receiving passes on the Intercolonial for years, and I think the members of the Legislative Council are entitled to the same privilege for the same good old reason which militates for the granting of passes to the members of the Legislative Assembly. I have been asking the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals many times for the granting of these passes, and I would like to know whether or not he intends to grant the prayer of our legislative councillors.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would be very sorry if my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) inferred from" any remarks that I made, either tonight or last year, that some expenditures would not he required on the Canada Eastern Railway. I stated that we had paid the Alexander Gibson Railway Company $800,000 for that road such as it was. We have operated it with an improved train service. The road is in such a good condition that we are running fast trains over it with small engines, it is true. We will not require to put on our heavy engines. We will not require to strengthen the bridges in the same way as we are doing on the main line. This is practically a branch line, and on all our branch lines we are not making the road up



to the standard of the main line. Therefore, I do not expect there will be any necessity for any very great expenditure on the Canada Eastern.


John Dowsley Reid: When the minister was submitting to the House the purchase of the Canada Eastern, he showed us that that railway had made, in the year before we purchased it, the magnificent sum of $2,900.


Henry Robert Emmerson: More than that, was it not ?


John Dowsley Reid: No ; I think it was $2,900. Can he tell us if this year it is paying operating expenses ? Will he be able to show the House that, after operating it one year, it has given a revenue sufficient to pay 3 per cent on the money the government had to borrow to pay for it ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The conditions on that road, as on all other portions of the Intercolonial Railway this year, are such that I cannot promise any very great surplus. In fact, it is only a question how far down we can keep the deficit. But we are not to be judged by this year. I am in hopes that our climate will get back to its normal condition, and that things will go more favourably on the Intercolonial Railway and the Canada Eastern.


John Dowsley Reid: Are the operating expenses of that particular road now being kept entirely separate from those of the main line of the Intercolonial Railway, as is done in the case of the Prince Edward Island Railway ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, it is treated just the same as any other branch of the Intercolonial Railway. The Prince Edward Island Railway is a railway separate and apart from the Intercolonial Railway, although under the management of the general manager of the government railway.


John Dowsley Reid: But that is not the system followed by private corporations. Take the Canadian Pacific Railway branch between Prescott and Ottawa ; it is part and parcel of the main line, and yet its expenses are kept entirely separate from those of the latter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But, although operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway, that road is run as a separate railway.


John Dowsley Reid: Why should not this be run in the same manner ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That would necessitate greater expense. Our book-keeping is done at Moncton for the whole system. We do not want to have a separate superintendent and separate officials and separate books for this road.


John Dowsley Reid: But the road I refer to between Prescott and Ottawa has not got a separate superintendent or separate shops Mr. EMMERSON.
or anything of that kind, yet its accounts are kept separate, and this does not necessitate any extra officials in any shape or form. Its accounts are kept separate in order that the Canadian Pacific Railway shareholders may know whether the purchase of that branch is a paying investment or not. I do not see why the same thing should not be done on the branches of the Intercolonial Railway. There is no reason why the same superintendent at Moncton should not operate this particular branch. In fact, it ought to be operated more cheaply than when it was an independent line, because then it had a superintendent of its own and special car shops, whereas now it is managed by the general superintendent of the Intercolonial Railway, and its repairs are done in the car shops of the government line. But there is no reason why separate accounts should not be kept of its operating expenses and revenue, so that we might know the result of this investment by the government. According to the statement of the minister last year, the profits on this Canada Eastern were practically nil, and I can quite understand that the result this year will be much worse, but it would be interesting to the country to know what that result actually is.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The same course is being pursued with regard to the Canada Eastern as has been followed all along when purchases were made of other lines as branches for the Intercolonial Railway. Many years ago, when the late government purchased the Cape Breton line, that was made a part of the Intercolonial Railway, and its accounts were not kept separate. There was no distinctive line drawn between that portion of the road and any other. When Sir Charles Tupper, in 1879, bought, as Minister of Railways, the River du Loup branch, there was no distihction made between that branch and the main line. The same course was followed when the St. Charles branch was built. None of those branches can be shown to have been successful or unsuccessful, as far as the bookkeeping of the Intercolonial Railway is concerned. The same is true with regard to the Drummond branch. There has been a return asked for in connection with the Canada Eastern, and that return is being prepared in so far as the information asked for is available, but there is no distinct operation of that road as against any other portion of the Intercolonial Railway.


