1908-07-07

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the Superintendent of Insurance be paid such salary, not exceeding five thousand dollars per annum, as the Governor in Council may from time to time fix and determine.
He said : His Excellency having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the bounty of one-half cent per imperial gallon payable on crude petroleum from Canadian wells authorized by chapter 28 of the Act of 1904 shall apply also to crude petroleum produced from shales or other substances mined in Canada.
He said : His Excellency having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I intended to move this morning the resolutions of which notice has been given, but other arrangements have been made. I will move them to-morrow.



GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.

Wilfrid Laurier: I have to inform the House that the measures the government intend to introduce are the following. The Supplementary Estimates are ready, and will be brought down in a day or two. There will be railway subsidies, the Quebec Bridge legislation, some legislation necessitated by the creation of new courts in Northern Ontario, and some resolutions for extending the boundaries for the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. These resolutions will be brought down to-day, it is expected.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Of course any early date in the present stage of the session is a pretty late date. I trust all these measures will be brought down at the earliest possible moment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated that. The estimates which I said would be brought down at a very early date, are ready.
CIVIL SERVICE	ACT-AMENDMENT.
House again in committee on Bill (No. 189) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Fisher.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: The third section in the reprinted Bill requires to be changed. The amendment proposed has been printed, and I think is in the hands of members. The proposal is to strike out section 3 in the reprinted Bill and substitute the following:
,3. The Civil Service shall be divided into two divisions, namely, the inside service which shall consist of that part of the public service in or under the several departments of the executive government of Canada and in the offices of the Auditor General, the clerk of the Privy Council and the Governor General's Secretary, employed at the city of Ottawa, or at the experimental farm station or the Dominion astronomical observatory, near Ottawa, but not including the officers, clerks and employees employed at Ottawa in the second or outside departmental division as defined by paragraph (b) of section I of the Civil Service Act or in any office of a purely local character; and
The outside service which shall consist of the rest of the public service.
2. So much of this Act and of the Civil Service Act as relates to appointment, classification, salaries and promotions shall apply to the permanent officers, clerks and employees of both Houses of parliament and of the library of parliament.
This amendment is in line with what I think was the consensus of opinion in the general discussion upon this clause. The practical difference is that the general Act does not apply to the permanent officers, the clerks and employees of both Houses of parliament, and of the library of parliament,, but only such parts of it apply to them as relate to appointments, classifiea-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
tion, salary and promotion. There are other slight changes which were suggested by the Department of Justice to make it clear that the inside service does not include the outside service under the old Act in Ottawa.


Mr. FOSTER.: What is subsection b of section 4?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the definition of the outside service.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason for changing the word ' civil ' to the word 'public' where public service is used?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I found in discussing the matter, what I did not realize before, that the words ' civil service,' are used in a restricted sense, and only include those under the old Act who are defined to be civil servants.


Robert Laird Borden: There is provision, is there not, that the operative sections of the statute shall not apply to the outside service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then there is this special provision tlhat a certain portion of the Civil Service Act shall apply to the permanent officers, clerks and employees of parliament ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister intends then that section 2 shall operate as concerns all exceptions to the rest of the Act which declares that tlhe outside service shall not be included in the operation of the sections of this statute ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what I should say.


George Eulas Foster: Should the word be ' or ' or ' and ' after ' the city of Ottawa,' in the fifth line of the amendment ? It seems to me that it should be ' and.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the word ' or ' includes them all.


George Eulas Foster: ' At the city of Ottawa ' or at the ' Experimental Farm.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They are not in the city of Ottawa.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: While ({here is provision made for the deputy ministers, what provision was made for the classification, for instance, of the Superintendent of Immigration ? I know that personally he has a very heavy department and a great deal of work.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, I could not state positively because he is in the Department of the Interior, but I should consider that he would come under subdivision (a) of the first division, in which subdivision the salary ranges from $2,800 to $4,000. I know, as a matter of fact, that he is getting

$3,000 at present. He would be eligible to rise to $4,000.
Section, as amended, agreed to.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have also an amendment to section 13.


George Eulas Foster: Before going to section 13 would the minister look at sections 6 and 7 ? You will remember that the question was raised as to the method of classification. Here the classification seems to be entirely mechanical. It is based on what the present salary is, but it would seem to me that a better rule would be that the classification should be according to the duties rather than to the accidental range of salaries. The duties of the office and the capabilities of the clerk to perform those duties ought to be the proper basis of classification and to make it simply a matter of salary works a great deal of injustice. Practical injustice will be done to a great many in this regard. The government found a civil service in 1896, when it came into power and it has been administering affairs from that time up to tlhis. A great many new clerks have been put in and it is well known that in the matter of salary many have been advanced away over and above the older clerks. These older clerks have been doing efficient work from 1896 up to the present and they have been passed over, while many new men lhave been brought in and inordinately advanced, as it might be contended. The older clerks are left entirely out whilst the newcomer, by having, from one circumstance or another, his salary advanced largely from time to time will be graded under the new Civil Service Act above the older officers. I think there is a considerable portion of the civil service which may be unjustly dealt with in that respect.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I appreciate what my hon. friend is aiming at, but I do not really see how it can be avoided in any way. Section 8 provides for an organization declaring the standing and classes of the officers in the service and their standing in the classification. This gives an opportunity, where a man is doing a high class of work, to put Ihim in the clasification which that work would entitle him to be in. I do not see how we can very well declare by the Act that a certain work that a man may be doing shall entitle him to be put in a certain division.


George Eulas Foster: You could not declare that by the Act, but you could declare by the Act that the classification should be made according to the duties of the office and then the grading authority would have a basis of principle upon which to work. Here, you lay it down as the salary.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 6 provides for really a transference of the present staff into new divisions, and I do not see how my
hon. friend's suggestion could be adopted unless every individual piece of work were specified. I do not see how that would avail unless every individual piece of work was specified. I had supposed that section 8 would provide for that. Section 8 provides for an order in council being passed defining the organization of the department and my own interpretation of that was that in that order in council certain work would be declared to be done by isuch an officer in such and such a subdivision of such and such a division of the general classification. Then if that work was being done today by a certain officer I take it that that individual would continue to do that work, and that that work would be put into that classification and that place. I do not see how it could be done in any other way The passage of the present clerks into the new classifications seems to be necessarily a matter of their salaries for the time being, that is their class. My hon. friend is aware that as a general rule important work ought to be done by clerks of a class which is receiving pay commensurate to the importance of the work. That does not always occur,
I grant you. I have in my own mind an instance where a young man who has been in the service only a short time and who is only a junior second class clerk is doing far more important work than a first class clerk in my department. It is wrong but the first class clerk was a junior and crept up until he is now a first class clerk. Really his work could be done by a junior clerk, he is not capable of doing important work. If I gave him responsible work to do he would simply fall down and the work would not be done. There are Instances of that but I do not think they are common and I do not see how we could accomplish what my hon. friend suggests.


Mr. BLAIN.: The outside service is defined in the Bill as introduced in these words :
The outside service shall consist of the rest of the civil service.
The amendment propcsed is :
The outside service shall consist of the rest of the public service.
I have heard the minister's explanation of this change which I understand was suggested by the Justice Department. It is a matter which should receive some consideration by the minister before its adoption. There will be a great deal of trouble in the classification of the civil service under this Bill. There is some disappointment that the outside service has not been taken in. There is provision of course for taking in the outside service at some future time bv order in council and I rather think there will be some trouble about classification,
I there must be a pronouncement upon it by the new Board of Commissioners who are necessarily new men at this work. It may

cause trouble and inflict hardship on good officials in this House. I rather think it would be better for the minister to give it further consideration before asking the committee to adopt it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot conceive of any such trouble as my hon. friend alludes to. This change has not been made without consideration and it applies to the public service. The civil service has been a restricted term and the intention is to include all employees of the government, whether in the inside or outside service, for the purposes of this Act, I do not see where any danger can occur.


Mr. CONMEE.: In the classification of the civil servants who are being brought under this Act the minister has said that the determining factor will be their present salaries, what consideration will be given to the merits and abilities of the several clerks in their classification and promotion ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 6 provides for the present clerks being put in the new classification according to their standing to-day.


James Conmee: I asked whether in that regal'd salary alone or record and ability will be considered in making the classification. I understand it is not to be a competitive test.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a matter of fact if a clerk is to-day a first class clerk, whatever he is doing, he will go into a certain subdivision. If he is a second class clerk he will go into another subdivision. It is not a question of his work or anything but his position in the service.


George Eulas Foster: I would call attention to subdivision 4 of section 6. You will remember my contention was that a large number of temporary clerks who had not passed any examination at all would be by that section drafted into the civil service, because whilst it is a rule that civil government contingencies should only be used for those who have passed the examination it is also a fact that quite a large number are being paid out of civil government contingencies who have not passed the civil service examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I asked the Auditor General that question and his answer is :
With reference to those charged to civil government contingencies who have not passed the examination I find there are four in the Finance Department and one in the Governor General's Secretary's, five in all.
Mr. FOSTER, is that all ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what the Auditor General informs me.


George Eulas Foster: My information goes a good deal farther than that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I asked the Auditor General to refer to the hon. gentleman's questions in* the House and send me the facts.


Richard Blain: 


George Eulas Foster: I think it would be an injustice to place auy who have not passed the examination, by the mere fact that they have been employed contrary to the Act as we might say, into the civil service permanently. Any such clerks should pass the civil service examination before they are allowed to enter the permanent service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In view of the fact that we have been pretty constantly for many years admitting people into the service contrary to the Civil Service Act, I do not think it is worth while for the sake of these five to make any amendment to the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Coming back to section 3, I am not very well satisfied, so far as my personal opinion goes, with the present form of it. The expression ' civil service' was defined by the Civil Service Act and therefore had a definite meaning. The expression ' public service ' is not defined either by this Act or by the Civil Service Act. The exact meaning will have to be determined by some proper authority at some time if any question arises respecting that meaning and it seems to me that questions might very readily arise. Then, so far the employees of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Lib-ary are concerned, I am no more in favour of placing them in the outside service than I was in favour of placing them in the inside service. The Governor in Council could at any time include them by order in council in the inside service, and make every section of the Act apply to them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would like to interrupt my hon. friend to say that by another amendment later on I propose to provide that whenever the Governor in Council may do anything, the Senate as to the officers of the Senate, the House as to the officers of the House, and both Houses as to the officers of the Library, would have to act.


Robert Laird Borden: That would perhaps answer that objection, although I think we shall be obliged to pay a little attention to section 47 as proposed to be amended. Then I would like to express once more my own personal opinion that the best way to deal with the officials of both Houses and the officials of the Library would be to provide in the statutes that each House could bring them in when it saw fit to the extent it saw fit.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the amendment I am proposing does that.


Robert Laird Borden: If it does, then my criticism falls to the ground.
Mr. FISHER, I think practically I am carrying out the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: If it carries that out, I ought to be fully satisfied, and I will say no more about it until we come to section 47.


George Eulas Foster: The minister will remember that on section 10 I proposed that there should be some extension of (b), and I thought the minister was favourably inclined to that. The suggestion I made was to add these words
Of its own motion to investigate and report upon all matters relating to the enforcement and effects of the Civil Service Act or of any regulations made thereunder.
That would cover subjects on which the commission, with their constant working and familiarity with them, should be at full liberty to look into and express their opinion upon at any time ; so that the government, and especially the House, might have the benefit of their experience and recommendations.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know the whole bearings of what my hon. friend suggests. I would rather he disposed to suggest that the clause be left as it is, and if we find that there is any restriction on the work of the commission such as my hon. friend seems to fear, it will be very easy to amend that so as to give them power, which may be more clearly in our mind when they make their report. We shall probably appoint the commission immediately after the Act: comes into force, and if they indicate in their report in any way that they want further power, it will be very easy on their suggestion to make the necessary amendments.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think they would 'make any suggestion unless they had the power given them here. I do not think they would go outside of their legal power. What I wanted to give them was a basis for exercising that power. Under this section they would have power to look into any violation of the Act which might be brought to their notice or which they might notice themselves, but they could not go any further. We ought to give them the right to express their views on that matter.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We might go on with another section in the meantime, and I will consider that.


James Conmee: Is it intended that the commission shall have power to regulate discipline ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. I think the question of discipline in the departments would have to be left to the officers of the departments. I do not think it would be a good thing for an outside body to go in and discipline a department. For instance, the authority of a deputy minister over the clerks under him would not be complete if the commission, who could not know the personnel or the duties of the officers as well as the deputy minister, could exercise discipline in the department. I think it would be very detrimental indeed.


James Conmee: There is the other view, that there might be partiality in the department in the assignment of work. The English commission has power to regulate discipline. One of the objects of appointing a commission is to improve the service in the departments. Otherwise the head of the department might, in the interest of his friends, do many things not in the public interest. If my information be right, that sort of thing has often been done in times gone by.	.


George Eulas Foster: I would be very doubtful about authorizing the commission to discipline any branch of the service. The commission should be given full powers to make suggestions and to make any examination they consider necessary before making suggestions, and then throw the responsibility for action on the minister and parliament. That is as far as we could go, and I have been labouring with the minister to let us go that far. We have gained a little step. The commission can look into any violation of the rules and duties and report, and it will be for the minister to act, subject to his responsibility to this House. But for the commission to go into a department and attempt to discipline A, B or C would derogate entirely from the control and foremanship of the deputy minister who ought to be a vital force. I agree with my hon. friend that under most human conditions there will be occasions of favouritism probably, but those will have to be watched by the minister. If they are gross, they can be pointed out by the commission and the minister held responsible.


James Conmee: If my information be correct, there may be a good deal more onerous duties imposed on one officer than another who may receive less pay.


George Eulas Foster: That is true.


James Conmee: Of course the commission have the power to report, but considering the hon. gentleman's amendment as far as I can grasp it, I do not think it goes as far as the proposition he submits.


George Eulas Foster: My trouble is I cannot get the minister to go any further. If I could get him to go that far, I would be satisfied for the present.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: In any case such as the hon. gentleman speaks of, the head of the department might ask the commission to make a report.


James Conmee: My object is not to leave it to the head of the department. I think the head of the department requires discipline just as much as some of the officers under him.


George Eulas Foster: A good deal more.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is amenable to parliament.

Mr. CONiMiBE. It is a pretty long road to drag him through the operation of parliament.


George Eulas Foster: It would not be if the members supporting the government did their duty.
Mr. CO'NMEE. I was assuming, when I made my reply to the minister, that the members of the government were doing their whole duty. But even then it is impossible to reach the deputy head.
On section 13 - competitive admission examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I want to move an amendment that after the word ' to ' in line 10 the words 'position in' be added; and after the word 'service' in line 11, the words ' under that of the deputy head ' shall be added. There seems to be a doubt as to whether the entrance to the position of deputy head will not be by competitive examination. I wish to make it clear that it will not.
Mr. FOSTER I do not know whether it is practicable or not, but I would almost like to have seen the whole service open to a deserving person.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend would not suggest that the appointment of deputy minister should be opened to competitive examination.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps not.
Section as amended agreed to.
Mr. FISHER moved that section 24 and 25 be struck out.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to have a word to say about sections 21 and 22. I was not here when they were discussed. Section 21 reads :
If the deputy head reports that the knowledge and ability requisite for the position are wholly or in part professional, technical or otherwise peculiar, the Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the head of the department, based on the report of the deputy head, may appoint a person to the position without examination and without reference to the age limit, provided the said person obtains from the commission a certificate, given upon evidence satisfactory to it, that he possesses the requisite knowledge and ability and is duly qualified as to health, character and habits.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is moved that section 21 be amended by inserting after the word ' report ' in line 29 the words ' in writing.'
Mr. FISHER, lit was understood that wherever the deputy minister was required to make a report, the words ' in writing ' would be put into the Act all through. In the reprint that has not always been done. I suggest that the same words should be added in sections 23 and 28.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


George Eulas Foster: We have a large number of persons in the department who might be called technical or professional. In fact the definition of the first three divisions is technical or professional or executive officers. This opens a very wide door. If a deputy head reports that the knowledge and ability requisite for the position are ' wholly or in part professional, technical or otherwise peculiar.' What meaning might be given to that I do not know. I should think that technical or professional ought to be sufficiently wide. To add to that ' or otherwise peculiar ' opens up a very wide debatable field. iSuppose it is brought down to professional or technical, that gives a very large power of nomination and patronage to the government and you have a great many men in the service whose qualifications are partly or wholly technical or professional, and you may thus nullify to a considerable extent the Civil Service Act. Whenever the departmental head wants to get in a certain person, if he has at all professional or technical abilities, it will be quite easy to bring him in under this report without any examination or intervention by the commission. I should think in the first place that the words ' or otherwise peculiar ' might be left out and the discretion given by the section limited to the cases of professional and technical. In the second place it is worth wrhile considering whether you should not insert there the qualifying clause ' and which, in the opinion of the commission, cannot be provided for under the preceding sections of this Act.' There is really no case which cannot be met under the preceding sections of the Act. If you want a packer, the commission can examine on packers, duties. If you want a professional man, the commission can examine on professional qualifications. . In such cases, the patronage is eliminated, and this is the object of the Civil iService Act. If you allow this to go in, the patronage is not eliminated, and there is full power of nomination given to the Crown and to the minister who represents the department. But there might be, occasionally, some cases in which the commissioners themselves might prefer that an examination should not oe held. Let that be left to the good sense of the commissioners and not with the whim or caprice, or it may be, even well founded opinion, of the minister. If the opinion is reasonable, the commissioners can be depended upon to agree with it. But if it is a case of patronage and ought not, in good reason, to be adopted, the commissioners will say so. But when you do not interpose the commission, it becomes mere nomination and patronage. When you have the competitive examination, it is not nomination nor is it patronage, because the list is there, prepared, not by the minister or hir, deputy but by the commission under

its method of operation, and from that list the appointee is to be selected. I venture to say that in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand, under these conditions, the commissioners would be able to supply the man the department requires, and abuses would be avoided. '
Mr. FISH E It. All the Civil Service Acts have had a clause of this kind. The English civil service regulations have such a clause; not exactly in the same words :


Mr FOSTER.: No the commission have power.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The word ' peculiar ' is in the provision of the English law and I took this right out of the English Act.


George Eulas Foster: That may be with regard to ' peculiar.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what I am talking about. With regard to the word 'peculiar ' it is there and the clause is taken verbatim. In the American regulations exactly the same power is given. In the English regulations the appointing power may take a person of these qualincations from outside, and my hon. friend, I am satisfied, is absolutely wrong in saying that the commission regulates it. I am certain I speak correctly of the English system. In regard to the American system, numberless appointments have been made under an exactly similar provision. In this clause we go further than either the English or Americans do, for we provide that the appointee must have a certificate of qualification from the commission. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) would limit * peculiar ' qualifications to professional and technical. But there are officers whose qualifications are ' peculiar ' and yet could hardly be called either ' technical ' or ' professional.' For instance, take one to be employed in a library. There is a regular system of training librarians, and some of our universities have courses of study in that line. But the qualifications so acquired could hardly be designated as technical or profession, because there is no profession of librarians yet. Take another case :	My hon. friend
the Minister of Customs may require an appraiser, a man peculiarly versed-and I used the words advisedly ' peculiarly versed '-in a particular class of goods. The qualifications of such a man would not be professional or technical


George Eulas Foster: I think they would be technical.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It seems to me that in the interpretation of the word they would not be technical. I am satisfied-I know- that In the English service such words are used to meet such cases as I have indicated, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is necessary that a provision of this kind must be inserted in any Civil Service Act. It is especially wise when we find that, as in
this clause, it is provided that the commission must give a certificate of qualification on grounds which they think best, whether by examination or otherwise, before an appointment is made. I think we have safeguarded it as much as possible, consistent with the successful working of the provision.


George Eulas Foster: In the British service it works this way: Where a case of this kind arises there is a request for the kind of officer required ; then the Civil Service I Commission may, if it thinks proper, wholly or partially dispense with the written examination and give their certificate on qualification.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what we do.


George Eulas Foster: There it is left to the Civil Service Commission to say whether they shall wholly or partially dispense with the examination.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the case here ; we leave it with the commission to give its certificate 'upon (evidence satisfactory to it.'


George Eulas Foster: But it does not leave it to the commission to examine partially or wholly ; it is prohibited from examining, but still is asked to give a certificate.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes-' upon evidence satisfactory to it.' It is absolutely within its own control how it shall get its evidence.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think you can force the language that way. It does not mean that they can examine the person.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: I would have no objection to it if it were simply to leave the matter to the commission to dispense with the examination where they think reasonable.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am willing that this should be made to read the same as section 26. I would move that the words ' given upon evidence satisfactory to it ' be struck out and these words substituted : 'to be given with or without examination as is determined by the regulations of the commission.'
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 22-appointment of messengers, porters, sorters and packers.


George Eulas Foster: I consider this section is a very faulty portion of the Act. Appointments to these positions, and to such other positions in the lower grades as are determined by the Governor in Council, may be made by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the head of the department. That absolutely gives to the government the power of nomination.
Mr. FISHER, With the condition that the appointees have to have a certificate of qualification from the commission.


