1908-06-11

QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SLOAN-by Mr. Ralph Smith- asked :
Is it the intention of the government to appeal the two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Yukon concession cases, in which judgment went against the Crown?
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: 
PAUL REINHARDT.
Mr. TAYLOR asked :: 1.	Is one Paul Reinhardt in the employ of the government? If so, at what salary, and when was he appointed?
2.	Does he occupy the position of superintendent of the Public Works Department shop on Wellington street, Ottawa?
3.	Has he been continuously at work there from the first of June until the ninth of June of this year ?
4.	What particular work was he engaged at on June 8 ?
5.	Who compose the staff in the said shop on Wellington street under the superintendency of Mr. Reinhardt?
6.	Were they all engaged at work for the department on June 8?
7.	Has Mr. Reinhardt a brother living in the city of Hull, Quebec? If so, has he built a house in the city of Hull?
8.	Was part of the staff of the Public Works Department employed thereon?
9.	Was any of the material belonging to the Public Works Department used in the construction of said house? If so, how much was paid to the government for the work of the government's employees, and how much for materials furnished ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	(a) Yes ; (b) $85 per month ; (c) October 19, 1896.
2.	No.
3.	No. He was absent on his holidays.
4.	Department has no information.
5.	Mr. Reinhardt is assistant foreman of carpenters' staff, composed of following men : L. Picard, T. A. Trudel, A. Caron, J.
B.	St. Laurent, A. Fortin, H. Giasson, H. Theberge, Chas. Chartrand, S. Chartrand, J. Bergeron, D. St. Martin, S. St. Jean, Chas. Isabelle, N. St. Pierre, A. Baril, Thos. Shea,
C.	Lantier, C. Hebert, C. Regimbal, D. Sullivan, O. Berube, J. Grison, A. Cloutier, H. L'Heureux, F. Gossette, T. Campbell, W. C. Fournier.
6.	No.
7.	Department has no information.
8 and 9. I have caused inquiry to be made and my information is that none of the departmental staff have been employed nor has any material been used on any work other than departmental work.


QUEBEC BRIDGE COMMISSION'S REPORT.
Mr. MONK.: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I would like to ask the government in what condition is the printing of the report of the Quebec Bridge Royal Commission. The committee named by this House is just now engaged in an investigation in reference to the Quebec bridge, and it would be of great use to us to have that report. I understand there are plates and plans to be printed which may retard the placing of the report in its printed form before parliament. If we could have at least the printed evidence, the deeds, and all the appendices, except the plans and plates, it would be of great use to the committee. Would It not be possible for the Minister of Railways to put that part of the report in the hands of the members of the committee in order that we may facilitate the inquiry and shorten it ?


Mr. GRAHAM.: That is a matter for the printers. So far as we are concerned, we have done our full duty and placed the copy in the hands of the printers, with instructions to give us the report, exclusive of the appendices, just as soon as possible. The explanation of the printer to me is that in the report proper, not the appendices, there are quite a large number of signs of considerable moment from a technical stand-

point that would have to be ordered and specially made, and these have'not yet come to hand. I did send over to the committee a copy of everything in type-written form, and that is the best X can do until we get the rest. I have been urging with respect to the rest.
Mr. MONIv. Is the printing being done in Ottawa ?


George Perry Graham: It is being done by the King's Printer.


Mr. MORIN.: Has the government taken any steps towards lifting the ruins of the Quebec bridge out of water ?


George Perry Graham: No steps have been taken of that nature, so far as I know.


REFORMS IN THE YUKON.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if certain letters were written to him in the month of May last , by the Reverend Dr. Shearer, with respect to certain reforms in the Yukon. I observe they have been alluded to in the public press. Would the right, hon. gentleman have any objection to laying them on the table of the House?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: During die months of May and June, or recently at all events, I received certain letters from Dr. Shearer on behalf of the society he represents. I answered those letters.' Anticipating the request of my hon. friend, I have ordered them to be copied, and hope to be able to bring them down to-morrow.


GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the Prime Minister whether or not the legislation which he alluded to yesterday, in response to a question from myself, is all the additional legislation that the government intend to introduce at the present session. I asked that question yesterday, but the right hon. gentleman omitted to reply to that particular part of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that I mentioned any legislation with regard to the Quebec bridge. Apart from that I do not think we contemplate anything- perhaps some amendments and minor legislation, but nothing of any importance.


Robert Laird Borden: Nothing of any importance in addition to what was mentioned yesterday except the Quebec bridge.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not that I remember at this moment.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend be good enough to consider that and let us know?


George Perry Graham: 



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of supply.
Railways and Canals-collection of revenue -canals, staff and repairs, $963,222.
['The Minister of Agriculture will continue.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.']
Robert Laird Borden: Has the minister no explanation of the increase ?


George Perry Graham: There is an increase of $21,000 made up as follows:	Made up
of the increased cost of labour and materials and extra repairs to the Lachine, Sou-langes, Cornwall. Williamsburg, Welland, Rideau, Carillon and St. Peter's canals, St. Andrew's locks and to dredge vessels. As against this there is a decrease of $23,475.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the minister if he will not lay on the table of the House the report of Mr. Boyer, on the Sou-langes canal? There was a series of irregularities on that canal and the government saw fit to name a commissioner to make a full investigation. There were complaints against the superintendent of the canal.


George Perry Graham: The overseer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me that when we are voting Supplies we are entitled to know what the result of that inquiry has been in order to suggest a proper remedy of a public nature. It was held publicly down there and there is no reason why, when the public were admitted to the sittings of the inquiry and everybody in the vicinity, although not as much interested as we are, knows the results, we should not be made conversant with them when we are going to vote Supplies. My hon. friend stated a few days ago, in answer to a similar request I had made, that the government had not yet taken any action with regard to the findings of the commissioners. That should be no obstacle to our becoming acquainted with these findings at this moment. I think my hon. friend will make no objection to laying the report on the table.


George Perry Graham: I see the reasonableness of the request from the standpoint of my hon. friend, but it is a question whether the report of the commission should be laid on the table before we come to a decision upon it. It is not a matter of very great moment in this case. The complaints were not against the superintendent but against the overseer who is practically the foreman over the men under the superintendent. An investigation was held and the findings have been brought in. I tried to get time to go through them thoroughly and I wanted to tell the committee what I intended to do before these Estimates came up but it has been impossible. There is not a sufficient number of hours in the day to do it. The evidence shows, generally speaking, that a good many of the complaints were trivial, some of them more serious, but it was more

an arraignment with respect to discipline than anything else on the whole. I am free to say that the commissioner suggests, if I remember correctly, that from the point of view of the discipline of the staff, it would be a good idea to have a new overseer. Of course, we do not always act on the findings. I want to digest the evidence myself because I am always loath to dismiss anybody without giving him a chance. If my hon. friend insists I will bring down the report, but it is not customary to lay on the table a report until we decide the action which is to be taken upon it.
OIr. MONK. I suppose we will have Supply Estimates connected with this matter later on ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And in the interval perhaps my hon. friend will see his way clear to letting us have the report ?


George Perry Graham: Yes. ,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What was the cost of the inquiry and what amount was paid to Mr. Boyer, the commissioner ?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Boyer was to be paid $25 per day. I will get the total cost


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Would the minister give us an explanation of the work done on the Trent canal and also on the Newmarket canal ?


George Perry Graham: We can discuss that on the vote for capital expenditure.


Samuel Hughes: Is there, nothing on the Trent canal for repairs and salaries ? The minister has a whole lot of officers running up and down the country and we want to know what some of them are doing. How many men are looking after the head waters of the Trent canal in connection with the waters taken over from the Ontario government ?


George Perry Graham: I have not all the detail here.


Samuel Hughes: I wish the Minister would bring down the names of employees on the Balsam Lake division and a statement as to their duties. Under the agreement With the f Ontario gpvernment the dams and roadways are to be kept in repair by this government and I want to know what has been done in connection with that. I represent that portion of the country and it is my opinion that nothing has been done. There are a few of these gentlemen roaming around there and we have to take them in hand occasionally to keep them from doing harm. They stop the water at a period of the year which causes injury to the millmen below and at other periods they let the wTater run when there is no necessity for it. I think we taught them 3274
a lesson by taking the law into our own hands.


George Perry Graham: I will get the information.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister any officers employed in connection with the Newmarket canal ?


George Perry Graham: There is no officer appointed for that. I think the commerce does not warrant it yet.


Samuel Hughes: The predecessors of the minister wTere not from the province of Ontario and they probably did not know about the Newrmarket canal. But if the present minister has gazed out of the car window as he passes near Newmarket he no doubt has seen a little stream trickling along at the rate of about forty cubic feet an hour and which is supposed to furnish the water supply for that canal. Has the minister taken any precautions to see that the water supply for the Newmarket canal will be sufficient or will be sufficient or will he have some of his engineers report on it ?


George Perry Graham: They have reported.


Samuel Hughes: If the minister will be good enough to look the matter up, he will find that there is no report on the volume of wrater. The water supply is utterly inadequate even in wet seasons. There is not enough to fill a lock in two days.


Mr. LENNOX.: I want to call the minister's attention to a matter in connection with the extension to Newmarket, that is, to a petition which was sent to the government from the residents of Bradford and vicinity to have a short piece of canal constructed from a place which has the misfortune to be called the Devil's Elbow on the Holland river to the neighbourhood of the railway station at Bradford. This is not an extensive work ; it would involve the expenditure of very little monej, and would be a great convenience to the people of Bradford, especially to the commercial interests there. The canal would be through a kind of peat bog for a distance of half a mile or not more than a mile, and would be very easy of construction. Probably the easiest way would be to carry the canal around from the railway station to the south until it strikes the river again, so that the vessels could come in one way and go out the other. The petition for this work was presented to the government some time ago, and I do not think it has been acted upon. We feel that there ought to be at all events an investigation as to the cost of the work, and as to whether it would be a proper work to expend money upon. The necessary outlay would be

a mere fraction of the outlay for extending the canal to Newmarket. Commercially and agriculturally, though not perhaps politically, Bradford is quite as important a centre as Newmarket ; and I might tell the minister that although Newmarket has been doing great things for the government in the past, it is not responding at the present time, and it might be well to see what 'Bradford would do. This question has been brought up several times, but we have now a new minister and we arte looking hopefully to what he will do. Will he undertake to bring down something in the supplementary estimates for this work? It is perfectly feasible and reasonable in every respect. The ground is absolutely level from one point to the other. I hope the minister will have an inquiry made, and bring down a supplementary vote to have the work done at once.