John Dowsley Reid: Because twenty-six years ago a certain system was followed is no reason why that should be persisted in. If the hon. minister wishes to be progressive and manage the Intercolonial Railway and its branches as other railway corporations manage their lines, he would keep his accounts differently, and we would be able to know exactly what portions pay and what do not; and having this knowledge, we

[DOT]ought to be able to stop the leaks and effect some economy.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have simply been stating the facts as they are, but the argument of the hon. gentleman is one open for consideration.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand from the hon. minister that his intention is strictly to follow in the lines which Sir Charles Tupper laid down some twenty-six years ago, and, rather than break away from that precedent, he is prepared to go on in the dark for all time to come and leave the country in ignorance as to really what portions of the railway system pay and what do not. I think we are entitled to be put in such a position that we may be able to judge whether these branch lines will pay or not ; and so may be able to come to a wise decision in case other branch lines are offered to us. The Canada Eastern was added to the Intercolonial Railway through the influence of the present minister. I, for one, would like to know the result of that purchase. I believe that the minister should keep that entirely separate. I think that, at least as long as he occupies the position, he should afford us information from which hon. gentlemen could judge what the result of that purchase has been. I understand that other branch lines have been offered for sale to the Intercolonial Railway, * and, no doubt, some of these propositions will be brought to the House. We ought to be in possession of information which will enable us to decide whether such purchases should be made or not.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I would like to have an answer to the question I put to the minister about granting passes to the legislative councillors of our province.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I will inquire into the matter and let my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) know to-morrow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did I understand the minister to say that he cannot ascertain whether this branch of the Intercolonial Railway is paying or not ? If that Is the case it seems to me to be a very strange thing.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) been absent from the House ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I have been here all the time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I hope I made myself understood. I stated that there was no branch of the Intercolonial Railway for which separate books were kept, that all the branches were operated as part of the system. The Rivi&re du Loup branch, the St. Charles branch, the Cape Breton branch, the Drummond County branch-all these as they were acquired were taken over and run as part of the system.
61j


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the Prince Edward Island Railway was proposed to be extended we are told that it would add to the mileage and make the Intercolonial Railway pay.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was taken over when Prince Edward Island entered confederation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the argument that was put forward when we where asked to vote money for the extension of it is what I have stated. When the Drummond County Railway was purchased, we were told that it was to bring the Intercolonial Railway up to the grea t metropolis of Montreal where it would gather freight to make it a paying road. And we were told that when the accounts were analysed it would be found a paying part of the road and would help to put the Intercolonial on a paying basis. And, last year, when the Canada Eastern was purchased, we were told that it would help to make the Intercolonial pay. But when the government went to the country in the general election, one of the arguments advanced from that side was that the Intercolonial never had and never would pay, and so the government would not be justified in undertaking to build and operate a transcontinental line as proposed by the leader of the opposition. It was said that the more branches we purchased for the Intercolonial the worse it would be. I made up my mind either that the arguments presented in support of purchasing the Canada Eastern were misleading and improper, or those who used them were dishonest in that use, or else that they were wholly ignorant of what would take place. We have not the advantage of time to prove the correctness of our policy, but we can only reach the conclusion that the government were very unwise in buying the Drummond County road if the Intercolonial was running farther aud farther behind. And the same was true of the Canada Eastern.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says that when l he Prince Edward Island line was purchased, the statement was made that it would make the Intercolonial a paying road. The hon. gentleman is an old parliamentarian. He must have been here when Prince Edward Island came into the union, and he knows that the taking over of the Prince Edward Island road was part of the terms of the confederation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Then the hon. gentleman cannot say that it was promised that this would be the means of making the Intercolonial pay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said that it was stated that the longer a through line was the more likely it was to pay.