George Eulas Foster: But with that condition it gives absolute power of nomination to the government. That is a power that the English civil service reformers in 1855 started out to fight against and to put down. That was the dominant evil, and the basis of the proposed legislation to-day is to do away, as far as possible, with nomination by the Crown, that is, nomination by the minister, or by members of parliament supporting the minister. Now, take this large class of appointees, including messengers, porters, sorters, packers and such other positions in the lower grades as are determined by the Governor in Council. That is a very important part of the public service, and you absolutely shut out from it the beneficent features of this legislation. You fill these positions entirely at the nomination of the party, and you exclude the Canadian citizen from the free right of entrance into that part of the service. I think that is a great blemish in the minister's Act, as well as a great trouble to everybody who hates the power of patronage, and believes that in the end it is not beneficial, even from a party point of view. Take my hon. friend the member for Ottawa, does he look upon the patronage power as he finds it developed in his daily life as a_ desirable thing? Are his hours his own? Is he not pestered almost unbearably by applicants of every kind for office? Is not nine-tenths of his public time taken up with looking after, or pretending to look after, matters of patronage. Now, if he proposes to sit after the next election for Ottawa, does he not see what he is storing up for himself by supporting the minister in passing this section? And does he not see what great trouble he would avoid if he supported me in inducing the minister to give up this power of patronage? There are hundreds and hundreds of this class, and with every one of them it will simply be pitching upon the representative, the representative pitching upon the minister, and the minister and the representative fighting it out so as' to get the best results they can from the party point of view. In Great Britain it is not so, in the United States it is not so ; they have put these positions entirely out of the power of nomination and patronage, and it can be done here in some such way as I will suggest. I will read what I have drawn up :
After the words ' deputy head ' insert ' and such appointments shall be made in order of merit from a list of successful applicants determined by the commission through examination and inquiry, to be provided for under regulations made by the commission and approved by the Governor in Council.
That allows the commissioners to proceed upon proper businesslike plans and, after competition and examination, to prepare a list, and the applicants in their order of merit shall be placed upon that Mr. FISHER.
list. Then when the minister requires such an one all he has to do is to apply to the commissioners, and from that list they select the person who is fitted for the kind of work the minister requires, according to his order of merit in that particular line. Then the member for Ottawa has nothing to do but to say to the applicant: That is all in the hands of the commissioners. Show your capability to go on that list, and you will get fair and equal treatment.


Mr. BERGERON.: But how can he get
votes? '


George Eulas Foster: I venture to say that the experience of every member is that he has lost more votes than he has gained..


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think I can accept that proposition. I agree that the idea of competitive examination must' be extended to all entrants to the civil service. But at the same time such a proposition as my hon. friend outlines there is one which would have to be worked out with the greatest care, because it does not mean an ordinary competitive examination.


George Eulas Foster: I did not say it did, and I would not have it so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He would not have it so ; in other words, he wishes to provide a machinery which I should think, from his description of it, would be a very unworkable one. My hon. friend wants to put that into the statute now so that in future the commission shall do such a thing whether they think they can make regulations to accomplish it or not. It is a continuation of the reform which, if the commission recommends it, may be adopted. But until it is in a complete form before the House, and before those who are responsible for the working of this Act, I do not think it would be advisable to accept it. I take direct issue with my hon. friend on that point. I am as desirous as he is of taking away from fhe government and from members of parliament this class of patronage. I appreciate it perhaps more than my hon. friend does, because my experience has been much more recent than his. The whole object of this Bill is in that direction, but at the same time I do not want to undertake to do something the successful working out of which I cannot perceive. What my hon. friend proposes would require a great deal more consideration than can be given to it here on the reading of the amendment before the committee, and until the commission has been consulted, have discussed it and have outlined some scheme after their experience and observation of the working of the Act, I would not undertake to accept it.


George Eulas Foster: I cannot follow the minister in his reasoning. What he proposes

as a possibility Is just exactly what is Indicated in this amendment. It will be for the commission in consultation with the Governor in Council, to work out a proper scheme. If the commission are able to do it for third-class clerks and for the writer class


Sydney Arthur Fisher: They have a clear cut way of doing that by competitive examination. '


George Eulas Foster: But it is infinitely more difficult for the commissioners to prepare the right kind of examination, to make it practical and effective and to keep it from being academic for the other grades of clerks than it is to prepare forms of examination for a messenger, packer or sorter. This is of the most elementary description. What Great Britain and the United States have carried out without the least trouble my bon. friend could work out through the commission here. The difficulty with the minister is that he does not want to give up the patronage.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it is not.


George Eulas Foster: And he is putting a blot upon his whole Civil Service Act when he takes hundreds of public positions on one hand and says to the people :	You shall
not have your entrance into this part of the public service without a competitive examination, and then says :	We shall keep
the nomination and patronage in respect to another large branch of the public service in our own hands. Why not cut it off when the minister is at the process and has his knife already into the evil which he has so strongly denounced ? Why not go to the whole length especially as it is the easiest portion of the length to go ? The minister says that there is no time to consider it now. No, because legislation is chucked into the House in the seventh month of the session, we have not time to do anything. We are worn out any way. However, I will move the amendment.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would like to ask my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) if the nomination of a page would have to be made by the Governor in Council?


George Eulas Foster: If the proposed resolution is adopted the House shall exercise just the same authority it now exercises in connection with its officers. There will be no change at all.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand that it says that the nomination of an officer of the House of Commons shall be through the clerk, or the deputy head or the Speaker, and that it will have to be done by the Governor in Council. Where is the difference?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We are coming to a clause which I am proposing to insert in the Act to define that everything that is done under this Act where it relates to the House of 387
Commons shall be done by the House. In a department the Governor in Council can make appointments, but it is provided that appointments to the staff of the House of Commons or the Senate shall be outside of the Governor in Council.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then there will be no change ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. With regard to what my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) says about my desire to retain the patronage, I think that Is an entirely unfair statement. I do not wish to accept this amendment because I do not think it is feasible to carry out such a competitive examination as applies to the rest of the service. Where it is cut and dried work it can be carried out with definite results, but in such a case as this it would necessarily be very loose and I do not consider that it would work. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the amendment. The statement of the hon. gentleman that my reason for not accepting it is that I want to keep the patronage, is not correct.
Amendment (Mr. Foster) negatived.
On section 21-professional and specially qualified officers.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me that the word ' competitive ' should be placed before the word ' examination ' in the 30th line. You have ' without examination ' in one place and 'with or without' in the other.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I will accept that amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: That is evidently the Intention.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 22-messengers, packers, &c.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would also suggest in section 22 that we make the same change as was made in section 21 as to the way in which the certificate of the commission should be given. In lines 41 and 42, I would move that the words ' given upon evidence satisfactory to it ' be stricken out and that the words ' to be given with or without examination as is determined by the regulations of the commission' be substituted.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 23-temporary clerks.


George Eulas Foster: Then, may I suggest to my hon. friend that he also carry that out in section 23?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes. I propose that in subsection 2 of section 23 we shall also strike out the words * given upon evidence satisfactory to it' and substitute the words ' to be given with or without examination as



is determined by the regulations of the commission.'
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 reconsidered.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I propose that sections 24 and 25 be struck out altogether.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 29-salary of deputy head.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would ask the committee to now take up section 29. I propose to strike out the words from * deputy head ' down to the word ' parliament,' these words being 'administering a department, and of the clerks of the Senate and House of Commons, and of each of the librarians of parliament.' I find, on the statement of the law clerks, that these words are not needed with the definition of ' deputy head ' in the second section of the Act.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Does this increase tfhe salary of the Speaker too ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the Speaker's salary has nothing to do with the civil service.


George Eulas Foster: What is the present salary of the clerk of the Senate ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think $4,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In the Senate they have a clerk, a deputy clerk and a second deputy clerk, have they not ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do,not know.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Mr. Evanturel has been appointed second deputy clerk.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Mr. Evanturel succeeds a previous clerk.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They have more employees there than we have, but they have not the work or tftie long hours. We used to have two clerks here but now there is only one. I do not think even if the Senate do appoint them we are called upon to vote the money to pay them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend should bring that up in Supply on the items for the Senate legislation.
On section 37-status preserved.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I move to amend this section by adding the following subclause ?
2. Any person (whether permanent or temporary) who is in receipt of the maximum salary, as heretofore established, of the class (permanent or temporary), in which he is then serving shall, on the expiry of one year from his having first been in receipt of such salary, he eligible for the increase of salary provided by this Act.
This clause is taken from the Act of 1903 and simply provides that a clerk who is today at the maximum of his class and consequently could not get an increase, but the maximum of the corresponding subdivision Mr. FISHER.
being raised is eligible for an increase, may be paid that increase on the expiry of a year.


George Eulas Foster: That is the annual increase ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The maximum being raised he ought to get a statutory increase, but he cannot get it until a year after his last increase.


Robert Laird Borden: I confess I do not understand the verbiage of this amendment. What have we here to do witlh ' salaries as heretofore established ' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have explained the condition to which this applies. This provides that a civil servant situated as I said shall not be eligible for an increase until a year from the time he received his last increase, to the salary he is now drawing.


Robert Laird Borden: If that is the intention why does not the amendment say so ? It confuses the matter and I confess I am unable to understand it. I appreciate the intention and I agree with it, but the verbiage is open to objection. I cannot make out whether the word ' then ' refers to the past or the future.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I asked the clerk whether that ought not to be ' now,' but he said that the word * then ' was the usual form, meaning at the time when the last increase took place.


Robert Laird Borden: Then it should read: 1 was then receiving.'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The next amendment I propose is to insert the following as section 38, to meet the change in section 3 :
38. Except as herein otherwise provided, the salary of any person placed in the inside service by or under this Act or to whom the provisions thereof are made applicable^, shall be that which he is then receiving, and the said salary shall determine his classification, provided that where the amount of the salary is common to two subdivisions or positions, the classification shall be determined by the Governor in Council.


Mr. R. E. BORDEN.: I admit that the work of regrading and reclassification is a difficult one in so large a service, with so many interests to be considered, and I presume from the remarks of the minister this morning that it is intended to accomplish something of the reclassification under section 8 of the Bill. I am not clear as to how it can be effectively worked out under the provisions of the Bill as they are presented to the committee. That, however, is more a subject for the consideration of the government, who will have to put the Act into practical working. My own views with regard to it have already been expressed and I need not dwell upon 'fivu again. Summarized in a few words they are these : When you do come to re-

classify the service, you must necessarily of course have some regard for the salaries and positions of the various members of the service, but any reclassification or regrading which will be worthy of the name, which will tend to increase the efficiency of the service, must be based on the ability of the different members of the service and their fitness for the particular work to which they are to be assigned. If some regard ;s not had to these considerations, the reclassification or regrading will be entirely mechanical. and will' leave the service, so far as efficiency is concerned, in very much the same position as it is in to-day. In saying this, I do not for one moment desire to minimize the difficulties which lie before any government which will undertake to deal effectively with this question, but if tlie service is to be increased in efficiency and if the reclassification is to have any beneficial effect, something will have to be done along these lines.


James Conmee: It seem to me that the board should have some jurisdiction over grading, promotion and regulating discipline. The grading should not be based entirely on existing salaries. In his book on the ' Civil Service in Great Britain,' Dorman B. Eaton in the chapter on ' The Merit System in the Great Departments ' says :
The board has the right of promotion and authority for discipline without interference from any other quarter, but cannot increase salaries or expenses. Promotions are for merit. In certain parts of the service they are based on examinations, and in other parts cn official records kept in the offices, and almost without exception all the higher places are filled from those below. Personal records of the conduct of all officers are kept by the board. . . . The circumstances of all promotions stand recorded in the official hooks, and may be referred to in the event of any complaint or inquiry being made into the matter.
As I understand it, the English system recognizes that the public has an interest not only In the efficiency of the service and in the discipline maintained, but in the justice that may be meted out to the various individuals in the service. Not only is the evil of political patronage, so far as it is an evil, to be done away with, but social influence, clerical influence and a great many other kinds of influence, which in my humble opinion are as vicious in principle as the so-called political influence, under the British system the heads of departments are unable to advance by favouritism any person who may be a relative or a friend. The man in the service relies on his ability and his record. Surely it is an injustice that a man should do departments are unable to advance by fa-drawing a higher salary. I think the commission ought to have some power to regulate these matters. It would be in the 3871
public interest, in the interest of elevating the public service and be simple justice to those who have entered the service on the competitive basis.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This clause only applies to people who are at present in the service. These people have attained the positions they occupy under the present law, and I do not think we should undertake to alter their conditions, even at tlie recommendation of the commission. When there is a question of promotion these people will have to undergo the necessary examination, but I do not think it would be right to undertake to degrade them now.


James Conmee: I have no idea whatever that any one should be degraded in the service, but I do think there should be some examination as to whether a man is fir at all to occupy a jjosition in the service. That was done in England when the English Act was brought into force. A large number were discarded there on the ground that they had not sufficient general knowledge or ability to fill any position in the service in the rank in which they were. Men who have been long in the service and who have acquired a certain efficiency should not be disturbed ; but if there are any who are absolutely useless, they should make room for others. I do not say they should be turned on the street. It would be better for the government to give them an annuity now than retain them in the service when they are utterly incompetent. If you are going to introduce the competitive principle, you should start, as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) has said, with some regard to that principle in the case of those now in the service.
On section 39-annual increase.


George Eulas Foster: I would call attention to subsection 4. Is it meant that the increase of $100 annually in the first paragraph is to be conditioned by subsection 4?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I think that applies to subsection 3.


George Eulas Foster: As it reads, it would apply to all.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend will notice the thirty-third line, ' and in the case of officers, clerks and other employees of the second and third division to whom a further increase is recommended, accompanied by a certificate of merit from the commission.'


George Eulas Foster: What you do is omit the first division from the clause requiring that certificate.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The intention is that the usual increase shall be given without a certificate from the commission. It is only the exceptional or merit increase,

and that does not apply to the first division.


George Eulas Foster: When there is an extraordinary increase in the first division


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no provision for that.


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon. gentleman still persist in the $100 increase for the higher division instead of $50?
Mi;. FISHER. I think so.
On section 44,


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend from North Toronto proposes an amendment which he handed me across the floor. I examined the wording and it did not strike me as satisfactory. I have here an amendment which is more in the form of enactment. His was more in the form of a resolution or declaration. This is the amendment which has been drafted by the Justice Department, and of which I think my hon. friend will approve :
No officer, clerk or employee in the service shall be debarred from voting at any Dominion or provincial election if, under the laws governing the same, he has the right to vote, But every such officer or clerk is prohibited from engaging otherwise in partisan work in connection with such election.


Mr.   BDAIN@: Under that can an employee take the position of a deputy returning officer?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not consider that a partisan position.


Mr. DANIEL.: What is the object of the words ' or otherwise ' ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Because he is already authorized to vote.


Mr. LENNOX.: That is not partisan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It might be so construed.


Haughton Lennox: Would the hon. gentleman not consider a returning officer partisan?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the work of the deputy returning officer is strictly judicial, and he takes an oath to discharge the duties without partisanship.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would it not be an improvement to strike out the words ' or otherwise' ?	I


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There would be a doubt as to whether he was allowed to vote ?


John Waterhouse Daniel: It plainly states that he is allowed to vote.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: Is there any penalty in connection with this ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Criminal Code provides a penalty.


Richard Blain: I understand the minister to state that the position of deputy returning officer is non-partisan.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman emphasizes it. But, if he would read the history of politics in the province of Ontario and especially the history of the party with which he himself is identified, he would learn that it is a strictly partisan position in many respects and in a great many counties in that province. But I am not going to debate that or enter into a discussion about it ; I want to exnress my opinion that it is a serious blunder to regard the position of deputy returning officer as a non-partisan position. I am very much surprised that the minister, when he is making provision to remove the civil service from political influence, should think it his duty to allow these men to occupv the position of deputy returning officer.


Mr. SPROULE.: I agree with every word that the hon. member (Mr. Blain) has said. We have had an experience of deputy returning officers fpr many years past that justifies the strongest suspicion that you cannot put a government employee in that position without the danger that he will act as a partisan. I regard it as a great impropriety to have such a provision in the law.


James Conmee: It seems to me that an officer of the civil service would be a proper person to appoint as a deputy returning officer. The position is more or less that of a judge, for the deputy returning officer may have to rule upon questions affecting the rights of a voter. If you appoint a responsible officer, for instance, a customs officer or in the provincial field, a deputy sheriff or clerk of the court, in my humble opinion you have the best material to make a deputy returning officer. The hon. gentleman shakes his head. But I have had some experience, and my experience is that that class of men are more apt to discharge fairly the' duties of such an office than others of less experience and ability.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The civil service are under the government; is it in the nature of things that they should act with strict impartiality as between a government candidate and a candidate opposed to the government ? It is not human nature and it is unreasonable to expect it. Therefore, a civil servant is by no means the man who would be most likely to act impartially when employed in such a case. The appointment of such men to positions of deputy returning officer by the government, that regularly employs them in their official capacity must create a grave suspicion that it is most unlikely that impartiality will be shown in the work of the deputy returning officer.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I would ask the minister or the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) to tell me the name of a deputy

returning officer who served in the last election who was not a political friend of the government. He cannot name one. They are all partisans appointed


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There Is one in my county, Mr. Nelson Emmerson, deputy returning officer in North Sutton, who is a well known Conservative.


Mr. FIELDING.: I do not pretend to recall the names now, but, if a little time were given me, I am sure I could name fifty in Nova Scotia.


Richard Blain: In the discussion the other dav the Minister of Finance stated that, in his opinion, 95 per cent of the deputy returning officers appointed belonged to one political party


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say that.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman endorsed the position that I took in making that statement to the House.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is mistaken ; I did not say that.
Mr. FISHER, I think the hon. gentleman is attributing to the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) his recollection of something that I said.


Richard Blain: Then, we have it from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). But may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if he does not think that 95 per cent of the deputy returning officers in the federal election were of the same stripe of politics?


William Stevens Fielding: In Nova Scotia, emphatically, it is not so.


Richard Blain: What percentage, then ?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know. In the county of Halifax, which I represented for some years, and I think the same is true of my present constituency, the practice was to appoint gentlemen on both sides of politics. I think that the position taken by the sheriff of the county of Halifax, a gentleman whom I had the honour to appoint, invariably appointed men irrespective of party. Anil I am confident that the same was true of Nova Scotia generally. I do not speak of the other provinces. We have little or no complaint with us about the deputy returning officers.


Richard Blain: The sheriff is appointed returning officer, and one would gather from what the hon. gentleman says that the sheriff makes the appointments. But It is well known that the deputy returning officers are appointed on the recommendation of the candidate.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: That is by your crowd.


William Stevens Fielding: In my own province it is not so. I do not recommend or make nominations of deputy returning officers.


Alexander Johnston: My hon. friend has reference to what transpired in Ottawa lately.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Richard Blain: In regard to clause 41, I wish to add a few words to what I said before one o'clock. I think that on due consideration the minister will feel that he made a mistake if be allows this Bill to go through with the permission to civil servants to accept positions as deputy returning officers in political elections. I have under my hand several cases with reference to the deputy returning officers taking part in certain elections in the province of Ontario. If my hon. friend will read the history of provincial elections in the province of Ontario, he will come to the conclusion that at this time, when he is trying to reform the civil service, he should add a clause to this Bill that will prohibit civil servants from acting as deputy returning officers. We have had a case in the province of Ontario where a deputy returning officer, at the close of the poll, took the ballot box to his house and kept it there over night, and that ballot box was opened in his house and the ballots tampered with. When the election trial came on they made an effort to subpoena the deputy returning officer to give evidence in that trial, and he could not be found, file had gone to the United States, and I am not sure that he has returned to his home yet. That was in the county of North Grey. I have under my hand a statement showing that a returning officer appointed a deputy in an election in the province of Ontario, who did not reside in Canada at all, he came in and gave another name.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Was he a civil servant ?


Richard Blain: No, he was not, but I am pointing out that under this condition of things the people of Ontario are naturally suspicious of the conduct of deputy returning officers. I am not going into the question very fully, because this is not an opportune time. But I wish to say to my hon. friend, and to say it with all possible emphasis, that when he is endeavouring to frame a Bill that will receive the approval of both sides of this House, he should endeavour to remove the civil service entirely from political partisanship, and to that end he should insert a clause providing that no civil servant shall accept the position of, deputy returning officer in any political election. If my hon. friend permits this Bill to go through without such a clause as that, it will not receive the respect that he wishes it to receive, because it will be open to some suspicion, and he himself will be open to suspicion if the allows this Bill to go through without a provision of that kind.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hold that the position of deputy returning officer is not a partisan

position, whether the deputy is a civil servant or not. But if a civil servant shows partisanship while acting as deputy returning officer, he is violating his oath of office when he accepted the position, and so far as I am concerned, if a civil servant should do that he would be removed from the service, if I had the. power. But that is a question that should be dealt with in the Election Act rather than in a Civil Service Act. The suggestion that the civil servant should not be allowed to act as deputy returning officer is one that 1 cannot accept.
On section 47,
47. Wherever under sections 5, 8, 10 (b), 21, 22, 23, 26, 28 (2), 34, 35, 38 and 39 (4), any action is authorized or directed to be taken by the Governor in Council or by order in council such action with respect to the officers, clerks and employees of the House of Commons or the Senate, shall be taken upon a resolution of the House of Commons or a resolution of the Senate as the case may be, and with respect to the officers, clerks and employees of the library of parliament, and to such other officers, clerks and employees as are under the joint control of both Houses of parliament, shall be taken upon a joint resolution of both Houses of parliament.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to add to the original Bill this new section, as No. 47, which refers to employees of tllie Senate and House of Commons, and of the library of parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I think this is a step in the right direction, but I would suggest that as this amendment is drawn, it will still be the Governor in Council who will take the action with regard to the officers, clerks and employees of tike Houses of parliament; although he will do it upon resolution of the House, it will still be the Governor in Council who will do it. The difficulty in that case would be that the House could never make any change without going to tike Governor in Council, who will control the situation. I think the language bears out what I say :
Whenever under sections (those enumerated) any action is authorized or directed to be taken by the Governor in Council or by order in council, such action with respect to the officers, clerks and employees of the House of Commons or the Senate shall be taken upon a resolution of the House of Commons or of the Senate.
That is to say, the order in council shall be passed upon a resolution of the House of Commons ; that is obviously what it means. Instead of that, I suggest tha the section should read this way :
Whenever '(under the sections enumerated) action is authorized or directed to be taken by the Governor in Council or by order in council, such action with respect to the officers, clerks and employees of the House of Commons and of the Senate, shall be taken by the House of Commons or by the Senate, Mr. FISHER.
as the case may be, by resolution, and with respect to the officers, clerks and employees of the library of parliament, and to such others as are under the joint control of both Houses shall be taken by both Houses of parliament by joint resolution.
Mr. FI SUER, I think my hon. friend is right, and that the words should be : ' Governor in Council upon a resolution of the House.' That was the intention. There is another point with regard to the employees of the House of Commons which was brought up and which I promised to take into consideration. I proposed to provide for that by the following amendment :
48. Nothing in this Act or the Civil Service Act shall be held to curtail the privileges now enjoyed by the officers, clerks and employees of the House of Commons or of the Senate or of the library of parliament with respect to attendance, office hours, leave of absence or with respect to engaging in such employment during parliamentary recess as may entitle them to receive extra salary or remuneration.
I think this will conserve to the employees of the House of Commons all privileges and rights they now have outside of the session of parliament.