George Perry Graham: I would hardly like to say that I would bring in a supplementary estimate for the work. I am perfectly free to say that the explanation of my hon. friend carries some weight. Would it increase the volume of water ?


Haughton Lennox: It will not affect it.


George Perry Graham: I will have the chief engineer make inquiry to see just what the position is from an engineering standpoint and what the probable cost will be.


Haughton Lennox: Perhaps the minister will endeavour to let me know when we come to discuss the capital expenditure.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the lockmaster at Fenelon falls has given notice to the farmers in the neighbourhood of Cameron lake that his instructions are -he does not say from whom, but I presume the chief engineer-to keep the waters of the lake a foot higher than the regulation level on the mitre sill of the dam. That was done nearly all of last year when the waters* were low. I could give the name of one man who has nearly half an acre of an island washed away. At some points where the shores are level a rise of a foot will cover an acre of ground. The government should either keep the water down to the proper level or buy from the farmers the land which is flooded above that level.


George Perry Graham: Instructions are, I think, to keep the water six feet on the sills.


Samuel Hughes: It is more than that.


George Perry Graham: I think probably it will be necessary to make arrangements for Mr. LENNOX.
a level of eight feet. I understand that provision is made generally for an 8-foot level.


Samuel Hughes: Not on that lake.


Mr. WARD.: The Minister of Railways spoke of his intention to ask for an appropriation to pay damages. In what direction will that be expended? Will it be applied to the payment of claims such as the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton has spoken of, where the keeping up the levels has injured and actually destroyed a good deal of farm land. In the township of Otonabee, Mr. James Clark had a claim against the government, under the administration of my hon. friend's predecessor, and I understand his claim has been settled. A number of others have similar claims. Their farms have been cut off by reason of the water and a great deal of their land rendered quite useless. Will the appropriation be applied in payment of claims of that mature? Is it the case that Mr. Clark has been settled with ?


George Perry Graham: My recollection is that Mr. Clark was settled with. I suppose I was a little irregular possibly in mentioning the claims as they will come up in a future estimate. I prefer not to discuss them now. There will be an estimate for such claims, and I shall have full information later.


Henry Alfred Ward: I know of a similar claim to Mr. Clark's which has had no consideration so far. I would like to communicate with the party, if the appropriation pro-' posed is for that purpose.


George Perry Graham: It is for that purpose. We want to pay all the claims that are rightly entitled to be paid.


Samuel Hughes: I would like to draw the attention of the minister to two matters. On the Balsam Lake section; when the survey was made for levels some time ago, the country was surveyed away back from the water, and the farm of M. A. Boynton was partly flooded. A portion of his farm is a fine swamp which must have been overlooked at the time of the surveys, and they may not have got the exact levels. In any event his fine swamp is practically ruined, and where his cattle used to pasture is covered with water.
Then there is another matter. The Pigeon river runs through Omemee. Formerly the people used the stream, as it was navigable, but the locks on the main line were allowed to get out of repair and bogs floated into the channel. Now, however that there is a possibility of our having the Trent canal opened early, the people are turning their attention to the advantages of the river route, and they find some repairs necessary. It would not take much dredging

to reopen the canal to Pigeon river. I do not know if the hon. minister has a dredge to spare, but we want a couple of more dredges along that route, and I would recommend him to have them as early as possible for they could do lots of work and be of splendid service to the people.
I might mention another point in the same connection. The Grand Trunk Railway line between Omeiree and Peterborough crosses the stream about a quarter of a mile below the village landing. At the time the Grand Trunk Railway was built, the river was not of much use for navigation though it had been previously. An arrangement is now being discussed between the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Omemee people under which the station if possible will be moved down town to near this place. There is no swing bridge at that railway crossing, but under the law- the river having been navigable before the railway came-the onus of keeping the stream clear lies on the railway. I draw attention to that so that my hon. friend may have it looked into. In a short time the matter may come up and the government be called on to require the Grand Trunk1 Railway either to put in a swing bridge or raise the bridge over the river so that it may be navigated. Possibly, however, some arrangement may be arrived at between the village and the Grand Trunk Railway, in which case the government would not be called on at all.


George Perry Graham: We have a small amount in the main estimates for the work on Pigeon river and at Omemee. We have one dredge there and expect to have another.


Mr. LANCASTER.: How much of that increase for staff and repairs $22,000 on the Welland canal is for repairs, and how much for staff?


George Perry Graham: It is practically for repairs and the increase is due to the enhanced cost of labour and materials.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is contemplated that the present staff will do the work.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What sort of repairs and on what part of the canal?


George Perry Graham: This is really maintenance over the whole canal. Repairs are constantly required. I was up over the canal one day for a drive and saw a number of men trying to find out a small leak. That sort of thing is happening all the time and it does not take much to make the increase. It would be pretty hard to say in detail what the repairs will be.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why does the hon. minister think it will cost $9,400 more this year than last? I do not know of any conditions that would require this increase.


George Perry Graham: It is not really for anything particular in addition. The superintending engineer estimates that on account of the advance of labour and all materials required his repairs this year will cost that much more than last year. This is the estimate made by the superintending engineer himself.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the increase entirely due to the increased cost of labour and material ?


George Perry Graham: I think that last year we had to get a small supplementary vote.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The $9,400 is an additional amount and unless some special repairs were required in some parts of the canal I cannot understand why there should be such an increase on the ordinary general repairs about which I know.


George Perry Graham: Before March 31, 1908, we had to bring in a supplementary vote in order to make up what we were short so that we are really not asking this much more than we spent last year.
Mr. LANCASTER How much more is it ?


George Perry Graham: I have not the supplementary estimates here.	.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Referring for a moment to the Trent Valley canal, I listened with great attention to what was said by my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes). I have been more fortunate than the new Minister of Railways and Canals in that last year I visited that section of the canal between Lindsay and Kirkfield. I must congratulate the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals upon the excellent work that has been done there. As a piece of engineering it is certainly a marvel unequalled in this country and perhaps on this continent. I agree with my hon. friend that in order to make the canal as useful as possible to the trade of that section of the country two things are necessary. I met very important manufacturers and many tradesmen who live in that region and who paid the government the compliment of saying that when the canal is completed it will certainly benefit them a great deal. But there are, as I said, two things which must be done, as we noticed last year when I was there in company with the chief engineer and some others. After leaving Lindsay harbour and entering the canal you notice logs at the bottom impeding navigation to some extent. Last year the yachts following the steamboats were somewhat hampered in their journey on account of these logs. Very little work would be necessary to clear the channel. Then on a few sections of the canal a little dredging is necessary in order to make it a first-

class route. I promised the gentlemen who accompanied me last year that I would submit their case to the Minister of Railways and Canals.


Samuel Hughes: The Postmaster Genera] on that occasion Tvas so delighted with the route that when he found it had been traversed by a fellow countryman of his long years ago, that he promised to have a monument or statue erected to Samuel *de Champlain in the beautiful town of Fene-lon Falls. I do not see an item in the estimates for this and perhaps the Postmaster General will take the proper steps to have tile monument erected.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am committed, it is a question of persuading my colleagues.


George Perry Graham: We will probably find it in the postal estimates. In regard to the clearing out of these logs, we did give instructions to have them taken out, and I presume it has been done.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: To return to the Welland canal, has the minister had any investigation or estimate made as to the cost entailed in deepening the Welland canal to 25 feet draft? I asked about it earlier and the minister said he had no estimate. It is pretty well conceded to be necessary to have canals with larger drafts to carry the freight through by water. In that section of the country there is an impression that some such investigation is being made. That is why I ask if there was any contemplated increase, if there are any engineers employed to make that investigation.


George Perry Graham: I am informed by the deputy that there is no increase in the staff. The question of deepening the Welland canal is a pretty large one and is interlocked with the whole transportation problem. This much I am free to say, that if we are to carry our own traffic as well as some of the American traffic, as I have an ambition to do, by the St. Lawrence route, the Welland canal will have to be deepened to 25 feet.


Samuel Hughes: How about the St. Lawrence canals?


George Perry Graham: If we deepen the Welland canal we can carry the freight to the head of the St. Lawrence canals and there break bulk in elevators and so compete with the American routes.


Mir. BERGERON.: What about the Georgian Bay canal?


George Perry Graham: That is another problem before the country. These questions will have to be solved as years go by.


Samuel Hughes: You will leave that for another minister?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


George Perry Graham: Possibly not, but I would not like to make rash promises. There is an opinion shared in by some very prominent engineers that it would be cheaper and better to build an entirely new Welland canal than to deepen the existing canal. There is a difference of opinion, as my hou. friend will understand. Some engineers say that the route could be shortened several miles by digging a new canal and that the number of lock gates could be reduced by 75 per cent.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: At what cost?


George Perry Graham: It would cost a lot of money. Of course it is only a "uess so far as I am concerned, but I would not like to undertake it with less than from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000.


Uriah Wilson: What would be the difference in cost between building it and deepening the old canal?


George Perry Graham: I am told by engineers it would cost less to build the new one than to make the old one up to date. I am not giving it as my opinion, but a very prominent engineer discussed it the other day. I am quietly getting some data together to see what the cost would be. 1 am not in a position to say what it would be yet, but I hope to give the House some idea of what it would cost both to deepen the old one and to build a new one. The benefit of the new one would be to shorten the distance considerably and decrease very materially the number of locks. Of course each lock would be larger, the lifts greater and the reaches longer.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I notice an item of expenditure at Port Colborne, improvements to the extent of $287,000. Would the minister give us some explanation of that ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will pardon me, but that is under capital expenditure, and I am only asking for maintenance of the staff in this vote. I will take up capital expenditure afterwards.


Mr. FOSTER.: You are not doing any business at Port Colborne ?