Henry Robert Emmerson: But this is an isolated line on an island In the gulf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it was practically to be an extension of the line with boats connecting.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is not a connection in that sense. There is a steamship company that runs a boat, but not as part of the railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it not carry freight?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Just as any other vessel would. But they are not run in connection with one another. I think he must admit that he was mistaken in putting the Prince Edward Island Railway in this class. His contention practically comes down to the Canada Eastern. He says I made a statement last year that, in order to help in making the Intercolonial pay the Canada Eastern should be purchased. I did not say that, or make any promise


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the hon. gentleman said that it would be a paying concern-
Mr.	EMMERSON.	No,	I	did	not	evengo as	far as that.	What	I	said	was thatit was in the interest of the Intercolonial to purchase the Canada Eastern for the purpose of protecting its own territory and preventing it being invaded by the Canada Pacific Railway-that is, the northern section of the province. I. said it would be to the	advantage
,
Mr.	SPROULE.	In	what	Way	?


Henry Robert Emmerson: To save to the Intercolonial the traffic it has hitherto enjoyed. If you did not secure that road you were ir. danger of having a large proportion of the traffic which has heretofore gone over the Intercolonial diveited from that road. That was the ground I took. I made no promise that the branch would pay. It is true, as the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) has stated, that the statement of the road for the last year preceding the purchase was a good one. I showed Horn the returns that there were years when the road had paid $30,000 or $40,000, and I think that one year it went as high as $50,000 of net earnings. It was for the House to draw its own conclusions from those figures. I gave no promise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is along the line 1 made the statement-it would be an advantage to the Intercolonial to gather up the freight and save its traffic. If you save its traffic, do you not help the road, and help to make the Intercolonial a paying concern ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We save the traffic that originates on the Intercolonial itself and has originated, but which would or might be gathered up by the Canadian Pacific Railway if they acquired the Canada Eastern. The Intercolonial now has com-Mr. SPROULE.
plete control of that traffic by acquiring the Canada Eastern and preventing any other railway from getting it. They save it for themselves and they prevent it from going out over the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Strange to say, we find the Intercolonial running further and further behind even after that is done. I think the government's book-keeping is wrong all the time. It should be an easy matter to know whether any portion of the road is paying or not. I understood the explanation of the minister was to the effect that it would be to the advantage of the Intercolonial, it would be a better paying concern if we had the Canada Eastern, and therefore he purchased it. Now he has to admit that the road is running still further behind than before he purchased the Canada Eastern.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to hear the Minister of Finance on this question. The Minister of Railways has stated that for the last twenty-nine years they have not changed their mode of book-keeping in regard to the Intercolonial. Now could not the Minister of Finance join me in an appeal to the Minister of Railways to have this particular branch kept separate the next year or two, so that we may see exactly what the results are ?


Richard Blain: If the minister will not keep a separate account perhaps he would lay before the committee now a financial statement of the Cauada Eastern for the last two or three years, so that we may have the opportunity of making some comparisons. I am only asking the minister to give us the information that his government had already secured before they entered into the purchase of this road.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have already furnished it to the committee.


Andrew B. Ingram: When this matter was up for discussion last year some hon. gentleman from Nova Scotia advocated the government purchasing a lot of these small lines of railways. I want to say, as a member representing a constituency in Ontario, a province in which the people have built their own local railways and paid for them, that we have no right to contribute towards purchasing these small lines of railways or assisting in their construction. It is about time that kind of thing was stopped. If the other provinces desire *to have local roads of a purely local character, they should, as the older provinces have done, construct them for themselves. As a representative from Ontario I desire to protest against this thing going any further. It is only fair to that province that other members from Ontario constituencies should -enter a protest, let some of the members sitting on the government side raise their voices against it. Ontario has been compared to a milch cow for a number of years,

it is about time that she was dry to calls of this kind.


Albert Edward Kemp: I would like to inquire from the minister if he is still carrying hay or other commodities free of charge ?


Mr. EM  MERSON@: Yes, we are carrying some hay that was ordered during the time of free transportation, but we could not furnish cars to carry it in consequence of difficulties in transportation.


Albert Edward Kemp: That will go on indefinitely,
I suppose ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Xo, there is a limit to the quantity ordered.


Albert Edward Kemp: Would the minister say on what principle he has been carrying hay free on the Intercolonial ? What precedent has he for that ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: We had a precedent when there was a coal famine in Ontario and Quebec in 1902, when a like privilege was given to the municipalities to transport coal free over the Intercolonial from Xova Scotia coal mines, or from any point on the Intercolonial.