Mr.  R. L.@: (BORDEN. Are the words 'extra salary or remuneration ' intended to refer to salary outside of the salary or remuneration which they receive from the government ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To anything ; to any employment. They include that. This provision is intended to meet the case of ' Hansard ' reporters especially who often work for commissions which work would probably be under the government.


Frederick William Borden: The words ' in any other employment during the parliamentary recess,' it seems to me, would meet the case.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think that would do, if they were employed.by the government and had to be paid by the government, because there is another section which would prevent them from getting paid by the government for any work of that kind. These words were put in to cover that.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: As it is now can they work for some other department of the government and get paid for it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and this conserves that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Section 10 reconsidered.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: Section 10 was asked to be allowed to stand so that I might consider a suggestion of the hon. member for North Toronto. I have examined the wording of his proposed amendment which I do not think fits in very well. I would be will-

ing, which is largely on the line of what he proposed, to put in the words ' the operation of the Civil Service Act or of this Act.' I therefore move to insert after the word ' upon ' in the eighteenth line, the words ' the operation of the Civil Service Act or of this Act and upon.' That puts it in their power to take action upon the operation of the Civil Service Act.
Section as amended agreed to.


Mr. STEWART.: There is a matter which was referred to this morning, having reference to a section already adopted, which has given rise to considerable discussion and which I would like to bring to the attention of the committee before the Bill is reported. We have arranged by this Bill that the clerks of the House of Commons shall be subject to the commission on the question of promotion. I do not know how. it strikes other hon. members of the House, but it seems to me that the clerks of the committees [DOT] are splendidly qualified to fill the positions which they have been occupying by reason of their many years of service and experience, and that the clerk, the Speaker and the committee on internal economy are the best judges as to the question of which of these clerks deserve promotion. It should be left in their hands. The amendment which has been suggested is this :	[DOT]
26a. No certificate of qualification from the commission shall be necessary in the case of a promotion to any vacancy in the staff of either House of parliament, when the recommendation of the clerk of the House and the approval of the Speaker have been given.
This is the unanimous desire of the clerks of the House.
Mr. BERGERON Is the Commission on Internal Economy abolished by this Bill ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. I think we have pretty well threshed this out. We simply subject the employees of the House of Commons, the Senate and the library to the same requirements that other clerks must submit to of receiving a certificate of qualification from the commission when they are promoted. That certificate may be based on information which the commission can get in any way they see fit, and I think there will be no danger with regard to the promotion of any official. I think it would be unfortunate if we were to change this provision and adopt a rule with regard to the clerks of the Houses of parliament different from that wThich is applied to the rest of the service.
Amendment (Mr. Stewart) negatived.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY-APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES IN QUEBEC.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRED LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Yes.\nSome resolutions reported.']
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The right hon. first minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) promised me the other day that he would tell me whether there would be any appointments by the Dominion government of judges in the province of Quebec in accordance with the legislation adopted by the legislature of Quebec.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) We have come to the conclusion that we will not bring down any legislation this year for the purpose of appointing more judges in Quebec. The legislature has passed one Bill to authorize the appointment of a new judge in the district of Quebec and three new judges in the district of Montreal. We have received a communication from Hon. Lorner Gouin, the Attorney General of the province, who has sent us some statistics, and we think it is our duty rather than pass this legislation to invite the attention of the local legislature not only of Quebec but of other provinces also, with a view to, if possible, so amend their system as to take advantage of the present judicial force and concentrate it in certain districts so as to avoid the necessity of more appointments. The Minister of Justice is of .opinion, and that opinion is shared by a good many, that there is at the present time in Quebec a sufficient judicial force to satisfy the wants of the province if they were distributed otherwise than at present, if all the judges, for instance, who have very little to do in the outside districts were called upon by legislation to discharge the duties of their office in Montreal and Quebec, we would thereby avoid the necessity of making new appointments. Therefore we have come to the conclusion to make this representation to the Attorney General and for this session not to bring in legislation such as was contemplated.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I believe that my hon. friend is right, but I would remind him that such a reform was tried before by a Bill known as the Casgrain Bill, but it did not carry. Of course we have here practically to follow the dicta of those legislatures in this matter. I have heard my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) under other circumstances say that we could not discuss it but that we had to act. There is no doubt that something might be done along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister. I believe there are enough judges in the province of- Quebec, if the system was changed, but if the local legislature does not desire to change the system what position are we in? Suppose they pass a law, as they have authority to do, we here can only act and appoint judges.


Wilfrid Laurier: The present system under the British North America Act is absolutely unsatisfactory and it cannot continue much longer, we shall have to do something in that respect. In the meantime

it is quite true that in Quebec an attempt at reform was made and failed, but it is I think proper that we should call the attention of the Attorney General of the province to the fact that at the present time another effort should be made to see if the condition cannot be improved. I think the consensus of opinion exists everywhere that if the judicial forces, instead of being scattered as at present, some being overburdened in Montreal for instance and to some extent in Quebec, while in other districts they have absolute sinecures, if it were possible to concentrate the judicial forces we would obviate the necessity of making new appointments. I appreciate the difficulties of the Prime Minister and Attorney General of Quebec and that he may not be able to make the arrangements we suggest. Then it shall be our duty to consider our own position. I have taken the position formerly and it is a position we cannot avoid, that the Dominion parliament has no opinion of its own, that is, no alternative of acting or not acting; but my hon. friend will agree that if we are reduced to the position of not being able to secure reform in a province of what we consider to be an evil it may be that we will have to reconsider the whole system of judicial appointments and assign that work to the provinces or adopt some other device- whereby such a condition as we have at present might be avoided. For my part I think it might be possible to avoid the necessity of more judicial appointments-no one wants to have more judges appointed than are necessary for the proper discharge of the business of the country. In the meantime we think it only right and proper that we should call the attention of the Attorney General to what we consider to be a very serious condition.



Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved :: That all the words after the word ' that ' in the proposed motion be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:
Order No. 36 in public Bills and orders, being consideration of the amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 3) to amend the Railway Act.-Mr. Lancaster-be now called and proceeded with.
He said : I desire to move this amendment to the motion for Supply, although I know it is not altogether usual, I placed m the hands of the Minister of Railways a copy of the proposed amendment. I am sorry to say the minister does not see his way to consent to it. This is the Bill commonly known as the Bill for the protection of the people at level crossings. It was passed unanimously by this House and was sent to the Senate on December 12 last. The Senate did not deal with it until nearly four months later, on March 31, with an amendment which I cannot discuss now, but Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
which, in my opinion, destroys the principle of the Bill. My contention is that we should consider that amendment to this important piece of legislation before we grant any more Supply. When the Bill came back from the Senate on March 31, all days but Mondays had been taken by the government for government business, the very next Monday was taken for government business and the Bill has not been reached since it came from the Senate. Of course I do not criticise the government for taking these days, but had the Senate dealt with the Bill earlier in the session it would have been called as a public Bill. Owing to their delay it has never been reached or I am sure the House would have rejected the amendment and insisted on a conference with the Senate to try to induce them to agree to what we considered in December proper legislation.


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I think it would be unwise at the present stage of the session to open up the public Bills and Orders. There are several Bills on the Order Paper which it had been hoped to proceed with this session but they will all of necessity be dropped and I think it would be unwise to make an exception for this particular Bill. Therefore I ask the House not to accept the motion.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Lancaster).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Lewis,
Avery,	Martin
Barr,	(Queens. P.E.I.),
Beattie.	Monk,
Bennett,	Morin,
Bergeron,	Northrup,
Blain.	Owen,
Borden (Carleton),	Paquet,
Boyce,	Perley,
Chisholm (Huron),	Porter,
Clements,	Pringle,
Cockshutt,	Reid (Grenville),
Crocket,	Roche (Marquette),
Daniel.	Schaffner,
Elson.	Stanfield,
Foster,	Staples,
Ganong,	Taylor,
Haggart,	Tisdale,
Kemp,	Ward,
Lake,	Wilson (Lennox &
Lancaster,	Addington),
Lennox,	Wright (Muskoka)-
NAYS:
Messieurs
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Macdonald.
Maclean (Lunenburg), Macpherson,
McColl, -McCool,
McIntyre (Perth),
Aylesworth,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown.
Caldwell,
Calvert,

Carvell,
Cash,
Clarke,
Conmee,
Copp,
Crawford.
Cyr,
Demers.
Desjardins,
Devlin,
Dugas,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Finlayson,
Fortier,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Girard,
Gordon,
Graham,
Greenway,
Harty,
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.),	Talbot,
Hunt,	Telford,
Jackson (Selkirk),	Teinpleman,
J ohnston.	Turcotte,
Kennedy,	Turgeon,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Turriff,
Lapointe,	Verville,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	, W atson.
Lavergne,	Wright (Renfrew),
Law.	Zimmerman.-85.
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Beland,	Ames,
Bickerdike,	Armstrong,
Bureau,	Barker,
Burrows,	Brabazon,
Carney,	Bristol,'
Caron,	Broder,
Dyment,	Christie,
Emmerson,	Clare,
Beauparlant,	Forget,
Finlay,	Fowler.
Fisher,	Henderson,
Grant.	Herron,
Guthrie,	Hughes (Victoria),
Hall,	Jackson (Elgin),
Knowles,	Lalor,
LeBlanc,	Leonard,
Logan,	Lefurgey,
McCraney,	Macdonell,
Oliver,	MacLaren,
Ratz,	Maclean (York, S.),
Black,	McCarthy (Calgary),
Schell (Oxford),	McLean
Sloan.	(Queens, P.E.I.), Marshall,
Sifton,	Osier,
Smith (Nanaimo),	Seagram,
Stewart,	Smith (Wentworth),
Tobin,	Thompson,
Tolmie,	Walsh (Huntingdon)
McLean (York, C.),	White,
Chisholm	Wilmot,
(Antigonish), Parmelee.	Worthington.
Amendment negatived.


THE RAILWAY ACT.
Mr. A. C. BOYCE.: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I wish to ask the Minister of Railways if it is his intention to carry out the promise he gave to me on the 30th of June last in reply to some remarks which I made in regard to section 415 of the Railway Act, that before the close of this session an amendment would be introduced along the lines I suggested?


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Justice has the matter in hand, and a Bill will be brought in to cover that point.


THE RECENT CANADIAN LOAN.
George Eulas Foster: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance if he can give any information to the House as to the loan which he has lately placed upon the London market. I have seen some reports in the newspapers about it, and I think we should have a statement from the Minister of Finance himself.


William Stevens Fielding: The information contained in the public press is substantially correct, and I shall be glad to give any further details that are desired. On what particular point does my hon. friend desire information?


George Eulas Foster: I want to get the rates at which the loan has been placed, and by whom it has been taken up. I do not mean any individual details, but such information as is generally given.


William Stevens Fielding: Canals, chargeable to capital-Welland canal-electric lighting and power plant, $50,-
000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I suppose this would be a good time to ask my hon. friend if a report published the other day in the papers is eorreet, that in a speech delivered somewhere in Ontario he stated that the government intended to deepen the Welland canal to 25 feet and to build the Georgian Bay canal and the Hudson Bay Railway.


George Perry Graham: What I said was that these were three projects 'that would need and would deserve the attention of the public of Canada at no distant date. I was dealing with the transportation problem, and placed those three portions of the problem before the public. I did say that the Hudson Bay Railway would be constructed without delay, and I repeat that. I discussed the other two projects in a general way, pointing out that if Canada was to compete with a deepened Erie canal it would be necessary to deepen the Welland canal to 25 feet.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did the hon. gentleman say anything at St. Catharines about the Hudson Bay Railway?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend was asking me about a later speech, and possibly a better one.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I agree that the speech made at St. Catharines by the hon. gentleman was not a very good one in respect of getting his candidate elected.


George Perry Graham: We cannot tell that yet.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Reform papers reported the hon. minister ns saying at St. Catharines that the government were going to deepen the Welland canal. That is where the Welland canal is, and he may have had some other reason for saying that at that particular place. If the minister states that the government are only considering the three projects, that is one thing ; but the people of the county of Lincoln understood the minister to say that the government was going to deepen the Welland canal.


George Eulas Foster: What is proposed to be done with this vote?


George Perry Graham: It is for the purpose of lighting as weli as handling the locks by electricity.


George Eulas Foster: Is this an amount in addition to other amounts heretofore voted in order to finish the work of electric lighting the canal, and I suppose instituting a plant necessary to do it?


George Perry Graham: This vote is really to complete the plant.


George Eulas Foster: What the minister is doing is making his own plant for the elec-Mr. FIELDING.
trie lighting and wmrking of the whole canal.


George Perry Graham: What is being done is we purchase the electricity and are using it for the purpose of opening the locks and lighting the canal.


George Eulas Foster: You are not producing your own power ?


George Perry Graham: No.


George Eulas Foster: Where does the hon. gentleman get that?


George Perry Graham: From the Cataract Power Company.


George Eulas Foster: In what way?


George Perry Graham: $14 per horse-power.


George Eulas Foster: By ten year contract?


George Perry Graham: A ten year contract.


George Eulas Foster: What power plant does the minister refer to?


George Perry Graham: That is what is known as the distributing plant.


George Eulas Foster: Why not say so in your estimates? You speak of it as power plant. Is the whole canal lighted by electricity now?
Sir. GRAHAai. Yes.
air. FOSTER. What will be the cost?
air. GRAHAai. The entire cost is estimated at $450,000.
air. FOSTER. For erecting the plant necessary to distribute and light the canal?
air. GRAHAai. No, we operate all the gates and bridges with electricity. This covers the opening and shutting of all the lock gates and bridges.
air. FOSTER. But this does not include anything for operating. It is on capital account and is for installation.
air. GRAHAai. Yes, but we install the machinery for opening the gates. It is not merely a transmission plant for lighting.
air. FOSTER. Then all the plant necessary to light the canal and operate the different gates and bridges is to cost $450,-
000.	From whom has the plant been obtained and in what way?
air. GRAHAai. From different companies and all by tender and contract.
air. FOSTER. What will be the cost of maintenance when the whole installation is completed?
air. GRAHAai. About $15,000 will cover the operation.
air. HAGGART. Will that be any saving on the old plan?
air. GRAHAai. It ought to be some saving when we do all the work by electricity.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many men were employed before?


George Perry Graham: We paid $20,003 a year for gas to start with.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, the gas was supplied at $10,000 a year for the whole canal without any expenditure on capital account.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Now that you are running the canal by electricity, you do not wTant so many men. How many are employed now and how many were employed before?


George Perry Graham: Practically the same number of men-two men at a'lock. It is impossible to get along with any less. It may not be any great saving, but it is a great advantage to the shipping.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The first time the question of using electricity came up before parliament, one of the arguments in its favour was that it would require many less men. On the Welland canal you used to have eight men per lock.


George Perry Graham: No, two day men and two at night.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Besides the lock-master.


George Perry Graham: That includes the lock-master.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If these three men and the Iockmaster were doing the work formerly and now it is done by electricity, what are these men doing?


George Perry Graham: We cannot very well run a lock without a man on each side, even if they do not open them by manual labour. You could not do without two men in the day and two at night.


Mr. J. D. REID.: How many locks are there on the Welland?


George Perry Graham: Twenty-six locks and a guard gate.


John Dowsley Reid: How many on the Cornwall canal?


George Perry Graham: Six or seven.


John Dowsley Reid: Do I understand that after this plant is completed it will cost $15,000 per annum to operate and maintain
it ?


George Perry Graham: That would include the
cost of the electric power as well.


John Dowsley Reid: There would not be any other expenditure necessary to supply the light and maintain this plant and furnish the power?


George Perry Graham: That would only include the men directly connected with the electric working. It does not include the lock-men.


John Dowsley Reid: Will that include everyone connected with the electric plant, and
will the government have to pay in addition the same number of men as are now on the plant?


George Perry Graham: Practically the same.


John Dowsley Reid: The government will be paying $15,000 per year extra over and above what they are doing now. In addition there will be the annual outlay of interest on this $450,000 permanently. Even at 3 per cent that would be another $13,500 per annum. So that we will be paying on the Welland canal an addition annual expenditure of $28,500. How does that compare with the Cornwall canal? There are only six or seven locks on the Cornwall canal and the government have guaranteed for 89 years to pay about $50,000 for light and power on that canal. Judging "by the Welland, there must be something wrong on the Cornwall canal. If the Welland canal cost only $30,000 a year more than they have been paying, why does not the minister try to save something for the people on the Cornwall canal ? With only six or seven locks it should not cost more than $10,000 or $12,000.


George Perry Graham: I understand that the lighting on the Cornwall canal has been under contract for years.


John Dowsley Reid: A contract for eighty-nine years.


George Perry Graham: _ Well, it is under contract. That is tile reason why I cannot make the same arrangement for the Cornwall canal as for the Welland canal. The hon. gentleman says that we pay $15,000 for the Cornwall canal. But this was $10,000 for gas for lighting, and that did not handle the locks.


John Dowsley Reid: But the minister is keeping the same number of men, and he spends this $15,000 more, besides $13,000 or $14,000 of interest, making a total of $28,000 or $30,000. Put against that the $10,000 for gas. and it will still be seen that the government is spending $18,000 per annum for all time to come beyond the old expenditure on the Welland canal.


Mr.  J. T.@: iSCHELL. I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) to say that we are paying on the Cornwall canal over $50,000 a year. Was not that amount a little more than 50 per cent beyond the truth ?


John Dowsley Reid: That is a fair question. I have here the Auditor General's Report for the nine months ending March 31, 1907. If the hon. gentleman will turn to page W-83 of that report, he will see payments there-account of the Cornwall canal staff: St. Lawrence Power Company of $15,493.20 for electric light, being at the rate of 30 cents a light per night ; also 400 horsepower at $03 per annum, $18,847.92. or a total of $34,541.12. Will the hon. gentleman dispute that statement ? Well, if this is the

payment for nine months, add one-quarter to make up the whole year, and you have a total of close up to the amount I have stated.


Mr. J. T. SCHELL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) will recollect that, some years ago, when this matter was up for discussion, it was shown that there was a contract for something over $52,000 a year with the Davis Company-they call it now the St. Lawrence Power Company. That contract had been conditionally entered into by the former government and was carried over. But the Minister of Railways and Canals of this administration reduced that to about $28,000. Since that time, they have put up the workshops and done some extra work in Cornwall which may have made some extra expenditures by the government necessary-I am not informed as to that. But there is the fact as stated in this House at the time, that there was a contract for $52,000 which was reduced under this administration to $28,000.


John Dowsley Reid: The original contract was entered into years ago, before the art and science of electricity had developed as they have now. But that contract was for twenty years only. It would have been expiring about now. But the present government made a contract for eighty-nine years, and they are expending about $45,000 per annum, as I have said, for these six or seven locks, which is only about one-quarter the number on the Welland canal. The government can pay the running expenses and the interest for four times as many locks and do it for about half what they are paying on the Cornwall canal. Judging by the Welland canal, they are paying altogether too much on the Cornwall canal.


Jacob Thomas Schell: The hon. gentleman is comparing the present advanced state of electrical development with a period when there was but little such development. But if he will compare what was done by this government with what was done by their predecessors, he will find that there has been the saving that I spoke of, and I do not think there is in that much to complain about.


John Dowsley Reid: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. T. Schell) leaves out of account the fact that the contract under this government was made for eighty-nine years. I can understand why the hon. member for Glengarry is so anxious about the Cornwall canal. We have had a break in the Cornwall canal, and I claim that the.hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell) is almost responsible for that break, and I will tell the House why. Through the influence of the hon. member for Glengarry a man was put there as superintendent over that canal, who was a school teacher, who was a clerk getting $30 a month in the Canadian Pacific Railway shops. They had a man there in Mr. J. D. REID.
charge of that canal, and over all these canals, that never had any experience on canals at all, and he was put over all the men who did have long experience.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who recommended him ?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for Glengarry recommended him. He was organizer in the hon. member's county, and the hon. member cannot deny it.


Jacob Thomas Schell: I tell the hon. gentleman that is not so.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and the hon. member went to the Minister of Railways and recommended him.


Jacob Thomas Schell: He happened to teach school there for a short time, but he was neither born in the county, nor resided there, except one term as teacher.


John Dowsley Reid: I claim that it was neglecting the marine interest of this country to put over the works of that kind a school teacher, a man who never saw a canal until he was put there, and they gave him a steamboat to run up and down the canal.


George Perry Graham: Will the hon. gentleman tell the House who his predecessor was ?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman knows that he was supposed to be one of the best engineers in Canada, the late Mr. Rubidge.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will pardon me. Dr. C. E. Hickey, ex-M.P., was superintendent, occupying the same position for quite a long time, and a good man he was, too. He occupied the same position as Mr. Stewart.	.


John Dowsley Reid: Now the minister knows that is not a fact, and I will tell him why. The late Mr. Rubidge was the engineer in charge of all the canals from Cornwall to the Murray canal. Is not Mr. Stewart in that position to-day ? Has not Mr. Stewart charge from Cornwall to the Murray canal ?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman is quite mistaken. There is at the present time, and has been, an engineer equal in ability to any engineer I care to name ; he is in charge under Mr. Stewart of the Cornwall and other canals.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the position, it is this :	Mr. Stewart is occupying the position that Mr. Rubidge did, and Mr. Rubidge was the engineer in charge of the canals from Cornwall to the Murray canal, and to-day there is no other man but Mr. Stewart in that position. He is the only man now that has charge from Cornwall to the Murray canal, except the men who are called overseers.