George Perry Graham: We expect to be ready shortly.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The minister said a moment ago that he expected in a short time to be able to put before parliament some data about either increasing the depth of the Welland canal or building a new one. What about that scheme that was brought forward concerning a canal between the Georgian bay and Port Hope or Toronto, which, if undertaken, would relieve the minister from spending any money at all on the Welland canal ? I understand there

are three schemes before the country, all very costly. A great deal of money has already been spent on the Georgian bay surveys. Before coming to any decision the minister would do well to examine thoroughly the proposed routes to see which would best serve navigation, whether a Georgian bay canal, which would bring navigation to Montreal, or a canal between Georgian bay and Port Hope or Toronto, or deepening the canal at Welland, or building a new one. Whenever he brings down data concerning the Welland canal, I would ask him also to bring down data concerning these other schemes, so that we may be able to judge which one would best serve the purpose of navigation.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: When the Georgian bay canal scheme was being debated X put some statistics before the House by which it was manifest that less than half the expenditure required to build the Georgian bay canal would be sufficient to give a 24-foot draught in the Welland canal and enlarge the locks to the necessary extent. There was a carefully prepared estimate put upon the ' Hansard ' in the shape of a statement by the Board of Trade of St. Catharines, on which I commented at the time. With regard to what my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) has said, there was one item in this statement which showed that there was between 250 and 300 feet more height of land to overcome through the Georgian bay than through the Welland canal; you have to have either that many more locks or that much deeper locks, and you would have to expend two or three times as much on a Georgian bay canal than you would have to expend on the Welland canal to accomplish the same purpose. You have your Welland canal now, you know what you can do with it, either deepen it or build a shorter one through the same part of the country, il have no doubt that to bring your vesels down through the Welland canal the expenditure would be less than a half and probably a third of what it would be to build a Georgian bay canal.


George Perry Graham: This is an interesting subject, and I can hardly keep away from it myself. But it will be opened up on the capital expenditure, which we have not reached yet. This is a small item for canals that are being operated, and for the men employed on them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Remember that you are increasing your repairs every year to the Welland canal, and that money is going to be wasted, to a certain extent, if you are contemplating repairs in the shape of betterments.


George Perry Graham: We want to keep the canals in as good a shape as they are now,
for the sake of navigation. I would like to get this item through, as it includes the pay of the men, and my civil government estimate is not through yet. The question of the different canal routes is a large one, and I think we had better not take it up now.


Mr. WHITE.: Since this question of the Georgian bay canal has come up, I desire to say a word or two. I have to take issue with my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). If he had listened to the debate that took place in the House upon this question he would have seen that every reason was advanced which showed that the construction of the Georgian bay canal would be a great benefit to this country. If he had read the report he would also see that the difficulty has been practically overcome with regard to the height of land. I understand that, according to the reports brought down, there is a way of damming the upper streams which will do away with the difficulty which was anticipated of having to excavate the height of land down to the level of Lake Nipissing. I think the House as a whole will agree that the construction of the Georgian bay canal would be a great benefit from a national point of view.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I did listen to every word of that debate, and I spoke on the subject at the end. I have nothing to retract from what I said then. If we had not the Welland canal we would need a Georgian bay canal.


Haughton Lennox: There is no doubt about the minister getting his item through speedily, we all intend that he shall. But there are a few things we want to speak of at this time. This item in reference to the staff would naturally include the question of a survey which has been recently made from ICempenfeldt bay to the Georgian bay.


George Perry Graham: That is in capital account.


Haughton Lennox: A staff of men have been at work. We had a survey two years ago on a route from the Georgian bay by way of the Severn river. Last year we had a survey of the proposed route from the head of ICempenfeldt bay to the Georgian bay. The deputy minister has been good enough to give me information from time to time as to that. So far as I know, the report is not yet made. I would be glad to know from the minister if we are likely to have that report soon. My hon. friend representing North Simcoe (Mr. L. G. McCarthy) and myself have been calling the attention of the government from time to time to the matter as we desire to see that report after it is prepared and before the government have decided finally what action they will take upon it. When the

Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) was in charge of the department he said he did not see that the request was unreasonable at all, and that we would be notified when the report was ready and would likely be allowed to see it. We want to see it for the purpose of laying before the minister, before the government commit themselves to anything, the reasons why that route should be adopted. We believe that when the report is in they will find it a feasible and desirable scheme and we therefore want, not only as representatives of the ridings to present our views to the department, but we also want-at least I do and I presume that the hon. member for North Simcoe is in the same position-to have a delegation here to wait on the minister before he shall finally decide which of these rival routes shall be adopted. If the minister would be good enough to inform me as to when the report will probably be ready I would be very glad.


George Perry Graham: I would say to my hon. friend that there is nothing unreasonable in his proposition at all. The report is not ready, and I cannot say when it will be. Mr. Walsh has a small staff. I can assure my hon. friend that we will notify him before we take any action so that he will have an opportunity of presenting his views as to which he thinks is the better route.


George Eulas Foster: In reference to the Newmarket canal, I think the minister would do well if he would place before the House all the information-the survey, the reports thereon, the estimate of cost and all the reports which go to show that it is not only proposed to build it, but the feasibility of this work afterwards and the expenditures so far. I see that some $12,000 has been spent to date.


Samuel Hughes: There must be more than that.


George Eulas Foster: There are some people- I do not know how many-who think it is an intolerable nuisance that the department should ever have undertaken a scheme of this kind. They may be wrong, but it will satisfy them or else give them ground for their opposition if you give us the information.


George Perry Graham: We will get the information.


Mr. SPROULE.: Have you not a staff working on that canal at the present time?


George Perry Graham: They are working on one section of it now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, because I passed the other day and I saw men working.


George Eulas Foster: is the minister making any appropriation for the operation of the Mr. LENNOX
Colborne elevators for the current fiscal year?


George Perry Graham: I have nothing in the estimates yet, but I imagine that we will require a vote.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister also be able to make a statement as to the total cost, as to the prospects of the operation and what they are proposing to do for the current year? It is of some importance I suppose in connection with the deepening of the Welland canal.


George Perry Graham: I will make quite a full statement as far as that is concerned when we go into the estimates of capital expenditure.


Samuel Hughes: There is another matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the minister so that when he goes on with the capital expenditure he may be ready. I want to call his attention to a branch canal that will serve more people and be constructed at less than half the cost of the Newmarket canal. It will open up fifty or sixty miles of country which has no proper access to the outer world except by climbing over mountains from the river valley to the railway from ten to twenty miles. I refer to the country from Balsam lake northward tributary to the Gull river waters. I have drawn the attention of other ministers to this important project, but they change so rapidly-I do not know whether the present minister will also change; perhaps he will after the next election-that a minister is hardly installed in office before he is superseded. This proposed waterway would extend from Balsam lake northward following the course of Gull river and passing through Mud Turtle and Moore's lakes immediately north of which is Gull lake. There is no reason why you should not be able to extend the navigation through ' Mountain,' ' Twelve Mile,' Boskung, Beech, Maple, Grass, Pine and Cranberry lakes, a distance of sixty miles northward through the county erf Haliburton. This improvement could be made very readily by the construction of four or five locks and dams and one tramway past Miuden. I trust the minister will look into the matter in the meantime so that when he comes down with his capital expenditure he will be prepared to give as large a grant for this work as he has already given to the impossible Newmarket canal. Will the minister send an officer, not after a rainstorm, to take the normal flow of water on the route of the Newmarket canal. There is no report of the flow of water during any proper month of the year. There was a supposition given by some engineer that there was a certain flow in midwinter or during spring freshets, but we would like a statement of the flow of the water on some definite day or on two or three days in the summer season,

say in the month of July and also a statement of the flow during days preceding but not after rains had taken place. The minister will see that there is no water supply.
Statistical offices, $28,186.


Mr.   POSTER@: Will the minister give us a statement of what is being done under that expenditure of $28,186?


George Perry Graham: The business of these officers is to keep a record of the volume of business passing through the various canals as outlined in this report. It is quite a large volume. My hon. friend will see that there is a lot of very valuable information in it. We have some 19 canals and it costs that much money to get the statistics to ascertain the movement of our merchandise.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many officers are there employed in this work, and what are their duties ?


George Perry Graham: I have a list here which covers two pages.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would the hon. gentleman read it so that it may go on ' Hansard ?


George Perry Graham: It is as follows:



[Stage Direction]
Bidcau Canal.
Per annum. $ cts.
Per month. $ cts.
Jantes Daley	
Elizabeth Srianley. Robert Anglin....
J. H. Foster	
Jessie Martin	
Ottawa	
Kingston Mills	
Smith's Falls	
Statistical officer
Office cleaner____
Statistical officer
1,400 00 120 00 400 00 400 00
Office cleaner
116 66 10 00 33 33 33 33 1 00
Kingston.
Edward Fahey.
Kingston.
Statistical officer
600 00
50 00
St. Lawrence Canals.
J. D. R. Williams ..
R. Flanagan	
T. O'Callaghan	
Lachine Canal.
George Bourgouin....
A.	Larmonth	
J. A. Ste. Marie... .
B.	McCready	
T. O'Donnell	
Dina Bergeron	
J. A. Thessereault...
Francis Robineau___
L. Daoust	
Soulangcs Canal.
Henry Douth______ ...
E. W. Bourbonnais. ..
Cardinal.
Cornwall.
Montreal
Lachine
COteau Landing.
	700 00
	1,000 00 600 00
Clerk		
	1,800 00 1,000 00 950 00
Clerk			
	900 00
	480 00
	
	1,000 00 700 00
Clerk		
Office cleaner.
Statistical officer Clerk	
850 00 500 00
58 33 83 33 50 00
150 00 83 33 70 16 75 00 40 00 10 00 83 33 58 33 3 00
70 82 41 66
St. Ours.
Philippe Mathieu.
St. Ours
Statistical officer
600 00
50 00
Chambly Canal.
L. N. Charron	 Chambly..
Aug. Demers	 n
Noel Scott	 ii
J. H. Moreau	St. Johns.
S. H. Brosseau,	 ,,
Isidore Richard	 u
Statistical officer	
Asst, statistical officer.
Office cleaner	
Statistical officer	
Clerk	
Office cleaner	
050 00	54 16
550 00	45 83
	2 00
900 00	75 00
50q 00	41 66
	4 00
[Stage Direction]
Ste. Anne's Lock. R. Dandurand				Per annum. $ Ct8. 700 00	Per month. $ cts. 58 33 1 00 50 00 2 00
Z. de Repentigny
Carillon Canal.   H.@: Ladouceur				600 00	
Ester Haspeck					
Grenville Canal.				
Fred. Wade				500 00	41 66
WeUand Canal.				
S. S. Sidey 	Port Colborne	Statistical officer	1,300 00	108 33O. F. Kinseley	,,	700 00 500 00	58 83 41 66 4 00 91 66 66 66 16 66 16 66J. A. Ramsden	Ellen Armstrong	W. B. Clark	1,100 00 800 00 200 00 200 00	J. Pawling	J. S. Clark


St.   P@: Devereux		St. Peters, Cape Breton.	Statistical officer			
Trent Canal.				
P. P. Young	 H. W. Gillespie	 Wm. Collins		Young's Point	 Peterborough		Statistical officer	 m 		150 00 100 00	12 50 8 33 *


John J.: Walker	*	*W. T. Junkins	*	*R. T. Hill	*	*C. T. Fuller 	*	*
* Commission on collections.
Note.-The statistical work on the Sault Ste. Marie Canal is paid for out of the appropriation for staff.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: When were these men appointed ?