Albert Edward Kemp: I never heard of any coal being transported to Ontario points free of charge.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There was. I dare say things have happened which my hon. friend has not heard of.


George Taylor: I would inquire from the minister if there is a suit pending, or some commission inquiring into a bargain that was made between the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk when the Intercolonial was extended into Montreal, as to the Grand Trunk handling the traffic not specially routed to be handled over the Intercolonial. I ask, because I can inform the minister that I know of a case where freight was specially routed to be handed over to the Intercolonial at Montreal, and instead of going that way it was sent through to Boston. The bill of lading was to Montreal and thence by the Intercolonial to Halifax. 1 saw the bill of lading myself.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would be glad to have the information from my hon. friend. I may tell him that there is pending an arbitration between the Grand Trunk and the Intercolonial as regards the traffic exchanged at Montreal and Ste. Rosalie. That arbitration is being held under a clause in the original contract and Act of parliament, which provides that where a dispute arises arbitrators shall be chosen, and the method of choosing the arbitrators is stated, and that has been done. There have been disputes which have reached a culminating point, the case is being heard, and evidence is being placed before the arbitrators. I cannot say as to the state of the proceeding
but I know it has been pending for some time.


Albert Edward Kemp: What ground do the government take in regard to this-that the Grand Trunk are violating their agreement by sending freight to Montreal ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That the Grand Trunk Railway Company who were bound to hand over all unrouted traffic from the west to the Intercolonial Railway have handed it over in some instances to the Canadian Pacific Railway and in other instances they have allowed it to go by other routes and in that way the Intercolonial Railway has been damaged.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Mr. Chairman, before this item is passed I would like to say a few words about the fish trade in Montreal in relation to the management of the Intercolonial Railway. Every one knows that the Intercolonial Railway has not been doing a very paying business for the last few years, or'in fact, since its inception, but on the other hand, not many people know that in Montreal the fish dealers are paying a large amount per week to the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the transportation of fresh fish from Boston, or Portland to Montreal. Not many people know that in Montreal the fish dealers are paying about $25,000 per week as the price of such American fish. I was taught when I was at school, because I was not born in the maritime provinces, that there are quite a lot of fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Baie des Chaleurs. It is a matter of regret to the fish dealers of Montreal that there are no proper express facilities to bring up to the nsh market in that city the fresh fish which can be caught in the gulf and around the shores of Xew Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I have been calling the attention of Mr. Tiffin, the traffic manager of the Intercolonial Railway, to these facts, but no satisfactory answer lias been conveyed to me." I now call the attention of the committee as well ns that of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to this condition of affairs. I think something should be done to secure for the Intercolonial Railway several thousand dollars per month and many thousand dollars to the good fishermen in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I quite concur in the laudable object which my hon. friend has in view, but I would point out to him that this traffic is all done by the express companies. There are furnished on the Intercolonial Railway from Mulgrave and from Cape Breton right up through the provinces of Nova Scotia and XewT Brunswick facilities for the transportation of fresh fish with proper refrigerator cars and during the fishing season these facilities are available for those who wish to engage in that traffic. A very large business is done, comparatively speaking, between the Cape Breton fisher-