George Perry Graham: No, my hon. friend is wrong. I want to explain to him again

that there is a competent engineer under Mr. Stewart, having jurisdiction over the canals from Cornwall up to the Murray canal, just as Mr. Rubidge had. I refer to Mr. Sargent. He is in Cornwall assisting in this work, and was up at the Murray canal overseeing some other work when the accident happened. My hon. friend speaks as if there never was a break in the Cornwall canal before. When the hon. gentleman tells the House that there is no engineer in charge from Cornwall to the Murray canal, I tell him there is, and has been.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister states that Mr. Sargent is an engineer under Mr. Stewart. Now the minister knows that Mr. Sargent was the engineer in charge of the work at Cardinal, in charge of Murray and Cleveland's work, and has been living there for the last ten years. He knows that Mr. Sargent has only been placed in * the position he speaks of within the last three weeks.
Mr, GRAHAM. My hon. friend is stating what is absolutely without foundation. Mr. Ross was the engineer under Mr. Stewart on that canal. He was transferred to the Sault, and a gentleman came from the Sault to take the place as overseer. Mr. Sargent is there, and has been acting for months as engineer.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Ross's position was only that of overseer.


George Perry Graham: He was an engineer.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Ross is not an engineer. I have known Mr. Ross for the last twenty years, and I make the statement that he is not an engineer. Mr. Ross was sent out from this department to oversee the works at Cardinal, and has been working there for the last 15 or 20 years. I never heard of Mr. Ross passing any examinations or qualifying himself for engineer.


Charles Marcil: I call attention of the committee that the item before us is the Welland canal. Therb is another for the Cornwall canal.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I do not intend to resurrect the old lighting contract on the Cornwall canal. But I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) that Mr. Stewart was not the man who should have charge of the canal, and I am pleased to see that the government has come to that conclusion, and have placed Mr. Sargent in charge of the Cornwall canal, not only of the Cornwall canal, but of all the canals up to the Murray canal. Mr. Sargent has been located in Cornwall for some months, and is residing there, and is a thoroughly competent engineer. Now, to come back to the subject under discussion, the lighting of the Welland canal by electricity, so far as I am concerned, I want to see the money spent
where it can be spent in the best interest of navigation. The expenditure -of a few thousands for electricity on the Cornwall canal has come up here time and time again, it is brought up nearly every year. It may cost a good deal of money, but it is the greatest advantage to navigation we can possibly have. Large vessels are coming down the Cornwall canal carrying G5,-000 bushels of grain, and they do not now use lamps as they did in the old time, when vessels had to tie-up and suffer delays for hours. They go right through now, in the night time as well as in the day time. I do not want to discuss the terms of the contract, that has been discussed over and over again in this House. The government have made a contract that I imagine they will have to stand by. This is what I want to get at. Is this increased cost justifiable, and in what way does it aid navigation ? I understand that these vessels can go through much more quickly to-day, with these modern electrical appliances to operate the locks, than they could some years ago. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but I think the Soulanges canal was the first one on which the locks were operated by electricity, and I think the plan has been a great success, that a great deal of time has been saved. Now, the minister has with him an engineer who has had a great deal of experience in these matters, and he can tell us whether this plan is going to aid navigation in the Welland canal. Can a vessel go through more quickly, once these electrical appliances are put into effect ? If it can, then it is a decided advantage. We know that late in the fall of the year these vessels are crowding down, every minute is important to them, we have to, in the fall, open our canals on Sunday, so they are operated every day in the week. Now I want to say a word with regard to that break. That is not the first break that has occurred in the Cornwall canal. We must remember that the Cornwall canal was originally built with a depth of 10 feet, and that has been increased to 14 feet. That extra 4 feet has increased the danger to the banks of the canal. There is a long stretch from lock 20 down to the lock at the mouth of the Cornwall canal that is dangerous, and always will remain dangerous. Six or seven years ago in this House I advocated with the then Minister of Railways and Canals the putting in at lock No. 20 another lock to the river. I understand that when the deputy minister, Mr .Butler, came into the department he saw the advantage of it, and that plans have been prepared, and that this will probably become an accomplished fact. If it had been done a few years ago the whole navigation of the country would not have been tied up as it is to-day. In so far as that break is concerned, it was a most unfortunate occurrence. It probably could have

occurred at a worse season of tlie year but it is an enormous loss to this country. 1 say with all the credit to those who are doing the work of repair that it has been rushed as expeditiously as it was possible to rush it. I was on the ground. The next day after the accident work was begun, within nine days water was in the canal and I understand that within three days vessels will be passing up and down. The work has been exneditiously and well done. But, I want to call the minister's attention to lock No. 20. If what I suggest is done it will save an enormous amount to the people interested in navigation and it will prevent a recurrence of navigation being tied up for two or three weeks owing to a break in the canal.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the minister


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Dowsley Reid: I am going to take my time until I obtain this information even if the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Ross) continues interrupting as he did last night. I think that we are entitled to some consideration.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: I also think that the other members of the House are entitled to some consideration.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it is fair of the hon. gentleman to interrupt. I would like to ask if it is a fact that a competent engineer like Mr. Sargent is on that work under Mr. Stewart.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Stewart occupies the position of superintendent and Mr. Sargent is engineer of the canals from Cornwall to the Murray canal.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood that the minister stated that Mr. Stewart is in charge of the canals from Cornwall to the Murray canal and that Mr. Sargent is the engineer acting under Mr. Stewart. Is that right?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is not going to put words in my mouth.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend knows what ' superintendent' means. I say that Mr. Stewart is the superintendent of the canals from Cornwall to the Murray canal and that Mr. Sargent is the engineer.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand what the expression means. Is the engineer under the superintendent or the superintendent under the engineer?


George Perry Graham: The superintendent is f,he officer responsible to the department and the engineer is responsible for everything appertaining to engineering. The superintendent is tlie chief officer. I do not mind explaining to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) because he is not Mr. PRINGLE.
conversant with the facts, but the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) knows all about it. He lives on the canal. He is playing upon words.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I am not.


George Perry Graham: The superintendent is the man in charge of the canal and the staff is under him.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman told us three times that Mr. Ross was under Mr. Stewart. Did he mean that or not?


George Perry Graham: Air. Ross bore the title of overseer and was on the Williamsburg canal. I have always understood that he was an engineer, but he was known as the overseer and was subject to the superintendent.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman disputed the statement of my hdu. friend from Grenville and said that lie as an engineer.


George Perry Graham: I say so still.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And he said that Air. Ross was the engineer in charge.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend must admit that a superintendent may be an engineer and that an overseer may be an engineer.


Air.  J. D. RETD@: Tlie only thing I contend for is that a person occupying the position of chief should be an engineer of the qualifications of Air. Sargent or of the gentleman in charge of the Welland canal. I think it is hardly fair to put a man with the qualifications of Air. Sargent or any other engineer-I only mention his name because he happens to be the gentleman there-under tlie instructions and subject to the orders of a man with the qualifications of Air. Stewart, who was a school teacher down in Glengarry before he got that position. I think that the minister, if he stated his own opinion, would agree that this is hardly fair. If the minister wants to prevent accidents of this kind he should put a man like Mr. Sargent over the whole canal. Air. Sargent has to take his orders from Air. Stewart ; therefore he does not feel that he is responsible and the matter is not looked after as well as if we had Mr. Sargent or some other man of equal qualifications in charge of the Cornwall ana Murray canals. The accident is to a large extent due to not having a competent man in the position that Air. Stewart occupies.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I should like the minister to explain why it is that we are paying $14 per horse-power on the Welland canal and $63 per horse-power on the Cornwall canal. Why is there such a difference between the two? If $14 is sufficient for the Welland canal which has twenty-six locks why should we pav $63 for the Cornwall canal which has only six locks?


190S
[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM I am not an expert in electricity and I do not know anything about the contract. There is this difference, however, that electrical science is in a more advanced state to-day than it was when the contract was made. On the Welland canal we merely get the power delivered to us over our own lines of transmission. I imagine that the power on the Cornwall canal is transmitted in a different way.
Mr. BRODER.: While the question of the lighting of the canals is under consideration I would like to ask the minister whether he has considered the advisability of lighting the Williamsburg and Edwardsburg canals with electricity ? The power is available and if it is such a benefit to navigation as my hon. friend from Stormont (Mr. Pringle) suggests, the minister is very derelict in his duty in not taking steps to have these canals lighted by electricity. I can understand that the Welland canal might be lighted a little cheaper than the Cornwall canal from the fact that it is alongside of the great originator of electricity, Niagara Falls. But I think that the prices on the Cornwall canal are beyond all reasonable calculation. I am sure that the Williamsburg canal and the Iroquois canal will be lighted at very much less cost per horse-power if the minister sees fit to recommend that it be done.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Just one word in connection with the positions of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Sargent. I have objected for some years to Mr. Stewart having absolute charge of the canal. I have nothing to say against Mr. Stewart as a citizen. He is a good citizen, but I do not think that a man |of his experience should have been placed in charge of such an important link in the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and I was very much pleased when I learned from the department that they had made a change. As I understand Mr. Stewart has to-day simply got control of the men, and sees that they do their work properly. Mr. Sargent has absolute control with regard to the maintenance of the canals from Cornwall to the Murray canal. I think that is proper. I have always thought they should be in charge of an experienced man such as Mr. Sargent is. There are doubtless many in the House who will remember that I before brought up the question of Mr. Stewart whom I was bound to speak highly of as a citizen but who, I feel has not the experience necessary to enable him to fill the requirements of this position, a feeling shared by those interested in navigation. I have heard men at the head of our large companies speak in that way in regard to Mr. Stewart. We should have a man with a large experience like Mr. Sargent who has charge of the canal system. As I understand the position Mr. Sargent has absolute charge in so far as repairs, maintenance and works connected with the canal are concerned while Mr. Stewart simply has
charge of the men, of the operation of the canal.


George Eulas Foster: When this installation comes into operation it will cost $15,000 per year to operate it including the price of the current and the wages of the men on the canal.


Mr GRAHAM.: No, I said in answer to my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) that that did not include the wages of the lock men. We had that information here when we were on the votes for maintenance.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In other words, this is an extra expenditure. It w.ill be over and above what we paid for the management of the canal except the $10,000.


George Perry Graham: The question resolves itself into this : Is it in the interest's of navigation to light the canal ? Everybody says yes. Under the old scheme we had it lighted for about seven miles by gas at a cost of $10,000. Under this we have lighted by electricity twenty-seven miles of the new canal and six of the old for the guidance of the men in regulating the water, &c., over thirty miles in all that are well lighted by electricity. If it had been all lighted by gas before it would have cost as much but we get twenty-six extra miles lighted, we get all the lock gates and bridges opened and closed for an extra $5,000. It seems to me it is a remarkable investment, to say nothing about the improvement to navigation and I am told that vessels save two hours in every twelve by this system.
Mr. BERGERON I am not criticising the lighting of the canal and the working of the locks by electricity, but as a matter of fact the Welland canal will cost $18,000 a year more than it cost before, that is $2S,-000 less $10,000 for the gas, leaving $18,000 a year more than before.


George Perry Graham: For which we get all the extra lighting and the working of the canal.


John Dowsley Reid: At page 30 of the report this appears :
The cost of repairs, &c., for nine months, ordinary repairs under the head of staff and repairs, $53,247.50.
As I understand the minister that will not be reduced, that will be paid as before and in addition there will be $15,000 more for the operation of this electric plant and the interest on the $450,000.


George Perry Graham: I think so.


George Eulas Foster: By this system we wilt have better lighting and better operation, the saving of time in operating the canal now that you have this improved lighting and the operation of the locks by electricity instead of manual power.


George Perry Graham: I think there will be no decrease in manual power. The benefit will result in Improved lighting and operation, but we must continue to have two men night and day at each lock gate, onb on each side.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: To make it clear, I would say that the canal lias been lighted by electricity for several years so that is not included in the new vote, the electric operation of the gates is tne only new feature this year.


George Perry Graham: This is to complete payments on the whole system.
To remove centre piers and rebuild bridges at Queenston street and Homer road crossing, $30,000.


George Perry Graham: This is taking out a pier and making one wide passage instead of two narrow passages.


George Eulas Foster: Will this complete it ?


George Perry Graham: No, a year ago there was an appropriation of $70,000. This year we will spend only $30,000 but it will take $70,000 eventually, I think.
To make survey of the canal, $15,000.


George Perry Graham: This has been going on for some time. There was no complete survey or plan of the canal lands but it was necessary to have a plan showing the boundaries which should be properly marked. The survey was more extensive than it was thought it would be and more work had to be done. There are four parties at work. The survey had never been completed..


George Eulas Foster: What has been spent on it so far ?


George Perry Graham: About $27,000. The estimate for the whole work is about $47,000.


Mr. HAGGART.: How long have you been at it ? Since about 1870 thirty years ago I think.


George Perry Graham: This work has beeen going on about two years. With the old canal there is about seventy miles of length. You have to mark the boundaries and there are many questions of water power, &c., in reference to the old canal.


John Graham Haggart: There was a vote for it in my time.


Mr. GERMAN.: If there was a vote many years ago to do the work the money mpst have been uselessly expended because there was no delimitation of the boundary limits of the Welland canal that any one could discover and there was great difficulty continually between the owners of adjacent lands and the government officials in regard to the true boundaries of the land as they should and did exist. It was thought necessary to define exactly the true boun-Mr. FOSTER.
dary lines along the whole government property and this is being done.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I agree that there was that difficulty, but I do not think it is yet cured. Hardly a week goes by without somebody wanting to know where their land ends and the canal property begins. There are not fences or lines of demarcation that ought to be there.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand that this vote is simply to pay the cost of marking the boundary lines between the government property and individual private property on each side ?


George Perry Graham: That is a great part of the work.


George Eulas Foster: Who is doing that work ?


George Perry Graham: It is being done under Mr. Weller, the chief engineer of the canal.


George Eulas Foster: That canal is about 27 miles in length.


George Perry Graham: The new canal and the old canal together are about 70 miles.


George Eulas Foster: Does it require $47,000 to run lines for 70 miles to show the boundaries between government property and private property ? It seems a most expensive survey.


George Perry Graham: It does seem expensive ; but, as my hon. friend from Lincoln said, it is not simply a question of running a line ; it is more difficult than that. The chief engineer says there is no time being lost in the work.


George Eulas Foster: Does Mr. Weller employ outside engineers ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, he has a surveyor and a staff of several men under him.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There must be in the registry office certain papers showing the land that was transferred to the government when the canal was built, and from" these there should be no difficulty in finding where the lines should run. I do not un- [DOT] derstand that parties of surveyors should be engaged for that purpose. Have these parties anything to do with finding out whether the old canal or the new canal should be deepened ?


George Perry Graham: I do not know w7hat has been done in the last couple jof years. I only know that I have asked Mr. Weller, in his work of marking out these lines, to get any information he can as he goes along.


George Eulas Foster: It is almost incredible that such an amount of money as this could be spent in delimiting the boundaries of this canal. It is not a new country ; we have been in possession of the land for a great

many years ; and what can be found for engineers or surveyors to do there at a cost of $47,000 I cannot see. It seems ito me that the engineers who are on the canal might very easily do the work of delimiting these boundaries in their odd times.


John Graham Haggart: Is the permanent engineering staff paid anything out of this ?


George Perry Graham: No.


Mr. KEMP.: Do I understand the minister to say that the money we are now voting is not to he used in making surveys for the new canal of 25 feet ?


George Perry Graham: No.


Albert Edward Kemp: The reason I ask the question is that I read the following in the ' Globe ' the other day :
St. Catharines, June 12.-The announcement of the Minister of Railways and Canals, looking to the possibility of a new 25-foot canal to replace the present Welland canal, is hailed with delight throughout this vicinity, as the need for the new waterway has been seen for some little time.
No less than four surveying parties are already at work taking the levels of the whole locality. Five men are in each party, and they have now been engaged for some time. Notes of the field men are transferred to the staff at the local canal office, who reduce them to designs, which, when completed, will show all the different routes available between Lakes Erie and Ontario. Several routes are now contemplated, one being near the present oanal, one from ' The Fifteen,' three miles from Port Dalhousie, and one from Jordan harbour.
The 'Globe ' is evidently under the impression that the Minister of Railways and Canals has several survey parties out making surveys for the 25-foot canal.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that is the impression of some enthusiastic correspondent. If there have been four or five parties out surveying for a new canal, they have been doing so without my instructions.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then what my hon. friend read is not correct ?


George Perry Graham: These surveying parties are not doing the work the * Globe ' mentions. They are not surveying with the idea of making a report as to whether the old canal should be deepened or a new canal built. The engineer has been getting all the information he could with these survey parties, but there is no idea of starting a survey for a new canal so far as I know.


George Eulas Foster: If that is being done, it is absolutely unauthorized by the vote. The vote taken was for delimiting the boundaries, and there is no authority for the minister to use any part of that money for sending parties out to survey new territory with a view of finding a better route for the 388
canal. If the minister wants that information there is a way of getting it; he has to come to the House to get a vote for the purpose. But I cannot understand how it is possible to spend this amount of money in delimiting simple boundaries-. I find that one surveyor last year was in charge of a party which cost $4,604 for nine months, and another with a party which cost $1,461 for nine months. There was another surveyor, Hughson and party, $866 ; Surveyor Hill and party, $2,261 ; Surveyor Ross and party, $777. And there were sundry expenses amounting to $1,000, or a total of $10,825 spent in nine months on this simple delimitation of the boundaries along the canal through the Welland country. The statement that $47,000 is to be paid upon that demands more explanation. The minister may not have the information, but there should be some investigation to know how that money was spent. We ought to delimit nearly half the boundary between the United States and Canada for that sum.


Albert Edward Kemp: It would be far more in the interests of the country to make surveys for the new canal than to carry out the work in respect to the old canal. I am not criticising the minister if he sees fit to make a survey with regard to a twenty-five foot Welland canal, because that is about the only sensible plan with regard to transportation from the upper lakes that we have had. I have a clipping here from the Toronto ' World,' the purport of which is about the same as the one which appeared in the Toronto ' Globe.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The statement was made by the minister that the government had decided, as a matter of policy, to deepen the Welland canal or build a new one. Is that authoritative or intended to be final and conclusive?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend was not here or he would have heard me twice declare that I did not say that. In discussing the transportation problem, the only positive statement I made was that the Hudson Day Railway would be built. The other schemes were problems which will have to be faced before many years if we are to compete with our rivals in transportation facilities.


Mr. BENNETT.: The minister promised the Trent Valley canal. He is a good promiser.


George Perry Graham: That is under construction now.
To widen oanal near Welland, $55,000.


George Perry Graham: When the contract was let for the building of turning basins it became necessary to widen the canal by removing the slopes on the face of the banks. About a mile below Welland the



canal was not made to the full width at the bottom.


George Eulas Foster: What will be the total cost?


George Perry Graham: Between $71,000 and $72,000. The estimates have been made up


John Dowsley Reid: Is it under contract?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the contractor?


Mr. GRAHAM  W.@: Flint. He was the lowest of three tenderers.


John Dowsley Reid: How long ago was the contract given and what length of time was allowed for the completion of the work ?


George Perry Graham: The contract was let about a year ago. It was to have been completed by the 1st of August of this year.


John Dowsley Reid: How much has been done and how much has been paid the contractor on account?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was the amount of the contract?


George Perry Graham: The contract price was $72,000. The estimates have been <made up several months and the statement is months behind.


George Eulas Foster: As an older man than my hon. friend I would give him a piece of advice. At this stage, when so much depends on the despatch of business, if he would take an hour or two and go over these estimates with his officials before coming to the House he would have the answers ready to these questions, which must be put on every estimate, and we would get through much faster. It seems to take him a lot of consultation with men who do not know much aboiu it before he can give any answer.


George Perry Graham: My deputy is not here and has not been here for weeks, and I am getting the estimates through without him.


George Eulas Foster: That makes it all the more necessary that the hon. gentleman should have a consultation with his other officials before bringiug on his estimates.
Port Colborne improvement. $115,000.
Port Colborne elevator, $172,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister state how much has been expended, first, on the so-called improvements and then on the elevator, and the condition of the elevator to-day and the amount he intends spending next year?


George Perry Graham: Port Colborne improvements, total estimate, $1,000,000. Expended up to 30th September, $1,537,510. Estimated cost of elevator, machinery and foundation, $750,000. Total expended up to 30th Mr. GRAHAM.
September, $420,750. The elevator is nearing completion. We extended the time for finishing the contract. It will be ready in a very few weeks.


William Humphrey Bennett: How much will it cost to complete the improvements, apart from the elevator?


George Perry Graham: This vote is expected to finish the entire thing.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What was the original price of the contract?


George Perry Graham: The contract was for $637,000 made in 1906. It will cost to complete about $750,000.


George Eulas Foster: Will the hon. minister tell us what assets we shall have after this expenditure?


William Manley German: I think I can answer the question of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). In the first place, we have one of the best harbours on Lake Erie. We have 22-foot navigation where, formerly, there was practically no harbour-at any rate, no harbour of refuge. We have not merely one of the best, but the best elevator in America. That is acknowledged by elevator men who have come to see it, and it has been visited by many of them. It has a capacity of S00,000 bushels, with the machinery sufficient to operate an elevator of a capacity of 2,000,000 bushels. The additions to this elevator which will bring it up to the capacity of 2,000,000 bushels will cost, perhaps, one-third of the expenditure already made on the elevator. The intention is to tranship grain at Port Colborne on full canal-sized boats and create a channel of grain transportation from the west to the seaboard. I believe that if the scheme is carried out effectively, intelligently and energetically, it will afford means of transport of all the grain that will be grown in the Northwest Territories as well as a considerable part of that grown in the United States for a great many years to come-at least for the time it will take to build new canals between the upper lakes and Montreal.


Albert Edward Kemp: What remains to be done in order to carry out this scheme?