George Perry Graham: Some of them are very old employees.


Mr. LALOR.: Some of these are customs house officers as well as statistical officers. They must be paid from both departments.


George Perry Graham: I do not know about the other departments, but I know we pay them these amounts for doing statistical work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Some of them must have a salary from some other department, or they could not live on $200 a year.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will the minister explain how some of these officers are paid by commission when the canals are free and no tolls collected ?


George Perry Graham: The proper way to put it would be to say that they are paid on the basis of the tolls that would have been collected under the old system on the business that goes through the canals.


Samuel Hughes: Is this Mr. Junkin at Fenelon Falls paid for statistical work in addition to his salary as lockmaster ?


George Perry Graham: Is it the same man, W. P. Junkin ?


George Perry Graham: 


Samuel Hughes: Yes, there is only one man like him in the world.


George Perry Graham: He must be a good man.


Samuel Hughes: He is not, but I will not discuss that now. The minister first stated that he was not paid as statistical officer and lockmaster as well, and now I want to know what rake off he gets for both jobs.


George Perry Graham: It is not a rake-off.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, lie does not do anything.


George Perry Graham: He must do something.


Samuel Hughes: He does not, he should not be there an hour. I may tell the minister that when a. boat comes along the people have to pass their own boat through, and he stands around giving impudence very often.


George Perry Graham: He gets about $25.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I would like to ask the minister what duties are performed in connection with the Rideau canal by Mr. James Daley, statistical officer.


George Perry Graham: I have explained that James Daley is one of the leading statistical officers in connection with the traffic of the

canals, with an office at the city of Ottawa, and he has control of the statistical branch for all the traffic passing through the Rideau canal, for which he is paid a salary of $1,400 a year.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the work Really done by these men at a cost of $28,000? Is it a very important work, and could it not be done otherwise?


George Perry Graham: I submit that it could not be done otherwise to be reliable. This information is of no use to the country unless it is reliable, and in order that it may be reliable we have to have officers charged with the special duty of giving us that information. The only way to ascertain whether or not we should deepen or extend our waterways or build more canals is by ascertaining the amount of traffic done in our canals at present. If my hon. friend will look at this report consisting of 184 pages of statistical matter, all of which is important to the country, he will see that the information is very complete.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is an increase of $160. There must have been some of this work done last year on the Beauhar-nois canal, but now that that canal is not under the supervision of the department, there should be a decrease instead of an increase.


Mr.   POSTER@: Has the minister the same system of accounts in force on the canals that he has on the railways?


George Perry Graham: No. We merely apply that system to the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway. We have not carried it any further, because our system on the canals seems to be working pretty perfectly and to be giving us the information we need for the public and for parliament.


Mr.   POSTER@: With reference to this $28,000 for statistical officers, as we are getting no fees or tolls from the canals, this work should be managed as economically as possible. Is it not possible for the officers on the canals to do the work of the statistical officers? How does the statistical officer get the amount of produce carried in each vessel passing through the canals? Does he take it from the officer of the vessel, or does he make a personal examination?


George Perry Graham: The amount of goods in a vessel is shown in the manifest, and we have regular forms which the captain of the vessel fills out with the statistical officer as the vessel goes through.


Mr.   POSTER@: Is there an examination at more than one place on the route? Por instance, the vessel has stopping places, and takes in goods at one place and puts out goods at another. Tour statistical officer must keep the amount of local traffic separate from the through-traffic to give an idea of how much through traffic is done and how much local traffic is done. How does he do that? Does he check that, or does he depend for it on the officer of the boat?


George Perry Graham: We have more than one officer on each canal. Por instance, on the Welland canal we have an officer at each end of the canal, and the captains of vessels have to fill out the forms at both points; so that we can deduct the amount of traffic coming in from the amount going out, and the difference will show the amount of local traffic done.


Mr.   POSTER@: I do not know that it would. Suppose that between the head and the tail of the canal you have traffic coming in and going out. There is presumably local traffic done all along the route of the canal. It seems to me that you must be dependent for your returns of traffic on the officers of the boats, and that what your statistical officers do is simply to total up the amounts of the returns given by the officers of the boats.


George Perry Graham: It is done on the system by which a customs officer gets his returns from steamers, in the way of inward reports and outward reports. The officer of a boat passing through a canal has to make a declaration not only as to the amount put off but as to the amount taken on, so that the officer at the last point at which the boat touches before passing out of the canal would have a complete statement.


George Eulas Foster: A boat starts in at the beginning of the Welland canal and after it enters the cap'tain makes out a statement of everything he has. Does he divide that statement into through traffic and where it is billed for and show what is left off at every station ? -Then as he comes to a station in the canal, he gets on a further supply, part through and part local. There again he has to keep the record himself. In the end, does it not amount to this that your statistical officer is simply a computer of the returns made by the captain or other officer of the boat.


George Perry Graham: To a certain extent, but he is a responsible officer and of course the officials of the boat are responsible to the government for the correctness of their statements.
(Mr. POSTER. They make a declaration?


George Perry Graham: They do and they keep a report such as I have mentioned. They make out a general statement showing the quantity of each article of way freight transported on the canal, also of each article of through freight, also the amount of tolls which would have been collected were tolls charged They have to give a

complete statement as to the way freight and the through freight. I do not see how we can get reliable information in any other way than by keeping an officer for that purpose.


George Eulas Foster: The officer of the boat takes an account of the freight that comes in and goes out in the whole course of the canal, both way freight and through freight and he puts that down in his statement and makes an affidavit. Unless you have an officer at each station to see whether these goods actually go on or off, you cannot check the officer's statements, and you are no further ahead than if you had this statement put in an envelope and sent to the head office or hand it out to a responsible officer at the end or beginning of the canal or at certain points.


Mr. BLAIN.: I notice in the list which the minister read the name of S. J. Tilley who receives $1,400 in connection with the statistical department and the same gentleman is subcollector of customs at Port Colborne and receives $300. What does he do for the $1,400 ?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for North Toronto and myself have just been discussing that. He collects statistics from the different vessels and transmits his report to us. We get in this report a complete record of the traffic done in the waters of Canada.


George Taylor: When this office was created for Mr. Tilley at Ottawa, I see he was paid 168 hours Sunday labour at 20 cents an hour. When was the office created ? Under the late government the canals were running just as they are now and tolls were collected and a record kept, without these special officers. This office was simply created for the purpose of giving Mr. Tilley a position. When was he appointed ?


George Perry Graham: For years we have had these statistical officers. I know from my own knowledge that we have had statistical officers on the canals for years. Under the old system when we collected tolls the toll collector and the statistical officer were the one man, but ever since. there was a canal there must have been men collecting statistics. I do not know when Daley was appointed.


George Taylor: In connection with the Rideau the lock masters at Kingston Mills, Smith's Falls and Ottawa collected the tolls and kept the statistics. Now in Ottawa a new office is created for Daley at $1,400 and he is paid 14 cents an hour for Sunday labour, yet he does nothing but take the reports from the lock masters and compile them. He has an office in Ottawa, Mr GRAHAM.
the rent and caretaker are paid by the government. I have gone through the canal and know all about it. I know that the work is done now practically as it was previous to 1896. This appointment was simply to create a job for Mr. Daley who has nothing to do.


George Perry Graham: As to this being a new office I am informed that Mr. Daley succeeds Mr. Battle who did the same work exactly.


George Taylor: This office has been created since 1896, but the statistics were given then as fully as they are now.


George Perry Graham: There was a collector of tolls at that time who also made the statistical report. It was practically the one position.


George Taylor: No, the lockmasters were the collectors of tolls at all points. Why is this man paid for Sunday labour ?
Mi'. GRAHAM. Sometimes at the close of navigation we permit vessels to go through on Sunday and then we pay the men extra for that Sunday labour, as under the new arrangement they are not supposed to work on Sunday.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister give us some information as to the increase of local traffic on the canals over seven or eight years ? One would suppose that with the increase of settlement and the development of the country this local traffic would increase. Has it or has it not ?


George Perry Graham: As far as the lockages are concerned there is a great multiplicity on account of the number of small craft. I have here the figures for some classes of grain for the Welland canal:


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Taylor: What is the difference in the expenditure on the Rideau canal as compared with 1896 ?


George Perry Graham: I would have to hunt that up. Why not let this item pass and I shall bring all that information? This item is for staff and repairs but we have a great number of capital estimates on which all this information could be asked.


George Eulas Foster: All right.
At one o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
Department of Railways and Canals-salaries, $62,575; contingencies, $14,000.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase of $575 in salaries, and $2,000 in contingencies.


George Perry Graham: The increase in salaries is made up of the statutory increases. There are a few changes. One or two clerks have been retired and their successors have been appointed at a less salary.


Robert Laird Borden: There are two additional officers ; last year there were thirty-seven and this year there are thirty-nine.


George Perry Graham: Some new officers were appointed.


George Eulas Foster: Have you made any changes among the chief clerks ?


George Perry Graham: No.


George Eulas Foster: Have you the same officers there now ?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Little* takes the place of Mr. Shannon. Mr. Shannon is now chief of the Audit Department of the Intercolonial at Moncton.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that a promotion ?


George Perry Graham: It is a promotion for him. We thought he was the best man for that purpose. He got $2,500 here and he gets $3,600 there. I find Air. Devlin was moved up to take Air. Little's place, but he gets $100 less.