men and the people In Montreal, and at other points in the west. This can be done as well by those along the Baie des Ohaleurs if they are prepared to engage in this trade. I think the principal reason why lish from Baie des Chaleurs does not find a market in Montreal is that the fishermen in that section years ago sought out a market in the United States, and when you get traffic going in a certain channel or groove it is very apt to continue in that groove unless by some extraordinary means it is diverted from it. I am sure that this matter largely depends upon those engaged in the business. I can assure my hon. friend that we want the traffic. If it can be doubled or trebled it will be greatly to The satisfaction of the management of the Intercolonial Railway, and we are at all times ready to facilitate that traffic as much as possible.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I have been discussing this matter somewhat thoroughly with hon. members from down by the sea, and I am informed that many fishermen in the maritime provinces prefer to ship their fish to Boston and Portland and that the good people of Montreal are reimporting that fish from Boston and Portland. The reason of this is that the Intercolonial Railway is not thoroughly equipped with modern transportation facilities according to the German system by which live fish can be transported from the sea to the market. I beg to dissent from the statement of the hon. minister that proper transportation facilities are provided for fish dealers in Montreal. That is not so. I was a passenger on a train coming from Nova Scotia to Montreal last summer. There were three or four parties in the three or four cars attached to the engine. When the express reached Metapedia three or four fishermen were on hand prepared to ship their fish, but the good employees of the Intercolonial Railway said : it will delay the train too much ; we have not time to load the fish, whereupon the train started for Montreal at full speed. If you wish to secure the fish trade, proper transportation facilities must be provided on the Intercolonial Railway trains and the Intercolonial Railway employees must be courteous and obliging to the shippers. This is the only way in which we can secure a profitable trade for our Railway. I am bringing these facts to the attention of the chief official of the Railway Department. .We want proper transportation facilities according to the modern type, according to the German type.


Mr. A. JOHNSTON.: Before the item is finally disposed of, I might say, in regard to some of the matters to which the attention of the committee has been directed by my hon. friend from St. James, Montreal (Mr. Gervais), that in so far as I am aware, and I think I have a knowledge of the facts, the fishermen of the maritime provinces are fairly well satisfied with the transportation


Henry Robert Emmerson: facilities afforded them in recent years on the Intercolonial Railway.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: We are not in Montreal.


Alexander Johnston: That is the fault of the people of Montreal. The statement which my hon. friend makes that the people of the maritime provinces are shipping their fish to Boston and from thence to Montreal I do not think will be borne out by the facts. Their fish to-day is carried from the maritime provinces to the markets of Montreal and various other Canadian markets. I' think if my hon. friend would consult the returns of the Intercolonial Railway he "would find that the traffic in fresh fish in recent years from Port Mulgrave on the Intercolonial Railway is very large indeed. He will find that no fresh fish from that portion of the maritime provinces goes anywhere else than over the Intercolonial Railway to Montreal and various other Canadian cities. I say this because I have heard on several occasions during recent years, men engaged in this fish trade expressing themselves as reasonably satisfied with the transportation facilities afforded by the Intercolonial Railway. I do not assume that the Intercolonial Railway is finished in this respect. I believe it is improving every year, and I have no doubt whatever that the purpose of the Intercolonial Railway is to still further perfect the transportation facilities for carrying fresh fish from the maritime provinces to the markets in Montreal and to the American markets. That is the position so far as I understand it among the fishermen in the maritime provinces.
M. GERVAIS. I would like to ask the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Alex. Johnston how he can explain the fact that the good people of Montreal are paying large sums per week for express charge to the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the transportation of fresh fish from Boston or Portland ? I would also ask him to explain why our fish dealers in Montreal are paying over $25,000 per week for American fish caught on the shores of Maine or Massachusetts. I would like the hon. member to explain these two facts, to explain why the good people of Montreal should have their fish supplied from the United States when they could obtain such a splendid supply from our sister provinces down by the sea.


Alexander Johnston: These two facts which my hon. friend (Mr. Gervais) has mentioned are susceptible of explanation. The people of the maritime provinces are selling all the fish they can catch at the present time and I assume they are selling where they are getting the best price. The Montreal dealers, I presume are importing fresh fish from Boston because they cannot get it anywhere else. My hon. friend will not suggest that the good people of Montreal should be deprived of the privilege of

having fresh fish. If they cannot get it in the maritime provinces I take it they are going to get it somewhere.
Double tracking parts of line, $100,000.
' Mr. KEMP. Where is this double tracking?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This double tracking is being done coming out of Halifax, out to Windsor Junction where the D.A.R. branches off and also between Stellarton and New Glasgow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are some of these items that I know some members who are absent wish to discuss. We have made a pretty good run and I think we should stop here.
Some resolutions reported.
Hon. Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the bon. minister inform us what work will be taken up tomorrow ?


Mr. FIELDING.: There is a Bill stand ing in the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries which I think it was understood would come up to-morrow. If that does not come up or if it is not ready we will go into supply and the Minister of Railways Will continue with his estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.40 p.in.
[Stage Direction]
Thuksday, March 2, 1905.