William Manley German: Very little remains to be done to carry out the scheme as originally intended. The minister has said that the vote he is proposing will complete all the improvements in the harbour at Port Colborne. It will complete all the improvements for which the vote is asked. There will be other improvements, not of any great extent, which will be necessary in order to make the harbour such as was originally intended. The elevator is completed. I have said before, and have not changed my opinion, that it was a mistake not to make it a two mil-

lion-bushel elevator at first. However, the cost of increasing the size will not be very great. If the electric power were provided-and it will be provided in a very short time-the elevator could begin handling grain now.


William Humphrey Bennett: With the public debt of Canada approaching $300,000,000 and with an annual expenditure of upwards of $150,000,000, it is no wonder that sober-minded business men, when they consult together without taking politics into consideration, propound to one another the question, ' Whither are we drifting? ' A few years ago the government came down with proposals of expenditure at Port Col-borne. The idea was laughed at when it was said that they would spend $1,000,000 before they got through. We are told now that the amount spent is about $3,500,000. And what shall we have in return for this expenditure? The hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) tells us that boats carrying upwards of 400,000 bushels will come to Port Colborne, and 'that there will be smaller boats there carrying 80,000 bushels that will carry the grain to Montreal. But I would ask the hon. member : What difference is there in the rate on a boat going to Buffalo whether she carries 400,000 bushels or 80,000 bushels?


William Manley German: Of course, there can be no difference in the rate, or the smaller vessel would not get anything to carry. But the smaller vessel carries at a smaller, profit.


William Humphrey Bennett: So we have it acknowledged that a vessel carrying 400,000 bushels into Buffalo gets the same rate as a boat carrying 80,000. And what is the proposition of the government in this scheme? They say these large vessels will discharge into the grain elevator and the grain will be transferred into boats of
60,000	or 70,000 bushels carrying capacity and taken to Montreal. And we have spent $3,500,000 on that scheme. And today we find the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Gtaham) going from end to end of the country foreshadowing the schemes of the government-$120,000,000 to $140,000,000 on the so-called Georgian Bay canal; a bagatelle of $40,000,000 or $50,000,000 to deepen the Welland canal. And yet. despite the fact that the government are threatening to expend millions on these schemes, private capital is quietly going about its own business providing transportation facilities immeasurably ahead of what the government propose. According to my hon. frifend from Welland (Mr. German), since these works at Port Colborne have been completed nothing more remains to be done- no Georgian Bay canal, no Hudson Bay
Railway-none of these things

388i


William Manley German: I did not say that.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am willing to admit that the hon. gentleman's scheme is ahead of many others that are being put forward by different members of the government. Look at what the Canadian Pacific Railway are doing to-day. It is doing just what American railway and shipping companies have done for the last twenty years in the United States. These American interests have placed on the Great Lakes the largest possible vessels to carry grain to Buffalo, where it is placetU'on the best systems of railways that money can produce that carry il at rates that beat the Welland canal. The Canadian Pacific Railway is undertaking an expenditure probably running to $10,000,000 to secure a lake port on Georgian bay at Victoria harbour, a few miles below Midland. They are constructing their line from that point to Peterborough. This will give them an all-rail route from Victoria harbour to Montreal, which is their Atlantic shipping point. The Grand Trunk are spending as much at Midland. Tliey are building extensive docks and also an elevator that will make this little elevator at Port Colborne a mere trifling affair. And the Canadian Pacific Railway are constructing one of about equal importance at Victoria harbour. The public wonder, when they hear the ministers of this government put forward their schemes, how these railway companies, having immense interests behind them, and headed .by men of such eminent ability as Sir Thomas Shaug-nessy and Mr. Hays, can ask of their stockholders to provide these millions upon millions of dollars to construct their transportation schemes. And the general public are simply laughing at the government.
But they are laughing in rather a serious way when they consider the proposals the government are putting forth. Nothing need be said about the Port Colborne scheme, where three and a half million dollars have gone, and that is all going to be an experiment. Even if it were finished, vessels carrying 70,000 bushels of grain would go right past there to Kingston-I have heard that opinion expressed by capable vessel men. My hon. friend admits that a vessel carrying 80,000 bushels gets as much per bushel as a vessel carrying
400.000	bushels. I am free to admit that a
400.000	bushel vessel makes more money for her proprietors ; but there is the fact that the smaller vessels of 70,000 or 80,000 bushels get the same rates as the larger vessels of 400,000 bushels. Vessel men claim that they have been making 20 per cent in this business.
But look at the superiority of the Georgian Bay plan over the Buffalo plan. Buffalo to-ciav controls the trade, reaching to 300.000,000 bushels of grain every year. Where is your Welland canal service com-

pared with that ? A mere bagatelle is that which goes down the Welland canal compared with that which goes via Buffalo. But let the minister and the House remember this, that once the Canadian Pacific Railroad and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway have all their terminal facilities completed at Midland and Victoria Harbour, and have their lines of railway running to Peterborough and Port Hope where they will strike their main lines, when they will be able to run 50 cars per train instead of 17, they will be able to beat the Buffalo trade out. And why ? Because they will make three trips to Midland or to Victoria as against two to Buffalo from the upper lake ports. Ask any vessel men if these figures are correct, and they will tell you they are. To-day you can, with the same vessel, make three trips to .Midland as against two to Buffalo. That is an enormous advantage, when you consider that these vessels can carry 400,000 bushels of grain, and that the rate in the fall of the year sometimes runs up to three cents a bushel. When the Canadian Pacific Railway works are built at Midland and Victoria Harbour, the same vessel going to those ports will make $12,000 on three trips, more than if she was employed in the trade to Buffalo. Now I would advise the minister to go slow, and let the country have a chance to breathe for a while and see whether the m-ojects of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific are going to be a success, and whether this Port Colborne proposal is going to aid the Welland canal. Let the Minister of Railways and Canals take the advice of his former colleague, Mr. A. G. Mackay, who characterized the government of Mr. Whitney as spending the money of the province like a lot of drunken sailors. The phrase was expressive, if not elegant. But think of the few thousands being spent in the province of Ontario compared with the threatened expenditure of millions coming on top of that. Here is this terrible expenditure, this awful expenditure, that is going to drag down Canada for years to come,, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, that is going to cost the country-every man sees it-not a hundred millions, but it will never be completed for $200,000,000. And coming on top of that huge expenditure, what do we see ? The government threatens now to plunge Canada into an expenditure for building a Hudson Bay Railway, and a canal from the Georgian Bay. In the name of ail that is good let the country have a rest for a little while, and let the private enterprise of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway who are to-day expending millions of dollars, in conjunction with the projects that the government has now undertaken at Port Colborne, have a chance to develop themselves, and don't drive the people of Canada into a state of eonsterna-Mr. BENNETT	.
tion by threatening to unsettle the financial conditions of the country.


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I am concerned, I have every session advocated the enlargement of thp Welland canal, and I think that is one of the most important public works that this government could undertake. When the Welland canal was first enlarged to 14 feet it was supposed that would be sufficient depth for many years to come. But what is the case to-day ? We all see that vessels carrying 300,000 bushels and over are navigating the lakes. My idea is that these large vessels will seek the very nearest point on the sea-board. Today the minister admits that the amount of money the government are expending for the Port Colborne elevator, $732,000, is to be practically wiped out, and will be absolutely useless, if he goes on and constructs the Welland canal as he has been telling the people he proposes to do. Of course he understands that these large vessels will never stop to unload at Port Colborne, so that port will practically be abandoned. Now at the present time grain is being carried, I may say, for 3J cents a bushel from Port Arthur right through to Montreal, that is the nresent rate, the summer rate ; but in the fall it is 5 cents a bushel. Now I claim that when that Welland canal is deepened to 25 feet, as the minister states, these large vessels carrying 300,000 or 400,000 bushels will go either to Kingston or to rrescott. I say Prescott, because it is at the foot of navigation, and grain will be taken from either Kingston or Prescott to Montreal for one cent a bushel. That can be done, these large vessels will bring that grain from Port Arthur to Prescott for a cent and a half a bushel. If these vessels carrying 65,000 bushels will take grain from Port Arthur to Montreal for 31 cents, which means practically 2i to Prescott, there is no reason that I can see why they would not bring grain for lj cents to Prescott or to Kingston.


William Humphrey Bennett: How long does it take an ordinary vessel carrying 70,000 bushels to lock through the Welland canal at present ? It takes fully 18 hours.


George Perry Graham: It takes 16 hours.


John Dowsley Reid: Admitting it takes 18 hours to do the locking now, and the present rate of grain is'3J cents a bushel from Port Arthur delivered into the ocean steamers at Montreal, if the ocean steamers are in a position to take it out of the vessel, then, even if the Welland canal is enlarged, they will bring it down to Prescott for 1J cents a bushel. I claim that if the government, instead of undertaking that Port Colborne elevator, had undertaken the enlargement of the Welland canal, as they propose now, that money would have been put into a work that would have been of

use for all time to come. I hope that the enlargement of the Welland canal will be proceeded with at the earliest possible moment. X believe that it is in the interest of the country that it should be done, and commenced at once, and X shall continue to advocate it, whether I am in the House or out of it.


George Eulas Foster: Is it the purpose of the government to bring power there to run the elevator, and if so how much would it cost?


George Perry Graham: That deals with something I do not know much about. We made a contract for power to run the elevator at half a cent per kilowatt hour.


George Eulas Foster: That is a contract entered into by the government?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is the estimate of the cost of running that elevator for the season?


William Manley German: The cost of running the elevator for the season will depend on the volume of grain passing through the elevator.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose it runs up to its
800,000	bushels capacity?


William Manley German: That would simply be the capacity per day.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose it keeps going to its full capacity what will the cost of running the elevator be.


William Manley German: I could not say. Half a cent per kilowatt hour is something that an electrical engineer has to figure out, but I can say that every electrical engineer with whom I have talked on this matter- and I have talked with many-said that it was the best contract for electrical power as far as the government is concerned that has ever been made. It was made with the Ontario Power Company. In operating an elevator of that kind the power has to be kept at what is always called the peak load. That means that there must always be sufficient power to run the elevator at its full capacity, whereas there may be days and days when the elevator would only be running at half its capacity. The electrical company is required to keep the power at a sufficient volume to run the elevator at its full capacity and it will only get paid for the actual amount of electrical power that is being used at any one time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Convert that into ordinary horse-power, let us know what it costs and we will understand it.


William Manley German: It will be $11 or $12 per horsepower.


George Eulas Foster: If you can let us know what it will cost to elevate 100,000 bushels
of grain you will come down to the understanding of ordinary mortals.


George Perry Graham: It is above me. The estimates made for the running of the elevator for seven months from the 1st of September to the 31st March next is $3,000, of which $1,600 will, we expect, be for power.


George Eulas Foster: The government will be prepared to run the elevator and take in whatever grain comes?


George Perry Graham: Yes, beginning on the 1st September.


George Eulas Foster: Is the government going to carry the grain?


George Perry Graham: That opens up a pretty big question to which I referred some months ago in this House. It is a debatable question whether the elevator should not be leased to a company that will fill and empty it for the benefit of the trade.


Albert Edward Kemp: As has been stated by my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), this plant at Port Colborne has cost $3,500,000. It is almost ready for operation. My own opinion is that the best policy that the government could have pursued would have been to have deepened the Welland canal to 25 feet. However, this scheme was conceived at a time when a very large amount of wheat from the Canadian Northwest was going out by way of Buffalo, when large boats from the head of tne lakes were delivering this grain at Buffalo and some people, amongst them Mr. George Bertram, thought that we could divert that grain to the St. Lawrence by building this elevator at Port Colborne. I did not agree with him, but I believed that the best thing that could have been done was to have deepened the Welland canal, but the scheme was to try and encourage some of the vessel owners to carry out the system which was proposed at that time, that large barges should be employed to go as far as Port Colborne for cargo through this elevator-perhaps one steam barge towing two ordinary steel barges. It was thought that these barges could be towed down Lake Ontario and through the St. Lawrence canals. I think that is a scheme which should commend itself to the Montreal shipping firms. They have barges which go through the St. Lawrence canals and I think we ought to try and see if they will not send them as far as Port Colborne. The cost of elevating grain in such an elevator as this is very little indeed, and I am not sure but what this scheme of transporting grain from the head of the lakes to Montreal would be as economical a scheme as any we have at the present time. I do not think it would be as cheap as to transport grain from the head of the lakes to Prescott and Kingston, by the Welland canal route, it the Welland canal were deepened,

but it would be as cheap as any in existance at the present time. We have always contended In Canada that our canal systems have been regulators of freight rates, as they have contended in New York state that the Erie canal has been a regulator of freight rates. The Erie canal does not have the capacity of the St. Lawrence canals for carrying a large volume of traffic, but it has always been the regulator of freight rates, and they never would have got such a low rate on the New York Central for grain' going to the sea-board if it had not been for the Erie canal. I have very much the same criticism to make in regard to our transportation schemes ns ray lion, friend from East Simcoe made. It has been demonstrated that east of the lakes there is very little profit in carrying grain. Whatever profit there is in carrying grain is west of the lakes where the railway companies have more of a monopoly and they can regulate their rates to suit themselves to a greater extent. But once you land the grain at the head of the lakes, competition is very keen and there is very little money in carrying from that point.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: You are speaking of through grain?


Albert Edward Kemp: I am speaking of grain for export.


Samuel Hughes: The rate on grain from points in my constituency to Montreal is greater than it is from' Fort William to Montreal.


Albert Edward Kemp: I know that local rates are very much higher than through rates. That is another question that I do not intend to dwell upon just now, but I would like to invite the attention of the minister to the number of routes east of the lakes that we have in working order at the present time. First, I will refer to the American system of railways and transportation which routes are very numerous, which we all know about and which are an important factor with respect to competition. Then we have the Canadian Pacific Railway from Owen Sound to the sea-board and the" Canadian Pacific Railway from Victoria harbour to the sea-board, which has been re erred to by my hon. friend from East Simcoe. We have the Grand Trunk Railway from Depot Harbour, Parry Sound, Midland, Collingwood, Wiarton, Goderich, Sarnia and Windsor. We have the St. Lawrence canal system and we will have, I suppose, the Trent canal system. Then we have the system that we are referring to at the present time, and which is part of -the St. Lawrence canals system-the scheme of transferring grain at Port Colborne, taking it from large boats and putting it through the elevator. We have before us the Hudson Bay Railway. We have the Georgian Bay canal scheme and we have the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in the debate upon that1 Mr. KEMP.
scheme in this House we were told that the Grand Trunk Pacific would carry grain to the sea-board at a cheaper rate than it could be carried by any canal or railway in existence. It is on record in ' Hansard ' that ministers of the Grown made that statement when the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill was going through this House. We have also the Erie canal and the American transportation system. It seems to me that the time has come when we should call a halt. If we have money to spend and if money can be saved to the benefit of the farmers in the Northwest it seems to me that the very first thing that we should ascertain is whether or not we can save sufficient to warrant us in spending what will be required to deepen the Welland canal. That seems to be a feasible project, because if we can load these large vessels to carry half a million bushels of wheat as far as Kingston and Prescott, where it can be transferred to barges which would float down the river to Montreal- it would be as cheap to store the wheat in those barges as to put it into the elevator at Montreal-and if the wheat could then be transferred through floating elevators to the steamships at Montreal, it strikes me that it would have the effect of reducing the cost of carriage and of diverting a large amount of the grain trade to the St. Lawrence route. That, it seems to me, would be an inexpensive way by which the produce not only of the northwestern states, but of our own Northwest could be transported to the sea-board. We should not invest another dollar in any of these schemes before we have ascertained from experts what is the cheapest way of transporting a bushel of wheat from the head of the lakes to the sea-board.
These engineers' reports go for nothing in my mind. They gave us information as to what can be done and in these days of advanced engineering almost anything can be accomplished if you are willing to spend the money. If after the work is done you can carry a bushel of wheat a fraction of a cent cheaper by one route than by another, you can divert the traffic by that route. Although I am greatly in favour of the Welland canal route for many reasons, even in reference to it. I think that the only proper way to proceed is to have the opinion of experts as to whether grain can be carried to the sea-board by that route cheaper than by any other. I am thoroughly opposed to going into so many half digested schemes of transportation and talking big to the" people all over the country, trying to make them believe we are to deepen the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals and to have the Georgian Bay canal, when it is impracticable to do all these things, when we cannot afford them. Let us devote our attention to one scheme. A 25-foot Welland canal would be efficient to carry all the grain of the Northwest. But while doing

that we must not discourage private enterprise. I agree with the hon. member for Simcoe that the railways have done a great work. Let us improve the harbours on the Georgian bay and assist the railways, but we must remember that the Welland canal system is the regulator of freight rates to the sea-board.


William Manley German: The hon. gentlemen are developing a proposition that might have been much better discussed in the earlier days of the session when we had nothing to do. The policy of constructing an elevator and the deepening or practically building a harbour at Port Colborne was adopted by reason of the fact that the Welland canal as a portion of our transportation system was practically useless without the elevator and harbour. I supported the building of the elevator and the enlargement of the harbour because those two things were both necessary and will be necessary even after the Welland and St. Lawrence canals are deepened and the Georgian Bay canal is constructed. The hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) has made the assertion that I was opposed to the deepening of the Welland canal.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not say that.


William Manley German: I understood my hon. friend to make that statement and I think I am quite correct in my assumption. I think he made it. However, he is liable to develop erratic theories and to endeavour to square the facts to the theories. I am not opposed to the deepening of the Welland canal by any means. I think the Welland canal in the future will need to be deepened and enlarged to meet the future growth and development of this country, but at present we are dealing with a vote in connection with the completion of certain improvements at Port Colborne authorized by parliament. These improvements are necessary as a step towards the solution of the transportation problem of this country, they have been approved of in the past and I am sure will be found in the future to have been necessary and to justify the expenditure of this money.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am glad to hear from the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) now that he is in favour of deepening the Welland canal, but in view' 'of what he says as to not speaking earlier in the session I would call attention to t,he fact that when the Georgian Bay canal scheme was under discussion I had the temerity to advocate the deepening of the Welland canal rather than the construction of the Georgian Bay canal and had not his support then.


Jacob Thomas Schell: Some remarks I had occasion to make in this House two or three years ago have been amply verified. I went into the matter of general transportation quite extensively and at that time I agreed
that the building of the elevator at Port Colborne would probably be of benefit. The idea seems to be to deepen the Welland canal very quickly. I do not think that we need be in a hurry about deepening the Welland canal for some years to come. We are only now getting the improved elevator system ready to work and we have had no demonstration as to what benefit we will derive from it. Then, again, suppose you deepen that Welland canal, is it going to be to the interest of Canadian trade or American trade? Will it draw away trade from Canadian channels? That is a matter that should be well considered. As soon as you deepen the Welland canal to 25 to 30 feet you open a clear waterway to all American corn, wheat and grain of any kind to Og-densburg or to any of the ports on Lake Ontario and that means that grain, which under the present arrangement will probably come largely to the elevator at Port Colborne would go down through the deepened Welland canal to American ports. For what reason? Suppose the large lake vessels could come down to-day from Duluth or Chicago and go through the Welland canal. They certainly would not go beyond Prescott. They would go where they could get a return cargo. As soon as they passed Port Colborne they would have to go to the American side for their return cargo, so they would carry their eastbound cargo there and take their return cargo back. Lgt us have a trial of the benefit that we have been expecting to derive from the elevator and improvements at Port Colborne before we undertake or put the country looking towards the deepening of the Welland canal. Let us have a trial of one, two, three or four years. That was the argument I made two or three years ago, but at the same time I advocated the postponement of the building of or agitation for the Georgian Bay canal until this route had become developed and we could see what it would do. Then you could put on a commission and ascertain what benefit you would receive from the building of the Georgian Bay canal system. In the meantime our railways would be developed just as they are being developed to-day, from Midland or from Tiffin or Depot Harbour or any of these ports. By that time probably we will have also the Grand Trank Pacific which road with a 4-10 grade can at the same rate as is charged by any other large grain carrying road of the northwest haul their grain from Winnipeg into Quebec a good deal cheaper or quite as cheaply as it can be carried by the rail and lake route. These are matters on which I hope the government will not lose their heads. When the time comes for the Georgian Bay canal then build it. I do not believe the time has come for it. IV hen the time comes to enlarge the Welland canal, do it. In the meantime I hope the government will give the improvements and the elevator and storage facilities at Port Col-

borne a thorough, complete trial so they will be able to demonstrate not only the cost but the question as to whether the grain will tend to come by way of Montreal or by way of Buffalo. We know well that the American shippers would prefer to ship by Montreal during summer the grain stored in Chicago. They will pay larger prices for shipment by Montreal than by the southern route. There is a large traffic which probably would not go through Montreal and neither would any of the other grain come through Montreal. We would not hope to develop a traffic from the United States by deepening the Welland canal, for then you would open the way to the New York terminus at cheaper rates probably than could possibly be given to Montreal. You must stop at either Port Colborne or Prescott. It will cost too much for many generations to deepen the St. Lawrence canals.


Robert Laird Borden: On the 11th June I asked for certain information with regard to the cost of the Mountain division of the National Transcontinental Railway A return has been brought hewn which is absolutely unsatisfactory, because 1 cannot understand what is intended. It is said that the length of the whole road from Winnipeg to the coast is 1,755 miles, of which 916 miles are included in the prairie'- section and 839 miles in the mountain section. Further down I find this language :
The estimated cost of construction is set down at the present date at $61,520,000, which includes terminals at Prince Rupert, $3,000.-1
000.
Does that refer to the mountain section or to the whole road from Winnipeg to the coast ?


George Perry Graham: That is the Mountain section.


Robert Laird Borden: Might I suggest to the minister that when his clerks prepare returns they make a matter of that kind plain, so that I need not take up the time of the House in asking questions which would be unnecessary if the return were brought down in proper form ?
Sault Ste Marie canal-construction, $105,000.


George Perry Graham: That is the amount expended in deepening and widening the Chanel at the upper end. Mr. Boone has the contract, amounting to $256,657.