George Eulas Foster: Then from among the first-class clerks you promoted Air. Devlin to be a chief clerk ?
Mr. GRAHAA1. He is one of the clerks that were promoted. The salaries of first-class clerks may go up to $1,900 as a maximum.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Shannon, you say, was amongst the chief clerks, and he was transferred to Aloncton ; do you therefore have one chief clerk less ?
Air. GRAHAA1. Air. Ross was promoted to be a chief clerk.


George Eulas Foster: He was chief clerk last year.


Mr. GRAHAAI.: Mr. Ross seems to be the only one that was promoted to the chief clerkship.


George Eulas Foster: You are taking the estimates now for next year. In your payments of last year you had Air. Shannon, and he is gone. Have you one less chief clerk than you had last year ?


Duncan Graham: Aly hon. friend will find Air. Shannon and Air. Ross in the report.


George Eulas Foster: Both of them were paid as chief clerks last year ; Air. Ross for a portion of the year.


Duncan Graham: Was not Air. Shannon paid for part of the year and Air. Ross for the balance ?


George Eulas Foster: Then you have one less chief clerk ?


Duncan Graham: No, Air. Shannon goes and Air. Ross takes his place. Both were in last year, one for three months and the other for nine.


George Eulas Foster: Were there any promotions from the second class into the first class ?


Duncan Graham: Air. McKnight was promoted from the second to the first class.


George Eulas Foster: What salary was he getting ?


Duncan Graham: He was getting the maximum of a 2nd class clerk last year-$1,500.


George Eulas Foster: When was he appointed ?


Duncan Graham: In February, 1900.


George Eulas Foster: In what order did the other second class clerks come in-Almon, Bell, Dechcne and Falconer ? Were these in the service earlier than AlcKnight ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many employees have you in the Department of Railways and Canals at Ottawa ?


Duncan Graham: About 90.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are there any young ladies in this number ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I did not get an answer to my question.


George Perry Graham: Dechene, Falconer and AIcKee were appointed in 1901, and AlcKnight was appointed in 1900. He seems to be the senior of these three.


George Eulas Foster: DechSne appears last year to have been a junior 2nd class clerk and then to have been appointed a 2nd class clerk at an increase of $300, and Air. Falconer appears to have been a junior 2nd class clerk at $950 and to have been promoted to a 2nd class clerk at $1,200.


George Perry Graham: These were promoted from the junior 2nd to the senior 2nd but McKnight was. a senior 2nd class clerk and now he is promoted to a first-class clerk.


George Eulas Foster: Then I think you will find that Bell was promoted as well.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: So that instead of. there being one promotion there have been three.


George Perry Graham: He was promoted in 1906 apparently.


George Eulas Foster: I cannot make it jibe. I find that last year you had 12 1st class clerks and now you are providing for 10. What has become of the other two ?


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend is wrong. I think he will find that we had only 10 1st class clerks last year.


George Eulas Foster: There are 12 in your list.


George Perry Graham: There may be 12 names but not 12 clerks. There may be two names for the one salary, one drawing it part of the year and another part of the year. They may overlap.


George Eulas Foster: That would explain it. What was the necessity for these extra clerks ?


George Perry Graham: We are shorthanded in the Railway Department all the time. I am amazed at mv own economy.


George Eulas Foster: In comparison with your brother ministers?


George Perry Graham: In comparison with the work wo have to do.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: You might advertise for help as Sir Win. Muloek did.


George Perry Graham: We try to do as much work as possible with the smallest possible number of clerks. I think perhaps I could secure more.


George Eulas Foster: Who is private secretary?


Mr. GRAHAM O. B.@: Robinson. Mr. Payne is chief of the statistical branch.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister really going to economize in sundries or is he looking to a supplementary estimate?


George Perry Graham: We are in good faith trying to economize.


George Eulas Foster: We will see how that comes out.


Mr. FOWLER.: Is it the intention of the minister to build any new stations on the line of the Intercolonial Railway during the coming year?


George Perry Graham: There is nothing for new stations in the items wTe are now discussing.


George Eulas Foster: Railway statistics, including clerical assistance, $3,525.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is an increase in this item.


George Perry Graham: We appointed one extra clerk to keep up with the work and the others are the statutory increases.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: These are cheaper than the canal statistics ; are they easier to keep.


George Perry Graham: This is only for the staff of one branch, and the other vote was for all the officers throughout the Dominion.
Mi\ BERGERON. While in Valleyfield the other day I heard a very strong complaint from the officials of the New York Central Railway that they were discriminated against by the Railway Commission. They said that they were kept to a very strict account in regard to their cars; that the officers of the commission were there every two or three days-in fact, were acting as if they were detectives. The officer who told me that seemed to be au courant with what is going on on the other railways, and he said they were not treated the same way. He seemed to be under the impression that the New York Central was discriminated against because it was a foreign company. I do not know what there is in the story. If it were true, it would be a very bad thing, as all the railway companies should be treated alike. Moreover, the New York Central has a great many Canadian employees. I bring the matter to the attention of my hon. friend in order that he may bring it to the attention of the Railway Commission. There may not be anything in the story. If there is not, it will be a good thing to know it.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend know what information those officers were asking for ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand that it was about cars-whether they were loaded or unloaded, and charging them so nfuch a day if they were not sent out immediately; finding a car unloaded for a day or six hours and not reported, or reported ready to clear with the intention of having it ready in the morning, and the officer would spring on them at night, and finding that car was not unloaded, would make a report against them ; or something of that sort.


George Perry Graham: It is not clear to me, but I will make inquiries.
Railways and Canals-miscellaneous works not provided for, $5,000.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister found out what that is ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see the particulars for the expenditure for 1907

at page W- -41 of the Auditor General's Report.


George Eulas Foster: The minister seems to have made out of the vote for miscellaneous works not provided for, payments for exactly the same kind of work as is provided for in other items. $2,810 is charged for repairs to locks in the Lachine Canal, while the minister has a vote for repairs to the Lachine Canal.


George Perry Graham: The regular vote for repairs having been exceeded, this was to pay for an unexpected breakage.


George Eulas Foster: It is not the proper way of taking a vote. If there is an extraordinary breakage, you could have recourse to a Governor General's warrant if parliament is not in session.


George Perry Graham: It seems to have been a custom followed for many years to take this vote. It just makes a certain amount available which would not otherwise be available for accidents of that kind. If it is needed, it is used; if it is not needed, it is not used.
Arbitrations and awards, Railways and Canals Department, $1,000.


George William Fowler: Does any portion of this go to Mr. Schreiber for having acted as arbitrator in the Hillsborough bridge matter ?


George Perry Graham: No. This is from the 31st March, 1907. to the 31st December, 1907. The expenses in connection with the Hillsborough bridge arbitration were paid by Mr. Haney.


George William Fowler: Including Mr. Schreiber's fees, or did he receive any fees ?


George Perry Graham: I have never suggested to Mr. Schreiber that he should receive any, and he has never made any demand. Any expenses incurred went against Mr. Haney, who was the other party.


Mr. HAGGART.: They could not be charged against Mr. Haney because he was arbitrator. They must be charged against the government in some manner or another.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Schreiber has made no demand for fees and we have not paid him any.


George Eulas Foster: What is this $4,000 expended on last year


George Perry Graham: We spent only $779 last year. The Auditor General's Report is silent about it.


George Eulas Foster: If we only spent $700 last year, why do you ask $4,000 this year ?


George Perry Graham: That is the amount that is asked every year, and I am following the usual practice. It cannot be used for anything else and the amount varies each year.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister say,.that in the case of the arbitration of the Hillsborough bridge, they are going to make the arbitrator the paid servant of the contractor ?


George Perry Graham: Not at all. Mr. Schreiber is the paid servant of the government and had asked for no special fee for that work and has not received any. If he asked for a fee, we would have to consider his demand, but so far he has made no application.


George William Fowler: What is your intention ?


George Perry Graham: My present intention is not to pay.


George William Fowler: Are you liable to change that ?


George Perry Graham: If Mr. Schreiber makes a claim, I would discuss it with the House and show it clearly in the estimates. I would not pay an amount of that kind without putting it in the estimates before it is paid.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: In the lease passed between the department and the McIntyre & Robert Company, was any lawyer or notary employed outside the Department of Justice ?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say. We would place that legal matter in the hands of the Justice Department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would not my hou. friend sign the document as Minister of Railways and Canals ?


George Perry Graham: The lease would be signed by me but prepared by the Justice Department. The Railway Department would negotiate the terms but the legal work would be done by the Justice Department.


Henry Alfred Ward: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways about a matter which came before the committee the day before yesterday in connection with official cars. My hon. friend said that there were six official cars in connection with the Railway Department. I find in the Auditor General's Report that there are five in addition to the three mentioned. On pages W-140 and 147, the Auditor General refers to the maintenance of cars 34, 35, 37, 84 and 89. The minister refers to cars 109, 28 and 139, which make eight altogether. I would further state that in the Auditor General's Report, there is no reference whatever to the three mentioned by my hon. friend the other day. I would like to know where the maintenance of those three cars appears in the Auditor General's Report and also whether there are eight cars instead of six, as stated by my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: There are four official cars here and two on the Intercolonial ;

then there are two cars of the Governor General and one of the Railway Commission, making nine in all. The other day I spoke of the four here and the two on the Intercolonial Railway. The two used by the Governor General and the one used by the Railway Commission are separate from the Intercolonial Railway.


Henry Alfred Ward: There are apparently eight by numbers and two, the Cornwall and York, by name, which would make ten.


George Perry Graham: The record is wrong or my hon. friend is wrong.


George William Fowler: Why do you need two cars for the Governor ? One for a Sunday car and the other for a week day car as a man wears his clothes ?


George Perry Graham: Parliament saw fit to grant an amount for buying the cars. I was not member of parliament then.


George William Fowler: And they are still used for the Governor solely ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, the two cars.


George William Fowler: Is nobody else allowed to use them ?


George Perry Graham: I think Prince Fushimi used them ; they are at the disposal of the Governor would perhaps be a more correct expression.


John Graham Haggart: Did he pay for them ?


George Perry Graham: The country owns them.


George William Fowler: Does he pay the mileage when they run in the United States ?


George Perry Graham: I do not know that he takes them into the United States with him. I imagine he would have to pay if he did. It would be an arrangement between him and the railways there. The country owns and maintains the cars in Canada. If the Governor went across the line he would have to make some arrangement with the railways there as to his transportation.


George William Fowler: That is true of the official cars when used by officials in the United States, but the country pays if they are on official business.


George Perry Graham: The car that is supposed to belong to the Minister of Railways will get transportation over all railways on the continent free, on account of his being at the head of the railways system.


George William Fowler: What about the other official cars ?


George Perry Graham: I imagine they will have to make their own arrangements for mileage.


Henry Alfred Ward: At page 10455 the minister said :


George Perry Graham: [DOT]
One by the general manager, one by the traffic manager, No. 109 by the Minister of Railways.
No. 109 is an Intercolonial Railway car.
No. 28 is used occasionally.
Is that Intercolonial Railway ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Alfred Ward: Then, further on :
No. 139 is used by the deputy.
That is Intercolonial Railway.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Henry Alfred Ward: That makes three. Then if my hon. friend will look at the Auditor General's Report, at pages 146 and 147, he will find there are five other official Intercolonial Railway cars, Nos. 34, 35, 37, 84 and 89. That makes eight Intercolonial Railway cars.


George Perry Graham: They seem to have put some in here under the head of official cars that are not official ears. One of these is the pay car; No. 34 would be the manager's car, and one of these other cars would be for Mr. Tiffin, the traffic manager. There are more numbers here than we have official cars.


George William Fowler: You have paid the money for them.


George Perry Graham: But they have made a misprint in the numbers as far as the official cars are concerned. We have four cars here, two at Moncton, two Governor's cars and one for the Railway Commission.


George William Fowler: Where would the money go ?


George Perry Graham: The money would go but the car number would be wrong.


Henry Alfred Ward: My hon. friend has not answered the other question I asked, the maintenance of this number of cars mentioned as belonging to the Intercolonial Railway in the Auditor General's Report. Do I understand there is no charge for maintenance for the three cars mentioned by my hon. friend day before yesterday ?


George Perry Graham: I cannot tell what my hon. friend means by the three I mentioned the other day, I mentioned six.


Henry Alfred Ward: I gave the numbers yesterday, and I will repeat them :	Nos. 129,
28 and 139. These do not appear in the Auditor General's Report at all.


George Eulas Foster: The minister's cars are No. 139, the car ' Ottawa,' No. 28, and No. 129.


George Perry Graham: Yes.
10333	JUNE 11, 1908	10334


George Eulas Foster: The others are Nos. 34, 35, 37, 84, and another the number of which is not given. That makes ten.


George Perry Graham: There is a mistake about that. They are not there.


George Eulas Foster: Then there are the Governor General's two cars and the commissioners' car, that makes thirteen altogether.


George William Fowler: As this matter seems to be in dispute between the Auditor General and the minister, I think it would be well for the minister to get a statement and bring it down to the House, so that we may know who is right.


George Perry Graham: The explanation is that some one has put something under the head of official cars that do not belong there ; that is all. They put a pay car under that head, which is not an official car, in the ordinary sense.


George William Fowler: But the Auditor General contradicts that statement.


George Perry Graham: Then you must thrash it out with the Auditor General. I state that we have four cars here, and two on the Intercolonial, that makes six official cars on the Intercolonial. The pay car is not considered an official car. Then we have two Governor's cars and one commissioners' car. Now if some persons have taken some other car and called it official, I cannot help it.


George William Fowler: We find in the Auditor General's Report two more official cars mentioned than the hou. gentleman has named. If we leave out the pay car, that leaves one car still to be accounted for. The minister says we must thresh that out with the Auditor General. It is the minister who should know about this thing.


George Perry Graham: The minister does know.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am told the minister had a car up in Lincoln the other day to see about nominating a candidate. Perhaps he lost it on the way.


George Taylor: Does the minister keep the porters in charge of each of these cars the year round ?


George Perry Graham: There is a porter who goes with one of these cars whenever it goes out. He is employed in the department as a messenger, and when a minister goes out, he takes this messenger with him as a porter on the car.


George Taylor: Look at page W-37, and the minister will find : Porters for official cars, $2,702.32. J. B. Cameron, porter six months at $55, board, 1S4 days, at 75 cents ; January to March, three months at $80, total, $708. C. E. Derome, porter, same time, $708. William Murray, porter, same time, $708. A. M. Skinner, porter, $578.37. Then we come to the expenditure of the de-328
partment. Car No. 139, A. F. Bishop & Co., sundry crockery and glassware, $67.45 ; H. Kingsland, maintaining and repairing electric system on car, $55.26; Ottawa Sanitary Laundry Co., laundry work, $41.61 ; Rooney & Cooper, suit for porter Cameron, $24. They have to dress him up \yith gold buttons-$24 besides giving him a salary of $708 ; A. Rosenthal & Sons, sundry cutlery, $95.10 ; C. Ross Co., four dozen sheets, $36; 54 yards table linen, $54 ; blankets, $80 ; pillows, rugs, mats and sundry, $456 for this one car. Stewart & Co., sofa bed in leather, $135 ; two mattrasses at $15 ; five at $11 ; leather easy chairs, two at $40, one at $16, two at $15, and six at $9.50 ; rebuilding and remodelling two sofas, $80 ; sundry, $38, total, $521. Then there is Bate & Co., $58.62 ; two small payments, $15.87, total, $74.55. Then repairs, fuel, &e., $259.73 ; sundry, towel bars, tumbler holders, locks, kitchen utensils, &c., $23.70. Then we come to the car ' Ottawa,' $909.56. There is a suit for Porter Murray, $24. Then car No. 28, $528.41 ; suit for Porter Skinner, $24. Car No. 109, $314.28. There is a suit for Porter Derome, $24. So it goes on. Over $6,000 spent on these four official cars, and four porters kept on the year round, sitting in the car whether it is running or not. I understood the minister to say that one porter went out with a car. How can he defend such an extravagant expenditure as that ? I remember before 1896 we spent a whole night discussing the expenditure on one car, the car ' Jamaica,' that was used by the late lamented premier, Sir John A. Macdonald ; and because that poor old man used that car on special occasions, we were kept here the whole night discussing the expenditure. Now on the Intercolonial we have nine cars, besides an army of men to serve the ministers. No wonder the expenditure of this country is running up to $110,000,000 a year, wrhen we have such extravagant ministers, each of them with a brass buttoned porter, and a special car every time they move around through the country. I suppose they have brass in their cheeks as well as brass in their buttons, and I fancy they have gold buttons and gold lace.


George William Fowler: Has the minister a statement showing the actual cost to the country of these six cars on the Intercolonial Railway as well as a statement showing the cost of these men who are messengers and who receive salaries as porters? As I understand the minister, a messenger goes out as porter. Then he will be drawing his pay as messenger and you have these amounts charged for their services as porters. How do you account for that ?


George Perry Graham: It would probably have been better to have said that the porters are not engaged as porters to do messengers' work. They are paid as porters. Their services are used when they are



needed but they are not, as my hon. friend says, lying around in cars when the cars are not busy. They are used as messengers or for other work.


George William Fowler: Can you tell us the cost of these six cars?


George Perry Graham: The hon. member (Mr. Taylor) has just read the statement of expenditure.


George William Fowler: That is not the total cost; that is only for a few months.


George Perry Graham: That would probably be for the nine months of the fiscal year.


George William Fowler: Can you give us the cost of the Governor General's car?


George Perry Graham: The capital cost was $39,000.


George William Fowler: I am speaking of the annual cost.


George Perry Graham: I will give the information to my hon. friend to-morrow.


Mr. BENNETT.: When the ministers go over to the United States on jaunting ti'ips are they accompanied by porters and messengers paid for by the people of Canada?


George Perry Graham: They must take the porter belonging to the car.


William Humphrey Bennett: And the country pays for it? Seeing that some of them have walked most of their lives it is perhaps right that they should ride now at the country's expense.


George Taylor: These porters and messengers, in addition to being paid for their services, received 75 cents a day for 181 days for their board. The government are discriminating between these men and the messengers who are employed at other work for the departments. These men, when the cars are home, boarding here no doubt, receive from the country 75 cents a day for their board besides $55 a month.


George Perry Graham: As I explained, that system has been changed. When the porters were away from headquarters a certain amount was allowed them for board when they were not boarding on the car. When there are no supplies on board and nobody on the car it is only right that we should allow them something for their board.


George Taylor: According to the Auditor General's Report they were away six months in the year and they received board allowance for 184 days. Now, they are receiving $80 a month.


George Perry Graham: It was thought preferable to give them a straight amount rather than to give them anything for board.


George William Fowler: What is the difference in the salaries as between a messenger who Mr. GRAHAM.
is also a porter-a somewhat amphibious creature-and a messenger who is only a messenger?


George Perry Graham: There is a considerable difference. I think the ordinary messenger starts at $500 and the maximum is about $700. There is no attempt to disguise the fact that these porters who are used as messengers are paid higher wages than ordinary messengers because they are required to perform duties that the ordinary messenger could not perform.


George William Fowler: Does it require a very high intellectual grade of person to be a porter on a car?


William Humphrey Bennett: Yes, to converse with the minister.


George William Fowler: Are they supposed to be travelling companions ? One would think that the ordinary porter is not above the ordinary intellectual plane of the messenger that you meet, although you do strike some messengers whose intellectuality has not been very highly developed. But, that there should be a difference of $35 a month seems rather an unfair discrimination. A messenger who goes away on these trips has a very pleasant time of it. No doubt there will be some draining of bottles and all that sort of thing which assists to make life more agreeable for him-some heel taps- and you are giving him an additional salary of $35 a month.


George Perry Graham: There are some porters who are very intellectual and wTho would make splendid travelling companions in so far as the information they give is concerned. But, in addition to their ordinary duties, as the gentlemen who used these cars are gentlemen of high taste, they have to be chefs of very good standing and they perform these duties as well.


George William Fowler: Do they do the cooking?


George Perry Graham: Yes. Instead of having an easy time, as my hon. friend suggests, they have a very hard time sometimes.
Mr. BLAIN, Perhaps the minister would furnish the committee with a statement of the amount of money invested in private cars and the total cost to the country for the last two years?