John Dowsley Reid: How much has been paid on it?


George Perry Graham: $234,102 up to September of last year.


John Dowsley Reid: Has the contractor been paid the amount estimated, or does the government expect that the work will cost more than the amount of the contract ?


George Perry Graham: This vote is expected to cover the whole amount Mr. J. T. SCHELL.


John Dowsley Reid: It is going to cost the country $50,000 more than the amount of the contract.


George Perry Graham: Although these contracts are made on an estimate of a lump sum, the payments are at schedule rates of so much a yard.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the minister's department had any expense in connection with the work at present being done by the American government at Lime Kiln crossing near Windsor ?


George Perry Graham: I think I am safe in saying no, but I will make inquiry.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the minister in-quix-e whether his department has in its employ a couple of agents superintending the operations of the American government ?,


John Dowsley Reid: Has the minister ever gone along the Rideau canal to see how it is lighted ?	'


George Perry Graham: The Rideau canal seems to be under double jurisdiction. Part of the wox-k is done by one department and part by another.
Mi-. J. D. REID. In going through that canal this summer I noticed that it is lighted by lanterns hanging from sticks.


George Perry Graham: That would be in the lake section.


John Dowsley Reid: Although the canal is supposed to be lighted every night, it seems to be lighted only about two nights in the week. Although there ai-e not many boats navigating the Rideau canal, I think in the interests of navigation it should be lighted every night.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister propose to make his statement to-night ?


George Perry Graham: I am not quite ready to make my statement to-night.


George Eulas Foster: Can he say when he will make it ?
Mi\ GRAHAM. I will be prepared to take it up to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: I would also like to know when the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Box-den) proposes to make his statement. Will that be to-morrow ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say. Mr. J. D. REID. He said he was ready.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, I will ask him to be here to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: Then, we will take the Transcontinental first ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.

After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight oclock.
Quebec canals-steam road roller and stone crusher, $7,000.


George Taylor: What is this required for?


George Perry Graham: To macadamize the tow path. They do a great deal of travelling on the canal bank.
Soulanges canal-improvements, $15,000.


George Taylor: What are the improvements there ?


George Perry Graham: Fire protection, electric motors, machine shop, timber and lumber shop, cast-iron and concrete posts.
St. Lawrence canal-district office, $7,000.


George Perry Graham: This is really finishing up the expenditures for work in that district. We have our engineer and staff there.
Trent canal-construction, $1,000,000.


George Taylor: Is this work all under contract ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, all let to the lowest tenderers.


Haughton Lennox: Has the southern outlet been determined upon yet ?


George Perry Graham: No.


Haughton Lennox: I want to ask the minister with reference to that Devil's Elbow he has been talking about, that is, the work at Bradford. The minister explained the other day that the chief engineer is not able to attend to it now. Could not the minister send some one else up there in the meantime ?


George Perry Graham: I had a little conversation with the secretary of the chief engineer this morning, and I understood him that some time before the session closed lie thought he could give me an idea of win t that work was going to cost. I think lie said some engineer was there looking at it.


Haughton Lennox: I think the chief engineer is quite familiar with the general character of the situation. It is absolutely level land, it is called a marsh. I was at Bradford the other day, and talking with a gentleman who knows a great deal about it in a nonprofessional way, he said the distance was about three-quarters of a mile. The soil is mucky on top for about three feet, then you get to solid earth. I would be glad if the minister, before the session closes, would give me an idea as to whether he will undertake the work.


George Perry Graham: I wall try and get that.


Haughton Lennox: It is a place where there will ba a good deal of traffic, which comes up to the point of the Devil's Elbow. It is a small matter, and will give an additional
outlet to the people of Bradford and of the neighbourhood.


Mr. OWEN.: Could the minister tell me when the contract was let for the section passing through the town of Campbellford ?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say that. When the work of the session is over and my chief engineer comes back, I intend to go with him to see the place.


Charles Lewis Owen: Will this complete the Trent canal ?


George Perry Graham: The Trent canal will not be completed until it has got away up into the waters of Lake Simcoe. There are some sections of it for which an estimate has not yet been made. I have sent out for information on those sections which are under contract.


Albert Edward Kemp: How many years will it take to complete the canal, and how much will it cost ?


George Perry Graham: If we base an estimate for the future on the number of years it has been going on, some of us will be pretty old men when it is completed.


Albert Edward Kemp: Then it won't be any benefit to this generation ?


George Perry Graham: I think it is a great accommodation now.
Lachine canal-wall north side basin No. 2, $98,000; wall side basin No. 2, $49,000; workshops, $15,000.


John Graham Haggart: Does that finish the
wall on basin No. 2?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: How much does the whole wall cost?


George Perry Graham: $147,000. It is under
contract.
Chambly canal-to macadamize towpath, to complete, $10,000.


John Graham Haggart: What do those macadamized roads cost altogether?


George Perry Graham: $3,500 a mile, and there are four or five miles.


George Taylor: Will the stone crusher and roller be utilized here ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Cornwall canal-to build a gate lifter, $10,-
000.


John Graham Haggart: What does that gate lifter cost altogether?


George Perry Graham: 

Murray canal-to provide houses for bridge-men, $5,000.


George Taylor: What kind of houses, and how many?


George Perry Graham: There are eight men and only two houses, and the whole length of the canal is several miles away from any town. We propose to build two houses one and a half stories each, at $2,500 each.
Rideau. canal improvements, $1,500.


George Taylor: What are the improvements?


George Perry Graham: Building a platform and rebuilding the swing bridge across the upper lake.
Trent canal improvements, $45,000.


John Graham Haggart: What are those improvements?


George Perry Graham: Dredging between Bob-caygeon and Peterborough, Peterborough and Fenelon, and Balsam lake and Lake Simcoe. We do that with our own dredge.


George Taylor: Are you getting a dredge built for that?


George Perry Graham: We propose to get one built. $15,000 is the estimate.
Trent canal-new lock and dam, Lindsay, $80,000.


George Perry Graham: We are replacing the old wooden locks which the Ontario government built there some fifty years ago.


John Graham Haggart: Will that be used in the navigation of the Trent?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Trent canal-dam at Buckhorn, $25,000.


George Perry Graham: This work is being done by Conroy, of Peterborough, and was let by tender. The amount is $55,119.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it intended to place the section under contract between Lake Simcoe and the Georgian bay this coming year?


George Perry Graham: Not this season.


Charles Lewis Owen: Where is the dam at Buck-horn being built, and what is it for?


George Perry Graham: It is for navigation purposes practically, and we imay develop power as well.
Intercolonial Railway-increased accommodation at Halifax, $500,000.


Mr. CROCKET.: The departmental report says that three contracts were let at Halifax during the year. Who are the contractors and what is the contract price in each case?


George Perry Graham: The contract for grading on the west side of water street is not a lump sum contract but is a contract at schedule prices.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who is the contractor ? Mr. GRAHAM. Kitchen & Co.


George Taylor: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister a statement of the estimated value of the contract ?


George Perry Graham: I do not seem to have it here. The estimated expenditure is about $520,000 for the year. The expenditure to the 31st March last was $3,233,158.01.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister a list of the amounts paid under each of the contracts ?


George Perry Graham: No, I will try and get a statement of the different contracts.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The report states that the Cunard property was secured by the railway. I would like to know what was paid for that.


George Perry Graham: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: Through whom was the purchase negotiated ?


George Perry Graham: There was an offer made, arbitrators were appointed and it was settled by the officers of the department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did Mr. Mcllreith get a fee ?	%


George Perry Graham: Mr. Mcllreith searched the title or did some legal work of that kind.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the amount of his fee for that service ?


George Perry Graham: Has my hon friend a copy of the Public Accounts ?


Oswald Smith Crocket: There does not seem to be anything in the Public Accounts. All I find in the Auditor General's Report is the amount paid to Kitchen & Co. for excavation. There seems to have been $54,217.51 paid out during the last fiscal year on account of the Halifax works.


John Graham Haggart: Would the minister state what he intends this $500,000 shall be applied to, whether it will meet the object be has in view, and what is the total amount that lias been expended for increased accommodation at Halifax ?


George Perry Graham: The amount expended to the end of March is $3,233,000 in round numbers. This amount is required for additional facilities on the west side of Water street, engine house, heating and turntable, freight and car repair shoxi and planing mill, store house, oil house and sand house, chimney and foundation. coal pockets, water tank and supply, cinder pits, grading, ballasting and tracks, double tracking Richmond to new yard, beating of buildings, &e., tracks and turnouts in Richmond yard, building for car inspectors and wharf. These improvements which I am speaking of now will cost $1,019.80.


John Graham Haggart: Which, added to $3,200,000 will be $4,200,000 ?


George Perry Graham: $4,255,000. But the $3,200.000 includes the $500,000 already expended.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I notice, at page W-19 of the Auditor General's Report that Mr. R. T. Mcllreith, for legal services and expenses, received $1,861.30. Was that in connection with the purchase of property in Halifax ?


George Perry Graham: This was in connection with the purchase of property required for these improvements.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Did this include the properties in connection with which Mr. Pearson got $14,000 ?


George Perry Graham: The last item, in connection with the roundhouse, I think is the only one.


John Graham Haggart: Is any of this expenditure for increased accommodation at Halifax charged to revenue account besides what is charged to capital ?


George Perry Graham: No, I think not, this is revolutionary.
Sydney Mines-extension to, $14,625.


George Perry Graham: This is from North Sydney to Sydney Mines, not quite three miles, 2 7 I think. It is an extension of the line. The expenditure up to March 31, 1907, was $88,043. That includes the land and a very large yard to accommodate the traffic we receive from the Nova Scotia Coal Company.
Improvements at North Sydney, $4,000.


George Perry Graham: That is an addition to the engine house.
Mr, HAGGART. Why is that Charged to capital account ?


George Perry Graham: It is really a new thing, to provide accommodation for more engines, we might have built it by itself and it would then have been absolutely new but we attached it to the other one.
Sydney-increased accommodation, $14,000.


George Perry Graham: This is in connection with the bridge at Sydney yard. The bridge itself will cost about $14,000.
Improvements at Mulgrave, $1G,800.


George Perry Graham: This is to provide an extension of the wharf, additional sidings, extension of the freight shed, land, coaling pockets, improvements at the station and water tank. The total cost will be $78,800. This vote finishes the work.
Antigonish-increased accommodation, $4,500.


George Perry Graham: We are building a concrete platform, providing drainage and completing the water service ; the work is practically finished. I received a telegram today asking me to extend the work to the
amount of $400 in order to have our walk meet the town walk. If we decide to do that we will require $400 more. We have expended there $21,354.57. It is under contract to Mr. Sutherland.
New Glasgow-increased accommodation, $7,500.


George Perry Graham: This is to complete the work of providing two undercrossings. The expenditure to March 31, 1907, was $46,677.22.
Stellarton-increased accommodation, $6,500.


George Perry Graham: This is for a sand house and electric lighting plant. It will take about $9,000 more to complete this work. It is under contract. The General Electric Company are putting in the lighting plant.
Pictou-increased accommodation, $8,600.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is any of this sum for Pictou to be applied to the contract for the engine house ?


George Perry Graham: There is nothing in this. It is for coaling pockets, water service, loading platform and a building for our car cleaners.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In connection with the contract for the Pictou engine house I was informed some time ago by the minister that the contract was $13,950, that there were some schedule prices, and that the contractor had been paid to that date $M0,-221 and that there was a final estimate amounting to $10,719 remaining to be paid, so that the total amount payable to the contractor would be about 111,000. How is it that such a large sum has been paid under that contract ? The department estimated the value of the contract at $62,000. The contractor Mr. Walberg, has received nearly double that amount.


George Perry Graham: 
John Graham Haggart: What Is the estimate upon which the contract was made, what is the amount expended, and what do you require to finish the work ?


George Perry Graham: This work is all finished and paid for.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is true that the contract for the building proper was $13,950, but the department estimated the contract upon Mr. Walberg's tender of schedule prices and including the bulk sum as worth $62,000. Notwithstanding that, we find that he received over $110,000 on that contract. It seems that In this case, as in all other cases in which contracts were awarded to Mr. Walberg, he was the lowest tenderer, but he managed to come out at the completion of this contract as in the case of all his other contracts with an amount far in excess of the highest tender. I can understand that there might be some slight variation between the department's estimate and the actual working out of the contract; but it does seem to me that it is not very complimentary to the engineering staff of the Department of Railways and Canals that they should be out to such an immense extent as in this case. There were additional amounts in connection with the Pic-tou engine house outside of Mr. Walberg's contract which made the total value of this work $129,111. It is an Immense amount of money to spend for such an engine house as that at Pictou.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is wrong. This item has nothing at all to do with the item he is discussing. The details of this contract will appear in the Auditor General's Report for the year just past. The contract was for an engine house, crib-work, and several other things ; but as it is not a matter germane to this item, I did not bring the details.
Mi-. CROCKET. Can the minister say when Mr. Walberg received his last payment ? He was paid $100,221.91, up to the date of my asking the above question, and there was still outstanding a progress estimate amounting to $10,719. I would like to know when that was paid ?


George Perry Graham: I will have to get that information at another time for my hon. friend.
To increase accommodation at Truro, $105,000.


Mr. STANFIELD.: What is this for ?


George Perry Graham: The estimate is as follows :	Station, $85,000 ; yard, $168,000 ;
water service, $5,000 ; coal pocket, $3,000 ; ballast, $30,000 ; store. $12,000 ; office, $25,000 : small items, $30,000 ; grading, $51,000 ; freight house, $25,000.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total cost and what is the total amount expended ?


George Perry Graham: The total amount expended at Truro, including everything, is $271,366.77. That is not on the work I have outlined, which will cost over $400,000.


John Graham Haggart: How much of this vote will it take to complete it ?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: About $250,000.


John Graham Haggart: Is the work under contract, let by tender, and, if so, who are the contractors ?


George Perry Graham: We are doing the yard work ourselves, and the coal pits have been let. The balance of the work has not yet been let.


John Graham Haggart: What part of the work is done ?


George Perry Graham: Part of the yard north of the main line of the Pictou branch is done by ourselves. The water service is done by contract.
Mr. TAYLOR, Is the new station to be let by tender ?


George Perry Graham: It has not been tendered for yet, but it will certainly be let by tender.


John Stanfield: Is it the intention of the minister to start the new station this year ?


George Perry Graham: The plans are being considered now. I do not know just what we shall be able to do this year, as the season is so late ; but it is not the intention to make a difference between places.


John Stanfield: The reason I ask the hon. minister this question is that in 1904 I think it was. the government started to build a new engine house. The work was left until the eve of a general election. They did not know what site they were going to select. You did not know what site you were going to take and were forced to take a certain site which cost the country a considerable sum. In turning up the Auditor General's Report, I find that upwards of $220,000 was spent on that engine house. Of that amount over $80,000 was spent in excavating. What I would like to impress on the minister is that it would be far better to provide this new station before the general elections. He would get just as many votes out of it and so will I, If fortunate enough to run. While on my feet, I would like to impress on the minister the absolute necessity for better precautions on the crossings in Truro. I have a copy of a letter sent by a lawyer to the department claiming damages on account of an accident at a crossing there, in which two horses were killed but fortunately without any loss of human life. The cause of the accident was this. It was a dark and stormy night and there were no lights on the crossing. The town of Truro had written the denartment several times begging it to put two lights on this crossing, but the department neglected to do so. From what I understand, the lawyer for the department wrote the Truro people that the government will not pay this claim. I would 1 like the minister to look into the question.

There are no gates any way down there and it is a miracle that no lives have been lost.
Intercolonial Railway-increased accommodation at Springhill junction, $2,900.


George Perry Graham: This is for coal plant and hot water pumps.
Improvements at Amherst, $47,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for a station, $38,000, a concrete platform and an engine house. Estimated cost $59,500. The contract was given to Leblanc & Company, the lowest tenderers, after newspaper advertisements.


John Graham Haggart: Why build an engine house at Amherst? It is not a division point.


George Perry Graham: We have two engines there, used for shunting in the yard.


Mr. ANGUS MCLENNAN (Inverness).: Before you leave the Nova Scotia items, I desire to call attention to the fact that while I am pleased to see so many votes for increased accommodation along various sections of the Intercolonial Railway passing through that province, I regret that the good old county of Inverness, through which thirty-five miles of the road runs, is left out. My regret is that the minister, on his tour of inspection, did not have time to see that fine county in daylight, and most of all to see its requirements. There is a private company owned railway running along the county of Inverness, a distance of 61 miles. There are three thriving coal mining towns tributary to that road, together with about two-thirds of the area of the county of Inverness and its people. All the freight emanating from these mining towns and other parts of that county, together with the passenger traffic, passes, almost all of it, over the Intercolonial Railway. That other railway forms a junction with the Intercolonial Railway about a mile and a half or so from the Strait of Canso, or about a mile and a half from Point Tupper, one of the Intercolonial railway terminals. Every passenger-and this is what I desire to call attention to particularly-who leaves the county of Inverness by that road has to land in a swamp along the track of the Intercolonial Railway. The government, it would appear, took excellent care to make accommodation for the freight coming off the Inverness and Richmond Railway, but it left the passengers to shift for themselves, and they have to land, as I have said, about a mile and a half from the government station at Point Tupper. The attention of the late Minister of Railways (Mr. Blair) was brought to this matter by myself, and he claimed that it was the duty of the private company to provide a shelter there for its passengers. The company, on the other hand, contend that they have their station in the town
of Hawkesbury, about one-quarter of a mile from this junction, and that the moment they land their passengers on the Intercolonial track they are Intercolonial passengers, and consequently they back their train right to their station in the town of Hawkesbury. I have been time and again on board the Intercolonial and taken the Inverness train to my home, and in the spring and winter I have seen twenty-five to thirty passengers, of both sexes, having to walk the whole length of the train in snow and slush to their knees and get to the Intercolonial as best they could. This has been going on some six or seven years, so that it is a case, as far as the people of Inverness are concerned, of being between the de'il and the deep sea. What I contend is that the passenger earnings which the Intercolonial derives from this traffic amply warrant a station being built at that junction by the government for their accommodation. The passenger earnings on this 61 miles of the Inverness railroad this last calendar year were $20,000, and no doubt that would be at least duplicated on the Intercolonial, because the run on that road is longer. With its freight traffic and passenger traffic that 01 miles of railway cleared $75,000 last year, as is shown by the government returns. These earnings, I say again, have been more than duplicated in the case of the Intercolonial, because the greater amount of that freight and traffic would go over the Intercolonial sometimes twice or three times the distance that it goes over the Inverness road. I listened to a question asked and answered in this House the other day as to the amount paid by the Sydney and Louisburg Company to the government for the use of the government terminals at Sydney. It is evident from that question and its answer that the Sydney and Louisburg road is compelled to make use of the government terminals at iSydney, for which they pay a certain amount. What I claim is then that it is the duty of the government either to erect a modest station for the shelter of the passengers here or compel the running of the Inverness trains into the government terminals at Point Tupper. The people of Inverness would be perfectly satisfied with either.


John Graham Haggart: What is the distance to Point Tupper?


Angus McLennan: About a mile and a half. I think that the request I make of the government is perfectly reasonable. To show the absurdity of the present arrangement let me state the position as it is. A freight train to-day leaves Inverness town, goes to the junction and then right ou into the government terminals at Point Tupper, where it transfers its freight comfortably. But a train loaded with passengers leaves soon after and is treated very differently.

The passengers are dumped in a swamp, the most hideous looking place along the Intercolonial Railway.
I was determined, before these votes went through, to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to this matter, in order that at least, he should give the matter attention when the Supplementary Estimates are being prepared, or arrange with the company, as I have indicated, that they might use the government terminals at Point Tup-per. I certainly refuse to hold a seat in this House quietly and silently while this abuse of the people X represent goes on.


Mr. HENDERSON.: What do you think of that, Mr. Minister?


George Perry Graham: As 1 understand the hon. member (Mr. McLennan) the Canadian Northern, or Inverness road, put the passengers off at a place other than the station, landing them on the Intercolonial tracks. That is a matter well worth looking into; and, if my hon. friend will drop me a line putting the matter in concrete shape, I will take it up with the railway. Perhaps the Railway Commission might induce them to do something, or wre might make some arrangement with them.


Angus McLennan: There is an excellent way for the minister to arrange this matter perhaps better than in any other, and that is to make this excellent piece of railway a branch of the Intercolonial-to take it over and experiment with it as an excellent feeder of the road. I am introducing this subject to the attention of the minister with the hopeful assurance that the road cleared $75,000 in its working for the last calendar year.


John Stanfield: I notice in the newspapers a statement that the Minister of Railways is expected to spend a month or two in inspecting the Intercolonial. While he is on that tour of inspection, I would like him to spend a few days in my county. The reaspn I ask is that we are sadly in need of branch railways. I will not weary the House or take up its time with a long discussion of these matters, but I would merely say that the branch railways particularly needed are from Brookfield to Lansdowne, Brule to Truro, and from Parrsboro' to Truro. The minister need not laugh at this. If he had [DOT]seen, as I saw last fall, the farmers and the merchants of that country having their stuff hauled over muddy roads-It was a muddy season-at a cost of $3 to $5 a ton, he Would have seen the need of these branch roads. And I believe it can be shown that the roads I have mentioned are a paying proposition. If the minister will spend a day or two *with me, we will look it over.
Improvements at Sackville, $27,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What are these improvements?
Mr. Mclennan.


George Perry Graham: Station, freight sheds, grading of track, water service and so on- total, $06,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Have the contracts been let?	'


George Perry Graham: The contract has been let for the station. Calls are out for the freight sheds, but tenders have not yet been received.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the contract for the water system?


George Perry Graham: It was $32,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who was the contractor?


George Perry Graham: Willard, Kitchen & Co., Limited.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much for the station?