George Perry Graham: I will furnish a statement of the capital cost and the cost of maintenance for two or three years.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see in the Auditor General's Report, a long list of names of persons who have furnished supplies for parlor, dining and sleeping cars. Is it possible that everything is bought in small quantities and that there is no system by which that which is needed by the dining and sleeping cars is bqught in quantity ? There are two or three pages, beginning at W-148 of small things bought from every-

body. In fact, I think that every grocer in Montreal and Quebec has sold something to the government. Surely that is not the way to make these purchases. The government must pay 25 or 30 per cent more than what it would if these goods were purchased from a wholesale house by tender instead of trying to give a little patronage to every Tom, Dick and Harry and to every grocery store at the corner of the street. There should be some other system adopted because there is no sense in this.


George Perry Graham: These things are bought in the same way, I believe, as similar goods are purchased for the dining cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would be surprised to find that the Canadian Pacific Railway and Grand Trunk Railway buy their provisions in this way. If they do I would be prepared to say that my hon. friend cannot do otherwise but I would like to know if it is a fact that they do it.


George Perry Graham: It does not follow that because these goods are bought in this way they are not bought by competition. For the dining car service you must have your supplies at once, and there can be no hard and fast rule about buying them at a particular place.


George William Fowler: The real explanation is that when one of the ministers takes a notion to go on a little trip


George Perry Graham: We are discussing the dining cars now.


George William Fowler: It is the same thing. For instance when the Postmaster General thinks a little trip would be for the benefit of his health and that of his friends he orders out private car No. 84


William Humphrey Bennett: When he is tired of his yacht.


George William Fowler: When he is afraid of his yacht making him sea-sick he orders out his car and he calls up Bate & Company by phone and gives them an order for all the liquid and solid supplies he thinks are necessary to be put on board the car, and has them charged to the government. There is no doubt that is the way it is done. The Minister of Agriculture might do it more carefully. He possibly would get his butter from the experimental farm and as the only liquid he drinks is butter milk he would get that there too.


Mr. FISHER.: It is a very good drink.


George William Fowler: Yes, but all the ministers do not take it. I am sure the Postmaster General does not wash down his food with butter-milk.
Mr. LEMIEUX; I have no moments of weakness.
328i


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am informed that on the 31st of May last during the provincial election a special train was run from Riviere-du-Loup to Trois Pistoles to a political meeting organized by the Liberals ; that no fare was collected ; that a large percentage of the passengers were Intercolonial Railway employees ; and that the Conservatives were not allowed to go on the train. Now, the Intercolonial Railway belongs to the people of Canada and not to the Liberal party. I would find it very hard to believe that the present Minister of Railways would tolerate such a gross injustice and such a disorganization of the Intercolonial Railway system. Is my information correct ?


George Perry Graham: If it were true there is no question but that it would be altogether wrong. I was asked for the privilege of running one special train and my instructions were that they were at liberty to run any special train they liked for the accommodation of the parties who wanted to travel if those engaging the train would give the usual guarantee for payment. That was the only special train that was run with my consent, and we would let such a train run anywhere on the road as a business proposition. Of course if any particular persons chartered a train and gave the guarantee they might possibly carry the passengers without charging the fare individually.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have no doubt the minister's instructions were proper, but if they were not carried out I hope he will not let it pass without inquiry.


George Perry Graham: I shall make inquiry.
Surveys and inspection of canals, $3,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has a survey been completed of the Trent valley canal between Lake Simcoe and the Georgian bay ?


George Perry Graham: I understand the survey in the field has been completed but we have not had the report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of the two routes ?


George Perry Graham: Both routes.


William Humphrey Bennett: In the early part of the spring the Minister of Railways spoke at Stayner in North Simcoe and he rather prophesied that the canal might be build in that part of the country. Of course that was not intended for the provincial campaign, but at all events there has been a calamity for the Liberal party in that district. When is the government going to get serious about the Trent Valley canal ? I understand that the chief engineer has reported recommending the adoption of the Severn route. If that route is to be adopted
.10339

will there be a substantial vote asked for the commencement of the work this year ?


George Perry Graham: How happy could I be with either were the other fair charmer away

my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) holds a contrary opinion to that held by my hon. friend from Bast Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) and this morning I Informed my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) that I would let him know when the report of the engineer was made so that he could by deputation or otherwise lay before the department the advisability of this route. The government is serious; some route will have to be selected, but it takes a little time and we want to be sure so that we may make no mistake. We want to select the best route.


George Eulas Foster: Last year you spent under this head $900, not a dollar of which went towards the surveys of canals. Long distance telephones took up $100 and travelling expenses of officers took up a considerable amount, but there does not seem to have been a rod of surveying.


George Perry Graham: A good deal of the expenditure is in connection with canals. If the deputy minister as chief engineer made a trip, his expenses would probably come out. of this item. The same item for railways is largely for inspecting railways being built, to see that they come up to the standard for the subsidies voted for them. The expenditure on this account last year from the 31st March to the 31st September, roundly speaking, was $18,-
000.


Haughton Lennox: And it would be a great
deal -wiser not to select either until after Mr. FOWLER. Is that for inspecting the next general elections.	the track?


George Perry Graham: Occasionally we do get advice from hon. gentlemen opposite that we can adopt.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I understand that an engineer has been sent to Valleyfield to report on the inundation of lands in that locality. I would like the minister to say If the engineer has reported and if so what was the nature of his report. There are about 50,000 acres of some of the best land in the province of Quebec covered with water in that district, and the flooding is no doubt caused by the dam constructed at Valleyfield by the government when the Beauharnois canal was built. At that time the government paid a certain amount of damages to the proprietors on each side, but it was never expected that the water would rise so high as it has risen lately. Unless an embankment is built and drains laid there will be a calamity in that part of the country. There are one or two parishes which are really under water to-day. There as no politics in this matter ; theseparishes -are in fact Liberal parishes ; but the gov-*ernment owes it to these people to have some works performed so as to prevent this flooding in the future. In the meantime, my hon. friend should get a report from the engineer who went over the place a short time ago and find out what Gan be done.


George Perry Graham: We did have an engineer look over the condition referred to. The very high mark reached by the St. Law-Tence and other waters this year is remarkable. I am told by residents along the river that not in fifty years has the water been so high as it is this year, so that the situation as stated by my hon. friend is abnormal. My hon. friend will find something like $10,000 in the main estimates, and we may have to ask for a further vote to do all that is necessary to protect the people.
M.r. BENNETT.


George Perry Graham: No. For instance, the government makes a contract with a railway for the payment of a subsidy, and we must have it inspected to see that sufficient of the railway is built and that it is built up to the requisite standard. We expended a large amount in inspecting the western division of the Grand Trunk Pacific to see that the read was built up to the standard for which we are guaranteeing the bonds.


John Graham Haggart: Some time ago the minister foreshadowed some improvements that he was going to make on the Intercolonial. - We are not only building a line from Quebec to Moncton, but the minister stated that he had caused surveys to be made for double-tracking, the road from Moncton to Halifax or for substituting for the present line a shorter line with easier gradients. What has been the result of these surveys, and has the government come to any determination in reference to that matter?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is partly right. That matter has been discussed, but I do not think I went the length of saying that the surveys had been made. No survey has been made. In view of the concentration of traffic at Moncton in the near future, a large deputation from the maritime provinces a short time ago came before the government urging that a new line from Moncton or that vicinity be constructed to join the main line near Halifax. We have not gone the length of surveying that line, *but the necessity of doing something of that kind in the near future will, I think press itself on whatever government may be in power. Somebody will have to build another track from Moncton to Halifax and St. John to accommodate the traffic. I look to the time when not only the National Transcontinental Railway will be bringing traffic to Moncton, but some rail-

way will be handling the through traffic of -the Canadian Northern from the Northwest from Quebec east, particularly in the winter. With all this in view, it is a very practical thought what will have to be done to increase the facilities from Moncton to St. John and Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: Did not a deputation from Nova Scotia have an interview with the minister a short time ago with regard to the line between Amherst and Truro or between Moncton and Truro?


George Perry Graham: Between Amherst and Truro.


Robert Laird Borden: The object was to reduce the distance as well as the grades?


George Perry Graham: To reduce the grades, but I think the distance will be a trifle lengthened.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has that matter under consideration.


George Perry Graham: That is one of the questions that must be solved. A deputation has waited on the government urging that we should double-track to Amherst and then swing off from Amherst to Truro. We have reached no conclusion.


Robert Laird Borden: Some years ago it was understood that the double-tracking between Halifax and Truro would be immediately proceeded with. It has been, so far as Windsor Junction is concerned. Is anything proposed in the early future respecting the remaining portion of the line from the Windsor Junction to Truro ?


George Perry Graham: Nothing further has been done.


Robert Laird Borden: Nothing proposed in the immediate future ?


George Perry Graham: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Are these inspections carried out by officers of the department or do you employ assistance outside ?


George Perry Graham: I would not say that we never employ an outsider, but almost invariably the departmental staff does the work.


Robert Laird Borden: In what then does the expenditure of $18,000 consist?


George Perry Graham: This is largely due to the salaries paid the inspecting staff of engineers on the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it represented the expenses of the officers engaged in this work.


George Perry Graham: This represents also the salaries of the officers who are making a regular inspection of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Robert Laird Borden: How many officers are engaged in that work ? I understand that Mr. Schreiber gives special personal attention to that.


George Perry Graham: His salary is not included. I will mention a few names. Mr. Bel! got $600. Mr. Martin Murphy, government engineer, from Saskatchewan to Edmonton, $1,823. He is employed steadily. Win. McGrath, inspecting engineer, $2,203. C. P. Sanburg, inspecting engineer and metallurgical engineer. Mr. Schreiber's expenses are here too, but not his salary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They total $15,700. Why does the minister ask for $28,000 for the same work next year ?


George Perry Graham: So far as the Grand Trunk Pacific west is concerned, there will be increasing expenditure that we may keep right up with the work, and the mountain section will be included this year. In addition, the Auditor Generals Report gives only nine months and we are asking foi the twelve months.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the Grand Trunk Pacific built up to a certain standard, such as indicated in the specifications, anil is it the duty of the officers to see that that standard is maintained during construction .