George Perry Graham: The contractor is Thomas R, Anderson, at $20,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Speaking of stations, I do not want to repeat at length what I have already said in this House and privately to the minister, in regard to the need for a new station of the Intercolonial at Fredericton. The Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) who was acting Minister of Railways last session, admitted that Fredericton was entitled to a better station than we have now. The Minister of Railways has himself visited Fredericton anil seen the station, and both he and his deputy have admitted that the station is neither creditable to the railway nor to Fredericton, as the cap'tal of the province. I will simply say that the Fredericton people are looking to the Supplementary Estimates this year to find provision for a new7 building and that they will be grievously disappointed if no provision is made.


John Graham Haggart: What is the total amount of these improvements? What will be required after this vote to complete
them ?


George Perry Graham: It is expected that this vote will complete the work. There is a revote here of $20,000. The total cost wTill be $66,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to hear from the Minister of Railways as to the proposition to erect a new station at Fredericton.


George Perry Graham: They are not in these estimates.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have noticed that.


George Perry Graham: I can say nothing further, except to recommend faith and hope for a few days.
Towards double tracking parts of line, $200,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What parts of the line are to be doubled track?


George Perry Graham: Prom Moncton to Pain-sec Junction.


John Graham Haggart: What is your plan for double tracking the road? Has the minister looked over the southern road from Moncton to Halifax that he did not know whether he would adopt or not?


George Perry Graham: The double track is absolutely necessary on this piece to accommodate the traffic. This double track goes toward Prince Edward Island. The other question is a large one. If the trade of Canada is to come from the west and to be exported from Canadian ports, and the goods imported into Canadian ports at Halifax and St. John, they will have to be provided for. The Grand Trunk Pacific is near Moncton, the Canadian Pacific Railway' is now at St. John, - the Canadian Northern is at Quebec, and some way will have to be found to get this traffic from Moncton to St. John and Halifax, and somebody will have to provide more railway communication between Moncton and St. John and between Moncton and Halifax.


John Graham Haggart: The Grand Trunk Pacific will not be finished until 1911, and it will require a couple ocf years to develop the traffic at least, so it will be thirteen years before the minister will have to take into consideration either the double tracking from Moncton or building this new line.


Mr. EMMERSON.: This question was discussed two or three years ago in this House. The policy was then laid down that the Intercolonial should be doubled tracked between St. John and Halifax, as early as circumstances would permit, and there were certain portions of the line which, if it were to meet present requirements, must necessarily be double tracked at once. For instaance, a double track was absolutely necessary between Halifax and Windsor Junction. That work was done, and also a double track was put down between Stel-larton and New Glasgow. At the same time there was a location made between Hampton and the city of St. John. That work I believe has not been commenced, although the surveys have been made. Within the very near future a double track will have to be extended on to Springhill. Between Moncton and Springhill the traffic to-day is very heavy indeed. One of the great difficulties in proceeding with the double track must necessarily be the grade between Dorchester and Sac-kville. Pursuant to that policy, the Department of Railways and Canals, as I understand, have been conducting surveys in order to obviate some of these difficulties. Therefore, this is not a new question, it is one which has been practically settled. In the very near future, and indeed before the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway reaches Moncton and seeks an outlet at Halifax, the necessities of the traffic between Moncton
and Truro and Truro and Halifax will make it absolutely necessary for the government to double track that portion of the Intercolonial.


George Taylor: Perhaps the minister would allow the balance of this item to stand and let us go back to item 102, on which the leader of the opposition wants to make some remarks.
National Transcontinental Railway, $30,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister made any estimate of what the total cost will be from Winnipeg to Moncton ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see that he is taking me unawares. The member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) drew a pledge from me at six o'clock that I would not bring this matter up and I left all my papers in the office.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, Then I had better
leave the mattetr until the minister makes his speech. Will it include any statement of the cost of the road?


George Perry Graham: I will have to prepare my statement after I get through with the House to-night. I will give all the information I possibly can.


Robert Laird Borden: Then perhaps I had better go on and give the minister the benefit oif some little researches I have made into the cost of construction, and they will be subject to any subsequent criticism the minister may see fit to make. It is well for the purpose of convenience to place upon the records of the House the purport of the returns that have been brought down touching the cost of the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway. In answer to a question put by myself, the minister in the month of May last brought down a statement, Sessional Return 39f, which is as follows :
The Commissioners of the National Transcontinental Railway, Ottawa, April 4, 1908.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour to give below the answers to the inquiry of the ministry to be made by Hon. R. L. Borden as follows, viz.:
1 (a) The estimated length of the Transcontinental Railway from Winnipeg to north end of the St. Lawrence river bridge near Quebec is 1,344 -92 miles.
(b) From north abutment of the St. Lawrence river bridge near Quebec to Moncton is 459'74 miles, which includes 1-11 miles of Quebec bridge link.
2.	The estimated average cost per mile (not including Quebec bridge link) is $63,427.
3.	This estimate is based on quantities as estimated by district engineers and contract prices so far as contracts have been let; remaining prices estimated by the commissioners' chief engineer. Distances are those of actual survey, and the total, from which the average cost per mile of completed main line

track is arrived at, includes the cost of 326 miles of sidings.
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) P. E. RYAN, Secretary.
On a subsequent date I addressed to the minister this question :


Robert Laird Borden: Referring to the return, sessional paper No. 39f, touching the estimated cost of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, which shows the total length, less the Quebec bridge, to be 1,803.55 miles, the average cost per mile to be $63,427, and the total estimated cost not including the Quebec bridge, to be $114,393,765.85, does this estimate include the cost of station houses, terminals, engine houses, round houses, turn tables, water tanks and all other buildings and structures necessary or usual for the effective operation of the road? If not, what will be the additional cost for all such purposes?


George Perry Graham: The estimate referred to in this question, of the average cost per mile of th9 eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, of $63,427, includes the cost of terminal yards, station houses, engine houses, turntables, water tanks and all builidngs and structures, necessary or usual for the effective operation of the road; but does not include terminals at Winnipeg (in regard to which an agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway and the commission was ratified, by Act of parliament during the Session of 1907-8) or shops east of Winnipeg, or terminals at Quebec or connection therewith, plans of which hare not yet been made and of which accordingly, no estimate of cost can yet be furnished. '
At a subsequent date I asked the minister for some further information and, in response to my request, he was good enough to bring down another return which is sessional paper 39k and as it is of considerable importance and is not very long, I will read this also :
Memorandum re Trancontinental Railway.
The length of the road from Moncton to Winnipeg is 1,803-55 miles, or including the Quebec bridge 1-11 miles, 1,804 -66 miles.
The estimate of $63,437 a mile did not include any allowance for interest.
For the term'nals at Moncton, the sum of $97,000 was included in the above for a terminal yard. With regard to shop accommodation, it is assumed that an arrangement will be made for the joint use of the new shops of the Intercolonial. If so, the Transcontinental share of the capital expenditure on them is estimated at $750,000, or, at 4 per cent interest, $30,000 a year.
The terminals at Quebec would include the cost of the line from the Quebec bridge to Champlain market, Quebec, say six miles and terminals at the market, at a cost of, say $2,000,000.
It is not practicable, at the present time, to state the extent of the liability in connection with the Quebec bridge, nor to furnish any estimate of the cost ef building it.


Robert Laird Borden: 

making $41,300,000. or a total cost of construction from Winnipeg to Moncton of $51,300,000.
The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at page 7691 of ' Hansard ' used these words :
The sum total of the money to be paid by the government for the construction of the line from Monoton ito the Pacific will be in the neighbourhood of twelve or thirteen million dollars.
Quebec bridge.
Cost of Quebec bridge up to March 1, 1907	*$5,422,238
Estimated cost of completion	 9,000,000

 14,422,238
* ' Hansard,' 1907, p. 7960.
Terminals.
Estimated cost of our share of terminals at Quebec, Winnipeg and Moncton, and shops east of Winnipeg	 5,470,000
And to the same effect was the language of the then Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) at page 7711 of ' Hansard.' The hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) at page 10304 of ' Hansard ' confirmed the above statement of the Prime Minister as to the probable cost of the road.
I estimated the road from Winnipeg to Moncton at $40,000 per mile for 1,875 miles or a total of $75,000,000 and the estimate which I made at that time was regarded by hon. gentlemen opposite as excessive to the point of absurdity. Let us look a little at the actual cost of the road as borne out by the figures brought down by the government.
I shall read a statement which I have prepared in order that the figures may appear in consecutive order upon the pages of ' Hansard.' Let me say to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that so far as data were available from official returns brought down by the government this session I have used those data and where I have been obliged through the absence of information to make any estimate of my own, I have endeavoured to be conservative and thoroughly within the mark. The estimate which I have made as to the eastern division is as follows :

Mountain section.
Cost of mountain section (839 miles) as stated in return brought down,

Total cash expenditure	$192,920,723
Bond guarantee.
In addition to the above cash expenditure the government incurs the following obligations on its guarantee of bonds-
Guarantee on bonds issue on mountain section as above	 46,140,000
Guarantee of bond issue on prairie section, 916 miles, at $13,000 per
	 11,908,000

Cash expenditure	$192,820,723
Bond guarantee	 58,048,000
Total	$250,968,723
In. order to explain the basis of some of these estimates I would like to say a word or two, and that is really the only comment I have to make, because the figures which I have brought to the attention of the House, and which I submit for the comment and criticism of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, speak for


Robert Laird Borden: themselves, il have allowed five years for the period of construction. I base that on the statement in the return brought down that the road will be completed about December, 1911, and on the information contained in the report of the commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, dated October 9,	1906, in which they point
out at page 16 that in the spring of that year contracts were awarded for a considerable portion of the road-150 miles in one contract and 244 miles in another contract-and the report proceeds to state that the work had been commenced and was in progress. Therefore the estimate of five years for the period of construction is somewhat less than I would have been justified in taking if i had adhered strictly to the official returns on which my information is based.
I have taken two and a half years as the period for which interest would be charged. That I think is the usual practice. During the period of five years the interest charges will continually increase. During the first year they will be very small. During the last year they will be very large. The custom, as I understand, is to take one-half of the period of construction and estimate interest, at whatever the rate may be, for that period. So far as the rate is concerned I have taken the reply of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in the House today in which he says that a recent loan has been floated bearing interest at 31 per cent. That loan was underwritten at par. I have taken 3J per cent or 1 per cent below the rate on the loan, as a fair interest charge during the period of construction.
With respect to the interest during the seven years during which the Grand Trunk Pacific Company pay no rental, I have endeavoured to be very conservative in my estimate. The Grand Trunk Pacific agree to pay a rental of 3 per cent after seven years. It is highly probable that during that period of seven years the interest which the country will have to pay will be at least 3i per cent, and I think I would have been justified in making up the loss to the country during that period at that rate, but I have given the government and the transaction the benefit of the doubt, and I have made my estimate during that period at only 3 per cent, which is the rate of rental the Grand Trunk Pacific Company will eventually pay to the government.
I have observed the same course in making an estimate for the three years additional, computing the interest during those three years at 3 per cent and not at 3J per cent. The comment and criticism may of course be made that during those three years it is possible that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, by means of the operation of the road, may show such net earnings that some portion of this $11,000,000 will be reimbursed to the country. I would hardly think that very prob-389*	.	j, &
able; therefore, I have taken the liberty of including the whole of that as an amount which the country will have to bear in the end. If the Minister of Railways and Canals has any data or argument to show that this is not a fair way of dealing with that particular part of the transaction, he will of course submit his arguments and considerations to the House when he comes to examine the statement I have made. Looking at the character of the country through which the road runs, looking at the enormous difficulties which will confront the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in operating that road during the winter, looking at the almost entire absence of local traffic during the first ten years at least, I would think it a reasonable assumption that there would be no net earnings of the road available for the purpose of paying any rental during those three years. That of course must be a matter of opinion and of argument, and to a certain extent of conjecture. However, I have taken the view that we shall be responsible for the whole of that $11,000,000, and will not be reimbursed in respect of any part of it, and, therefore. I have added it to the other amounts included in the total cash outlay which this road will entail upon the country.
A word or two of explanation may be added as to my basis of estimate for the cost of the Quebec bridge. In 1907 my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, at page 7960 of ' Hansard,' informed an hon. gentleman on this side of the House-I think it was my hon. friend from Simcoe -that the cost of the Quebec bridge up to the 1st of March, 1907, had amounted to the sum of $5,422,258. The details of the position of the country with regard to the construction of that bridge are pretty well set out in the return which has bees brought down and in the Acts of parliament alluded to in that return. I need not go at any length into the subject at the present time. It is sufficient to say that the Quebec bridge is recognized by all parties in this House as an essential and integral part of the National Transcontinental Railway which must be pushed to a completion at as early a date as possible in order that there may be in effective operation a through line from Winnipeg to Moncton. Therefore we come to the question as to what would be a fair amount to estimate as the cost of completing the Quebec bridge. The greater part of that work has become a wreck. I do not know how far completed it was-perhaps one-half or more than one-half at the time of its collapse. I have been able to get no assistance whatever from the government in this regard, and I think I might reasonably have expected some assistance; in the absence of official information I have estimated the sum of $9,000,000 as a fair and reasonable

amount for the cost of completing that bridge so as to make that through line from Winnipeg to Moncton a through line in every sense of the word. If my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals has any grounds upon which he would reasonably" think that that sum of $9,000,000 ought to be cut down, I shall be ready to give every fair consideration to anything be can bring forward for that purpose.
So far as the cost of the terminals is concerned, a word of explanation is perhaps also due. I have taken the cost of terminals at Moncton, as stated in the return brought down, at $750,000 ; I have taken the cost of the terminals and approaches at Quebec, as stated in the return brought down, at $2,000,000 ; I have taken the cost of the shops east of Winnipeg, as stated in the return brought down, at $1,500,000, and I have capitalized the annual sums which we shall be obliged to pay, according to this return, for the use of terminals at Winnipeg. The way in which I have done that cannot, I think, be criticised as unfair. The statement in the return is as follows :
With regard to terminals at Winnipeg, by agreement of March 1, 1907, confirmed by the Act of that year, chapter 52. between the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government, the value of the Canadian Northern land is fixed at $2,625,000, upon which sum the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government, under clause IS, are to pay, in equal shares, one-half of four per cent, or $26,250 a year each. This includes grading, levelling and filling, as at the date of the agreement; but does not include building, fix-J tures, tracks and other improvements and facilities. Por these-which the Canadian Northern undertakes to construct and supply -the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government are to pay, in equal shares, one-half of 41 per cent. The assumed cost is set down by the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway at $2,000,000, making the amount payable by the government yearly $22,500, or a total for the Winnipeg terminals of $18,750.
Capitalizing an annual payment of $48,750 at 4 per cent would make approximately $1,220,000 which I have estimated. If I had taken it at 31 or 3 per cent, the amount would have been much greater. I have taken 4 per cent as the agreement seems to be to some extent based on that rate. And the total of these sums is in all $5,470,000 which I have taken as the cost of the terminals in my calculation.
So far as the Mountain section is concerned


George Perry Graham: Would my hon. friend allow me. I want to read this clause of the agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern and the government:
With regard to the compensation payable by the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government ' in equal shares ' to the Canadian Northern Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
for the joint terminals (namely one-half of four per cent on $2,625,000 and one-half of four and a half per cent on the buildings, tracks, and facilities under clauses 5, 8, 10 and 13 (a) and (b)-clause 19 goes on to provide that, prior to the execution of the lease of the eastern division to the Grand Trunk Pacific, this compensation shall be paid by the Transcontinental Railway commissioners and form part of the ' cost of construction ' of the eastern division, and for the first seven years of the lease such compensation shall he wholly born by the government; the Grand Trunk Pacific for the next forty-three years, repaying annually to the government, by way of rental, the amount of the said compensation.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not taken anything except what is in .the return brought down. If there be any modification by reason of the provision just mentioned, we will find that out when the hon. gentleman comments on my statement. I take the payment of $48,750 anually-and I capitalize that at a rate which I think could not reasonably be complained of.


George Perry Graham: I may be wrong hut I think that eventually goes into the cost of construction.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps it does and if so I shall stand corrected to that extent. I cannot say that I have thought that particular matter out and speak subject to any observation of my hon. friend in that regard.
In this conection, I should say further [DOT] that I think I have omitted some charges that I might very reasonably have included. My statement had to be made up hurriedly, after getting information from my hon. friend this afternoon, and I have not included in It-but my hon. friend may and I think should include in it-'the interest charges on the cost of these terminals. I did include interest on the cost of the construction of the road but had not the time to work out the interest charges on the $5,000,000 and upwards, which are estimated as the cost of the terminals. If that is charged, my hon. friend will probably find that it will more than offset any little criticism of the character to which he has just now alluded.
So far as the Mountain section is concerned, I inquired of the minister this afternoon whether or not the sum of $61,520,000, set forth in the return, was the cost of the whole line from Winnipeg to the coast or the cost of the Mountain section only. My hon. friend assured me that it was the cost of the Mountain section only, and I have made my statement on that basis. Seventy-five per cent of that sum amounts to $46,140,000. As regards the interest charged in that connection, I have adopted the same basis as that to which I have already alluded. I have taken 31 per cent in the absence of any information from the department of Finance or the Department of Railways, as
12249 JULY 7, 1908 12250	
a reasonable rate and I bave computed tlie interest charged for seven years in that $11,304,300. I desire to give a plain statement of what I conceive to be the cost of this rc-ad as based on the official information which I have been able to obtain. It is subject to any correction or observation on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways ; but if you subject it to the most searching criticism, I do not think you can find that it will be brought materially below the amount I have estimated, namely, $192,920,723, which is rather a staggering amount for the country to face, especially under present conditions. Because going on as we are, it would seem exceedingly probable that, by the time this road is completed, the debt of this country will have reached the figure of about $450,000,000. I would venture to think that such a consideration might well give us pause, especially when contemplating some of the very large expenditures which have been promised, both in this House and out of it, by hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches. The public debt of Canada at present is, I suppose, from $265,000,000 to $268,000,000. The cost of this road will amount to at least $190,000,000 before we are through with it; and unless some considerable portion of that amount can be paid out of revenue-which does not seem very probable under present conditions-the total debt of this country, by the time this road is completed, without our spending a dollar for the development of our ports and inland waterways or in the construction of railways or for any other of the enormous calls that will be made on the treasury within the early future-without taking into consideration a single one of these demands on the public treasury, the public debt of Canada is likely to reach $450,000,000 before we pay for the building of this National Transcontinental Railway. For this reason, I thought it important at this time to invite the attention of the House and the country, and especially of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, to the estimate I have made and the data upon which it is founded, and to ask from him his criticism and comment. And if he finds my statement not according to his judgment, I sincerely trust *we shall have from him some statement as to what, in his opnion. the total cost to the country will be by the time the railway is completed. Item allowed to stand. Mr. HAGGART. Will the minister be kind enough, in making his statement tomorrow, to tell us whether, in the estimate of $63,437 a mile, he includes the terminals at Quebec or the shops at Winnipeg because it is not clear, under this statement, whether these are included or not. Mr. GRAHAM. I think I answered that question when it was asked by the leadei of the opposition some time ago.	Mr. DANIEL. Last year, when this item of double-tracking was up, I asked the then Minister of Railways what parts of the line were to be double-tracked out of the vote. He mentioned, amongst others, that part of the Intercolonial between St. John and Hampton. I see by the report of the Minister of Railways and Canals that the survey was made and plans and specifications prepared for double-tracking that part. But I think that no start has been made in the matter, and I suppose the money voted last year must have been deflected to some other purpose. Is it the intention to go,on with double-tracking that part of the road at an early day? Mr. GRAHAM. We are not asking for any vote for that work. This is for double tracking between Moncton and Painsec Junction. Mr. DANIEL. What was done with the vote for that purpose? Mr. GRAHAM. Was it a vote or a statement of the minister? Mr. DANIEL. I only know that the minister said it was for that purpose. Mr. E. M. MACDONALD. It was not so stated in the estimate? Mr. DANIEL. It was so stated by the minister. Mr. CROCKET. Does the minister say that this whole vote of $200,000 is for double-tracking the Intercolonial between Moncton and Painsec Junction? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Mr. CROCKET. How many miles is that? Mr. GRAHAM. Less than eight miles. Mr. CROCKET. How far has the work advanced now? Mr. GRAHAM. About half way. Locomotive and car shops with equipment, $570,000. Mr. GRAHAM. This is for the new locomotive and car shops with equipment, also grading and providing additional yard accommodation. Mr. J. D. REID. There is a contract that we have been trying to get some information about in connection with these Moncton car shops. The engineer, Mr. Mackenzie, it appears, has given a verbal contract for the amount of $50,000 or $60,000 under which work has been done but concerning which the government do not seem to have any information. Mr. E. M. MACDONALD. It was given at schedule rates. Mr. J. D. REID. No. Mr. E. M. MACDONALD. Yes, if the hou. gentleman will read the evidence be-

fore the Public Accounts Committee he will see that.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, the chief engineer has made a contract, as he claims, partly under schedule rate, and the other part is to be done by the contractor at whatever it costs plus 15 per cent. But the contractor himself states that the whole work is to be done by him and he is to get 15 per cent profit on his work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The deputy minister stated distinctly that the schedule under the contract did not apply to that work, that it was an entirely independent contract, which the engineer made without any authority from the department. The job has been in progress now for over a year ,and I think Mr. Walberg himself stated that it would probably cost upwards of $20,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the deputy minister says that the contract is entirely independent of the contract for the building.


John Dowsley Reid: Here are these two statements, one of the chief engineer and one of the contractor.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: The chief engineer is to come before the committee on Friday.


John Dowsley Reid: He has already made that statement. Here is a work involving a large amount of money about which neither the deputy minister nor anybody else on behalf of the government seems to have learned anything until it was brought up at the Public Accounts Committee and, up to this day, we are not able to find out what has been done. The contractor swears that he cannot tell what amount has been paid out. Neither did Mr. Mackenzie, the engineer, know. That is a strange way of doing business. If the minister has any information, we would like to know what has been expended on that contract.


George Perry Graham: We have paid nothing to Mr. Walberg for that as yet. This is a large building. And, as often occurs in these cases, it is more convenient to have such a work as this sewer done by the man who already has the large contract, for he work to the best advantage. This sewer is 2,880 feet long. At the shops and for 800 feet it is 20 to 24 feet in depth, and the balance is of 20 feet. So, this is not a small work. It is done in a way that is quite usual in railways, on what is called force account. That is, if you have confidence in the contractor, you give him the contract for his actual cost, plus so much. That is practically what is done with Mr. Wallberg. He has, all the appliances for the work, and the engineer at Moncton thought this the most practicable way to get it done. The contractor is to be paid cost price-for which he must show actual progress for every dollar-plus 15 per cent, he supplying all the tools and that sort of thing. Up to date we have not paid him anything on his work, because he has not asked for anything.


John Dowsley Reid: That statement does not agree with the statement of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), who said that the work was being done at schedule rates.


John Dowsley Reid: 


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that Mr. Mackenzie, the engineer, did wrong in providing for the work to be done in this way?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I certainly do. I say it is an extraordinary thing for an engineer of the railway to assume the responsibility of entering into a contract of that magnitude without any instructions from the department. I doubt whether the department itself, until this House authorized an appropriation for the purpose, would have been warranted in entering into any contract. Much less was a subordinate official of the Intercolonial at Moncton authorized to prepare plans for this work, and enter into a contract, and set the contractor at work, under a verbal agreement, without having received any instructions from any official of the department, or even reporting the matter to the department down to the time that the deputy minister was examined a few weeks ago. I was somewhat surprised at the statement of the deputy minister when his attention was called to the matter and he was made conversant with all the facts. He did not even seem to have reprimanded Mr. Mackenzie for having assumed such a responsibility. He said that he simply asked him the question, and expressed the opinion that there should have been a written contract. The member for Pictou asked me if I saw anything wrong in this matter. I say that if the people of this country are to be rendered liable for contracts of this kind entered into by subordinate officials of the railway, without any instructions from the department, not to say without any appropriations being voted by parliament, I do see something decidedly wrong in it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course, the version of my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) as to what was said in the Public Accounts Committee is entirely out of order. I understand my hon. friend from York has asked Mr. Mackenzie to appear before that committee on Friday, when we will hear that matter discussed, and I assume we will have a report to this House, on which the whole question can be considered. My hon. friend from York says that because this was not contained in the original contract, therefore it was an enormous thing to do. Now, if it was con-

tained in tlie original contract there would be no question about it, because it would form part of the work that was to be done under the arrangement that was made with the contractor. But my hon. friend knows too much about these matters not to know that when there are subsidiary propositions to be dealt with in a very large contract, there are various ways of dealing with them. As a matter of policy, the thing can be advertised and left open to new contractors, who cannot work so expeditiously as the original contractor could do the larger work. Then it can be done on schedule rates.


John Graham Haggart: How can you do that on schedule rates?


Hr. B. M. MACDONALD.: In that contract a large amount of excavation as provided for, and it was tendered for at schedule rates. The construction of a sewer is naturally a question of excavation that could be dealt with along the same line as the excavation for the original work. I only mention that as one of the methods by which it could be dealt with. There is a third method of dealing with it, and that is by force account. Any one acquainted with railway business knows that it is a method which is resorted to invariably by railway companies, because it is a fail-method. Take the amount actually expended by the contractor, and 15 per cent is a reasonable amount of profit, and is so recognized by railway co'mpanies everywhere in dealing with works of that kind. I do not understand that my hon. friend takes any objection to the method of dealing with it by force account, but merely that Mr. Mackenzie should not have done what he did. I would like to hear Mr. Mackenzie's explanation of that matter when he comes before the committee. I agree with my hon. friend that Mr. Mackenzie should not assume too much responsibility. But let us remember that Mr. Mackenzie is an old official of the Intercolonial Railway, he was in the Intercolonial under my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart), and I do not think my hon. friend from Lanark would say that Mr. Mackenzie was not a perfectly responsible man. There is no politics in this question, it is simply a question whether Mr. Mackenzie exercised an accurate judgment. For myself, I await his explanation before deciding whether he assumed a responsibility which he ought not to have assumed. I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend that if he did assume an unwarranted responsibility for expenditure, it is a matter that the minister should deal with, and no doubt he will do so. But Mr. Mackenzie's record in the Intercolonial, his reputation as an engineer and his whole course, are such that I do not think that my hon. friend ought to impute any wrong-doing to him until he has some better grounds, for it.


Mr. BLACK.: He is a good Tory.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I am not discussing this matter from a political standpoint. I think I have fairly stated the facts, and I submit that we can fairly trust the minister to deal with the matter as his judgment shall dictate.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman talks about the contractor being paid by schedule rates. Who ever heard of a contractor being paid by schedule rates for the building of locomotive and car shops with equipment? He is paid on progress estimates. Schedule rates only come in on earth works or stone excavation, or anything of that kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: This work was of that description.


John Graham Haggart: The principle is this : When a contractor enters into a contract, if contracts are drawn up now as they used to be, he accepts responsibility for all the quantities made out by the department. If there is an error committed by the department there is a provision in the contract that before the contractor commences his work he has to get & written order from the chief engineer, and the chief engineer generally allows him, as the hon. member has stated, what has been the actual amount expended on the work plus 15 per cent. There can be but very little of that kind of work in the contract for the building of the ear shops, the locomotives and equipment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The point is as to whether or not this sewer, which was necessary in consequence of the erection of the shops, should have been included in the original contract.


John Graham Haggart: If this large expenditure is not included in the contract the engineer in chief, or the engineer in charge, has no right to let that work to the contractor. The proper way is to call for new tenders for the work. The contractor assumes the responsibility of the engineering and of the architecture of the building and the schedule price has only reference to the work under contract. If there has been a mistake made by the architect or tbe party who drew the plans for these buildings that must be corrected by the engineer and before the contractor does a cent's worth of work, or is entitled to anything, he must get an order from the engineer in his own hand writing. If there have been laige sums of money expended outside of the contract there is no justification at all for it.


John Dowsley Reid: What makes this thing look rather bad, in so far as thd engineer is concerned, is this: Here is an expenditure which is started. If there had been any payment on account of the work at all we would have been able to have had the matter brought up and properly investigated in the Public Accounts Committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend blame the department or Mr. Mackenzie?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Mackenzie is an officer of the department and it was Mr. Mackenzie who made the mistake if a mistake was made. If moneys had been paid on it we would have been able to have investigated it in the Public Accounts Committee. When does the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) expect that the matter can be brought up in the Public Accounts Committee according to the rules of this House?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You have brought it up now.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit it is practically out of order.


John Graham Haggart: Not out of order at all.


John Dowsley Reid: To bring it up in the Public Accounts Committee.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We have been very liberal in giving you the opportunity of going into all these matters.


Charles Marcil: As this is before the Public Accounts Committee perhaps it would be better to leave it there.


John Graham Haggart: When we are discussing an item in the estimates, because that item is under consideration by the Public Accounts Committee, surely we are not to be prevented from discussing in the fullest possible manner any evidence which may have been adduced concerning it.


Charles Marcil: I believe you can discuss everything in connection with the item but hardly what is going on before the Public Accounts Committee.


John Graham Haggart: Why not? Can the evidence that is given in reference to this item not be discussed?


Charles Marcil: Because the committee has not reported on that point.


John Graham Haggart: It reports the evidence every day.


Charles Marcil: I understand from the statements made that Mr. Mackenzie is still to be called before the committee. I just want to shorten the debate. You can discuss the item, but not what is going before the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I never heard of a case in which a department had a contract going on, but what there were progress estimates made on account of the contract. The result of the way this is manipulated will be that it will be two years before that item -will appear in the Auditor General's Report, so that it can come up in the regular way in the Public Accounts Committee. Next session we will only be able to investigate what appears in the Auditor Gen-
Mr. ,f. D. REID.
eral's Report up to March 31, 1908. It is hardly fair in the interest of the public that tlie matter should be staved off so long. It is a very strange proceeding that the Department of Railways and Canals should allow an official of the department to give a contract outside of the original contract they gave, which will amount to anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000. The position, as I understand it, is that the officials can make contracts verbally without even advising the department. if the department undertake the erection of a building-take the Moncton car shops for instance-and if there are to be any extras or changes the minister should be made aware of what these changes are and what they are going to cost so that he can give orders as to how they are to be carried out. There is not a solitary contract on the Intercolonial Railway that has been carried out but what the amount has exceeded the contract price by a very large sum. I do not think that is the right way of doing business. If a man gives a contract to a private individual for a building he generally gets a statement of what the cost is to be and that is all he has to pay, but in so far as these works on the Intercolonial Railway are concerned, they exceed very much the amount of the estimate. If it is going on in this case how do we know that it is not going on in other cases?


Oswald Smith Crocket: When does the minister expect these works will be completed?


George Perry Graham: The contractor says in four months. If they are completed in six or eight months I will be satisfied.


John Dowsley Reid: We have not had an answer yet as to the total amount that has been spent.


George Perry Graham: I told the hon. gentleman in my first statement, that I had no statement from the contractor and had not paid him anything. With reference to that work and the position of the department and the chief engineer, my hon. friend must remember that the chief engineer is an old employee. Hs is not in the position of a subordinate, as you call him, although he is subordinate to the department. He is chief engineer of the Intercolonial Railway. He is a man of great experience, and when the contract was Jet for that building it was found necessary to have a very large drain constructed. At some places it runs to a depth of 24 feet. It was necessary for drainage purposes and in his wisdom he made this arrangement with the contractor who had all the appliances on hand. My hon. friend will see that we do not pay ith'e contractor anything on account of the work because there has never been any money voted up to the present time. The chief engineer thought it was wise to do this work immediately before the buildings were constructed and he started the construction

of this very large sewer for drainage purposes. If the accounts are kept properly and honestly I am prepared to say that this is as cheap a way as any of getting work of this kind done, and if it were my own I would be prepared to do it in that way.
New machinery for locomotive and car shops, $155,000.


George Perry Graham: Some of this goes into the new shops at Moncton and some into the other shops at Halifax, Riviere du Loup and other places.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this by public advertisement and tender ?


George Perry Graham: All the machinery is purchased by tender. We generally purchase from Th? large firms dealing in this.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is any of it purchased in the United States ?


George Perry Graham: That has not been purchased yet. Sometimes we buy in the United States, but my object is to buy everything possible from our own Canadian people.
Rolling stock, $1,550,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for additional rolling stock, ten passenger and twenty-two freight locomotives, three shunting locomotives, 300 box cars and so on.


Richard Blain: What firms are supplying the new locomotives ?


George Perry Graham: The passenger locomotives are purchased from the Montreal Company and the freights from the Canadian Company.


John Graham Haggart: What is the price ?


George Perry Graham: The passenger engines cost $24,000, and the freight engines $21,950.
Increased accommodation at St. John, $120,-
000.


George Perry Graham: This is for ballasting, grading tracks, car repair shops, coal pockets, &c.


John Dowsley Reid: How much grain has passed through the government elevator there in the past year ?


George Perry Graham: I have not the figures, but I understand that a greater amount of grain has passed through this year than in any previous year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the hon. gentleman intend to build a spur from the Intercolonial Railway near the wharf to Robertson's coal pockets at Robertson's wharf ?


George Perry Graham: I think we have not an amount in this year.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I think the coal company propose to build that themselves.
They get the permission of the Intercolonial Railway.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I understood the Intercolonial Railway would build it there and I presume expropriate the property to build it on.


George Perry Graham: There is a basis on which all such things are done. Unless there is some special reason the private individual does the grading and tie laying and the railway lays down the tracks and takes a certain amount on the cars handled In order to repay the expenditure. No special arrangement has been made with the coal company.


John Graham Haggart: The minister has given the cost of increased accommodation at Halifax at about $4,000,000. What has the increased accommodation at St. John cost ?


George Perry Graham: We have spent at St. John up to March 31, 1907, $2,582,616.30.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Since when was that?


George Perry Graham: A good many years back. I will not say really from the beginning, but this is the amount given to me as the total expenditure at St. John.
To put railway between Indiantown and Blackville into condition for operation, $80,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Why was nothing done with this matter last year?


George Perry Graham: We could not get any contract to build the bridge there and the work was stopped. It was almost impossible in the early part of the year to get contracts.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When that is completed is it intended to make a connection with Fredericton by Newcastle and the Indiantown branch?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to say what the intention is.
Improvements at Campbellton, $25,000.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know what the policy of the department is in regard to purchasing coal cranes ; is it to be through a middleman or by contract? As I understand, you cannot buy in Canada the kind of cranes required for the Intercolonial Railway, and they have to be purchased from firms which the Intercolonial have been dealing with every year for the last ten or fifteen years. If we can buy other kinds of cranes from these firms, there is no reason why we cannot buy cranes for the coal business from them at less cost than he can buy them from a middleman.


Alexander Johnston: They are bought by tender.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does not the hon. gentleman know that the people from

whom they are bought are Canadian agents of the American manufacturers who alone make them? He calls them middlemen, because they happen to live in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: The man from whom they were bought swore that he was not the agent of the firm that manufactured them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is one instance.


John Dowsley Reid: The government formerly always before purchased these cranes directly from the manufacturers except in one instance. I claim that if they do that they will save a lot of money.


George Perry Graham: It is not fair to call the agent of a manufacturing establishment a middleman, as if you were making some reflection upon him. If a letter were sent to the agent's firm in the United States they would probably send it back to him so as not to do him an injustice. I do not think it is at all disgraceful to be a representative of one of these large firms. In some instances the firm themselves have asked us 10 per cent more than they have allowed their agents to quote us. What my hou. friend would call a middleman is a respectable agent of the firm, and the firm stands by him and allows him to do the business.
. Mr. J. D. REID. I would like my hon. friend to show the case he mentions, for I never heard of such a case.
Ste. Rosalie,-Improvement at, $85,900.


George Perry Graham: We are making arrangements for a water supply, for an engine house, a building for stores, a turntable, grading, masonry, tracks, and ballasting. The engine house and the tanks are under contract and the building for stores. The engine house $20,000, building for stores $3,500.
Increased accommodation and facilities along the line, $169,000.


John Graham Haggart: That is a large sum and the House should insist on a specific statement of how the money is spent.


George Perry Graham: A good deal is for additional sidings at different stations.


John Graham Haggart: Hitherto these have been voted specifically. This is an exemplification of the absurdity of charging to capital account all tjiese little expenditures.
To strengthen bridges, $190,000.


John Graham Haggart: When is this work to be finished ? We have this item every year.


George Perry Graham: It is work that has to be done. The strengthening of bridges is one of the most important things for the safety of the road and public. We did not spend anything last year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 


John Graham Haggart: This vote is for changing bridges which were not up to the standard. You changed your locomotives and got much heavier ones and then have to change your bridges so as to make them capable of bearing them. When will this be finished ?


George Perry Graham: We have really to go over the whole line, and there are one or two sections on the road that have not been really commenced.


John Graham Haggart: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: Are these maps made in the Geological Survey branch or in the' same branch as the map making of the Interior department ?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: The map making of the Interior Department is separate alto-

gether from the Geological Survey. We have draughtsmen and map makers in the Geological Survey, and they do the work. In some of our work, we have the assistance of the photographers branch of which Mr. White is the head.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who is the head of this department ?


William Templeman: Mr. Senecal is the chief draughtsman.
To pay for specimens for Victoria Memorial Museum, $5,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Where are these specimens kept ?


William Templeman: In the Geological Survey on Sussex street.


Mr. LAKE.: When is the new museum likely to be finished ?


William Templeman: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the amount of the allowance to correspondents of the ' Labour Gazette ' ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There are forty-five correspondents and each is paid at the rate of $100 per annum.


George Taylor: There is an increase in this vote of $2,350. What is the explanation of that ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: As the hon. gentleman knows we passed last year the Act providing for investigation into labour disputes. We had about forty cases last year, and happily, they were all settled under the new law. We have had to send Mr. King and other representatives of the department to preside over these boards of inquiry and that entailed some expenditure. But I trust that the country approves of the work of the department in that direction, as we were very successful in all our investigations.
Fisheries-salaries and disbursements of fishery inspectors, overseers and guardians, $137,600.


Mr. BRODEUR.: There is an increase of $10,000 in that vote. It is to provide for some new appointments in the Northwest and British Columbia and also some small increases in salaries to the officers.


George Taylor: We are willing to allow these items to run through without very
much discussion, reserving one, but with the right to discuss the whole vote.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: All right, which one does the hon. gentleman wish to have reserved ?


George Taylor: The first one.
Lighthouse and coast service-construction cf lighthouses and aids to navigation, including apparatus, submarine signals and providing suitable boats for carrying on construction work in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and elsewhere in the Dominion, $260,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This item was left over out of the general lighthouse and coast service.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think the minister ought to give some idea of what is to be done under this vote.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We discussed this item several times, and I gave the information concerning it. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) will remember that he asked that this item should stand, and that was agreed to, but we discussed it before.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-Magnetic observatory, $3,200; Meterological service $122,000; Montreal observatory, $500; Kingston observatory, $500; Hydrographic surveys, $170,000.


George Taylor: I presume it is under this item that observatories are being erected throughout the country. Is it the Department of Marine and Fisheries who are erecting these towers throughout the country?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not under the Meteorological service of my department.
Steamboat inspection, $13,000.


George Taylor: When does the minister intend to go with the Bill from the Senate in reference to steamboat inspection? There is a good deal of dissatisfaction on the lakes because the customs officers cannot deal with gasoline launches. Some of the customs officers say that they cannot do anything until it becomes law.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Bill provides for that. In the meantime we do not enforce it.


Mr. PERLEY.: When does the minister intend to bring up that Bill that has been on the Order Paper so long?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As soon as the more pressing work which is now demanding our attention has been disposed of. We want to send as much work as we can to the Senate.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions, $1,291,550.


William Stevens Fielding: I would like to explain with regard to all these items that

in consequence of suggestions which were offered the previous session, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has published a supplement to his report which gives particulars of each one of these services and full explanations. This supplement has been in possession of hon. gentleman for some time, and those who feel an interest in the matter have given it their consideration. Information concerning each one of these services is fully set forth in this blue-book entitled ' Supplement to the Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce.'


Richard Blain: Are these subsidies all the same as last year?


William Stevens Fielding: Except in one case- the British ocean mail service-where there is an increase. That is due to the fact that the contract fixes a price that each vessel gets, and as we get more trips from the better vessels we necessarily have to pay them more. With the exception of that item, I think they are all the same as last year.


George Taylor: I would suggest that one item be reserved for discussion by the leader of the opposition or any other member.


William Stevens Fielding: That is a reasonable proposition.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Will the minister agree that some time shall be fixed when the various supplementaries will come up?


William Stevens Fielding: I hope to bring the supplementary estimates down to-morrow or the following day, at the latest, and from then to the end of the session I fancy that all business will receive expeditious treatment, so that it will hardly be necessary to fix a day.


William Barton Northrup: A great many items are allowed to ship through on which there would naturally be some discusion if the members interested in them were present. But we do not want to sit here all the time waiting for some particular estimate to come up, and we would like to know when the supplementaries will be taken up.
Mi\ FIELDING. After the supplementaries come down, if any particular subject interests the hon. gentleman and he will notify us, we will either take up that item or fix a time for doing so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister look at item 190 :	' Steam communication between St. John and ports in Cumberland basin, $3,000.' Is that subsidy paid to a steamer called the 'Harbinger?'


William Stevens Fielding: No contract has been entered into for this service. The subsidy was offered, but not taken up.


George Taylor: I beg to suggest that item 153 be reserved for discussion.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: Very well. I wish to strike out item 169 : 1 Steam communication between a port or ports in Prince Edward Island and a port or ports in Great Britain, $7,000. A quarter of this sum has been voted, but we have no expectation that the service will be required, and practically the sum already voted will lapse. I move that we strike out the remainder, and in the supplementaries we will utilize the money for some other service suitable for Prince Edward Island.


George Taylor: Item 153 :	Ocean and
mail service between Great Britain and Canada, $550,000,' will stand, and any member of the opposition who wants to discuss any of the subsidies will have an opportunity of doing so under this item?


William Stevens Fielding: I quite agree with what my hon. friend suggests.
Department of Trade and Commerce, $91,600.


Richard Blain: How much money was paid to each of the provinces under the Chinese Immigration Act ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is practically all paid to British Columbia, but I will be able, when the matter comes up again, to give my hon. friend a more exact statement.


George Taylor: I think we had better let item 276 stand, as I see that it includes bounties on steel and iron.


William Stevens Fielding: It does not take in the bounties, but only covers the adminis-tx-ative expenses.


George Taylor: I know.


William Stevens Fielding: -All right. Let 276 stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Inspection of staples, $130,000.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is it expected that other inspectors will be required in consequence of the amendments to the Grain and Inspection Acts; and, if so, will provision for these be made in the supplementary estimates ?


William Stevens Fielding: The officer of the department says that the supplementaries will have to contain a further sum to cover that.


George Taylor: Will there be an item in the supplementary estimates for this ?


William Stevens Fielding: There will be some items, although I do not remember for what particular purpose.
Mi'. TAYLOR. And if we want to discuss anything in connection with the Department of Justice it may be discussed upon the supplementary estimates?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Penitentiaries, $559,050.


George Taylor: Will tliere be an Item in the supplemenary estimates for this?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that on motions the matter of the Hodgins Committee comes up. After that the various government orders, Bills and resolutons might be taken up, and later in the day the balance of Supply.


George Taylor: The Minister of Militia said he had a statement to make.


William Stevens Fielding: That would come in Supply, I presume. The Hodgins matter was arranged for the morning ; it would come on the motions.


George Taylor: Then Bills and Supply?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Taylor: It would be the Minis.-ter of Militia?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes. I understood it was arranged that he shall make a statement.


George Taylor: Either he or tile Minister of Railways, who has also a statement to make.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know whether the Minister of Railways will be ready on the Transcontinental matter.


George Taylor: Then it will be militia?


William Stevens Fielding: We take Militia and the balance of any items that may remain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 8, 1908.