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr HAGGART.: We would like a full statement of the position of the Transcontinental, both the portion bemg built by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company and the government portion, so that we may make a comparison. On some other item, I suppose the minister will explain that.


Air GRAHAM.: 
Robert Laird Borden: What means this exception to the application of the Civil Service Act ?


George Perry Graham: These are extra clerks. Some have passed the examination but they are not appointed to the permanent service.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Are they permanently employed in the ordinary sense ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, but they are not permanent employees under the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A few years ago when quite a large sum was voted for the purpose of providing for all these, we were told that in the future that would he done away with and these temporary clerks put on as permanent clerks. We seem, however, to be continuing tbe same bad habit.


George Perry Graham: I hope all that will he cured by the Civil Service Act.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it true that during the campaign in North York, practically all tlie literature which the Liberal party sent out there was brought from the hon. gentleman's newspaper press into his department and the officers in his department-* and possibly these very same messengers-[DOT] were employed day and night stamping and addressing and sending out that literature ?


George Perry Graham: I am not aware of the details. I know there has been nothing sent, to my knowledge, except what took place in the House. My hon. friend will see the distinction between a campaign paper and the publication of a speech which was delivered in the House. The latter would be proper matter for franking.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: A large number of employees in the hon. gentleman's department were engaged for a considerable length of time sending out thousands of copies of nothing but campaign literature into different ridings, ilf that is the case, this item requires some investigation.


George Perry Graham: Certainly if that were done by messengers or some one of that kind in their spare time it would not come under this item, it certainly was not done by these people.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister admits that right in his department his own officials were employed sending out literature, I will not say what it is, into different counties and that the people are paying for the folding and addressing of the envelopes and the general work connected with the forwarding of this literature. He does not deny that.


George Perry Graham: I would not attempt to deny it until I made inquiries. I admit that any work of that kind would be in connection with speeches delivered in this House. That would not he the same as ordinary campaign literature.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the minister think it is right that he should have the employees of his department spending days in addressing these envelopes ? No other member in the House has any such privilege and it would seem to be an abuse of the franking privilege.


George Perry Graham: It would certainly not be an abuse of the franking privilege. If literature bearing on a provincial campaign were sent out that might be an abuse.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: "We have here three items in succession aggregating $42,000 in each case ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Sendee Act.' These are connected with a department where you have permanent officers. It was provided by law a few years ago that all such employees would come under the Civil Service Act and that we


Thomas Simpson Sproule: would not employ in the future that class of civil servants. The Civil Service Commission drew attention to the fact that you had 50 items of this kind in the estimates for one year, yet in the face of that we have these three items in succession. These officials may be paid salaries by different departments and with the estimates in this form we cannot tell what they are paid. One of the ministers, I think the Minister of Finance, some years ago assured the House that the extra amount for that year was to provide so that all these temporary clerks who have been employeed for years should be put on the permanent list, so that we could do away with this custom in the future. This government since they came to power have systematically and persistently violated the Civil Service Act in this respect and I think it is time that a stop was put to this practice. It is treating the House with scant courtesy and affording little information as to what is being done with the people's money.


George Perry Graham: There are some employees included in this who have been in the department for 20 years, some for 30- very old employees.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were assured that they were all provided for some years ago.


George Perry Graham: There must be some mistake.	.


Mr. FIELDING.: My hon. friend surely is mistaken in attributing the statement he has quoted to me. I am sure he will find that I never made any statement that would imply that there would he no such exceptions made. The question has been repeatedly raised and I have always stated that, no matter wTh;at provisions you have in the Civil Service Act, there will be some occasions when there must be exceptions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can understand a rare exception.
ill-. FIELDING. The exceptions are rare in proportion to the magnitude of the service. When you have many hundreds of people in the service, I think the exceptions are not numerous. No doubt we should have the rule as general as possible, and the exceptions as few as possible. But surely you will not find it possible to avoid occasional exceptions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Tell me how many there are in these three items : Railway statistics, clerical assistance, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, salaries of extra clerks, copyists and messengers other than those who have passed the civil service examination, notwithstanding
messengers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act-three items following one another. Is that the rare excep-

tion? Is it not rather the rule? The law is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Now, could the minister tell us how many are being provided for in these three items in open violation of the Civil Service law? The Civil Service Commission did not think it was a rare exception when they drew attention to the frequency of this phrase 1 Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' to the contrary, they thought it was an abuse that ought to be remedied. We ought to know how many are going to be provided for out of these votes..


George Perry Graham: The best way to reply to that would be to read the names and the salaries of these people in this item of $38,630. The list contains some 35 names. Out of this number there are only two who are paid from two departments. Murphy, electrical engineer, we pay $1,500. and the Railway Commission pays $1,500. McLaughlin, photographer, gets $1,700, we pay $850 and the Public Works Department pay $850. Johnston, inspecting engineer, gets $3,000 ; Douglas hydraulic and bridge engineer, gets $2,600 ; Spence, chief draughtsman, $2,400 ; Bowden, $3,400 ; Leslie, $2,200; Morrison. $2,300; Massey, $1,200.
Mr. BERGERON'. Are these all on the list as permanent employees?


George Perry Graham: They are not on the civil service list.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Then what is the use of saying ' Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act?' If they are not permanent employees, they are not under the Act.


George Perry Graham: In some cases these words would not be needed at all. These are permanent employees, but they are not under the Civil Service Act : McCart, private secretary to the deputy, $1,200; Cook, $950; Carr, $800; Toole, $750; Bott, $750; Mann, $750 ; Tessier, $750 ; Graham, $750 ; Clarke, $750 ; Martineau, $750 ; Jamieson, $700; Stewart, $700; Bennett, $700; Desjardins, $650; Robinson, $600; Cameron, $550; O'Regan, $550; Lafleche $550; Harris, $500; Pelletier, $700; Smith, $650; Gauthier, $650; Bott, $650; Skinner, $500. Then there are some temporaries that we employ in the rush of work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that all the salaries they get?


Mr GRAHAM.: Except in the two cases I have mentioned where they are paid by two departments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Many of these could be employed under the Civil Service Act, others could not. The Civil Service Act provides that certain places shall only be filled by men who have passed the qualifying examination, unless they are technical officers, and I take it that some of these could be employed without passing the examination. I see several of these officers get $3,000-
$1,500 from one source and others $1,500. It is to avoid the possibility of paying men from two or three sources that the Act provides that they should be paid from one source only. The other provision of the Civil Service Act was to secure a guarantee of qualification for the civil service. When the applicant passes the qualifying examination he comes under the provisions of the law. Now we are violating the Act so often that we might as well abandon it entirely and fall back upon the old system, and put in any one you like.


George Perry Graham: I am not quite clear upon this point. It strikes me that the Civil Service Act provides for the classification of clerks into the classes known as chief clerks, first-class clerks, second-class clerks, and that kind of thing, You can appoint a man to a first-class clerkship who did not pass the examination if he has technical knowledge, and technical knowledge is required in that first-class clerkship, but the maximum salary would not allow him to have the salary that this gentleman is getting as inspecting engineer. As I remember, the Civil Service Act would not allow you to appoint an officer requiring the salary that you have to pay to this officer. iMy recollection is that you can appoint a technical officer to any of these clerkships, who has not passed the examination but he would be subject to the salary of the clerkship to which he was appointed. This engineer, Mr. Johnson, has been there for a great many years, he is not appointed under the Civil Service Act, and he must be paid outside of the Civil Service Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not the few technical officers to whom I am referring but it is the large number you have on salaries ranging from $600 to $1,200 a year. Here are thirty that are being paid in open violation of the Civil Service Act. There must be an exception sometimes, they should be few in number, but in this case it is the very reverse. In this case the exception proves the rule.


Haughton Lennox: We have drifted away from the very important matter brought up by my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). We did not get a satisfactory statement from the minister. There were two suggestions neither of which met the case. One had reference to the question of franking. The question of franking is not involved. The other suggestion of the minister was that literature sent out, say speeches made in this House, was quite legitimate. That question is not involved or settled by what the minister says. My hon. friend from East Lambton says that, as he is informed and understands, in the Department of Railways and Canals, a portion of the staff were employed in folding, addressing and sending out literature or documents to be used for campaign pur-

poses. It is not material whether they were speeches, or what they were. They were sent out for campaign purposes to advance the interests of a certain party in an election. My hon. friend says that he is informed that this literature was prepared and sent out by a portion of the staff of the minister, to the knowledge of the minister, and that those who sent it out were paid by the funds of the people, that they were employed in that way during the time when their services were being paid for by the country. The minister knows whether that is the case or not. The first point does not involve any question of franking, or any point as to whether this literature consisted of speeches made by hon. gentlemen in this House. The first point is whether members of a staff paid by the country were engaged, to the minister's knowledge, in sending out literature for political purposes. If they were it is not proper; if they were not the minister knows they were not and can settle the point. What I want the minister to do is to instruct us now whether, to his knowledge, members of his staff, or his employees, were, during times at which their services are paid for by the country, engaged in sending out campaign literature to Centre York or elsewhere. If the minister informs us that he is not aware of it, does he say he will inquire ? But the main charge of my hon. friend from Bast Lambton is that, as he was informed, this was done in the way that he describes to the knowledge of the minister.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend does not make the distinction that I would make and always have made. I submit, in reply to his first proposition, that a speech delivered by my hon. friend himself, although it might not be considered campaign literature, if it were made in the House, would be perfectly legitimate matter to send out to the country. In so far as franking is concerned, that is settled.


Haughton Lennox: There is no question about that.


George Perry Graham: No question about that.
I am not sure that there would be anything wrong in allowing any employee of a department to mail a speech delivered by a member of this House so long as it was confined to something that took place iu the House, such, for instance, as the Finance Minister's budget speech. I have had no hesitation in provincial affairs-I know that' every provincial government in Ontario has done it-in securing as large a number of copies of the provincial treasurer's budget speech as I could obtain. The budget speech of the provincial treasurer has been printed and distributed every year as far as I can recollect. The last year that I was in the House a large number of copies1 Mr. LENNOX.
were printed specially. These were franked and sent out by members of the provincial House. So long as you absolutely adhere to something that takes place in the House, if an officer of the department, in his spare time and not interfering with his duties, were employed to send that out to the country for the information of the people there would not be so much wrong as my hon. friend seemed to indicate. If I prepared a lot of campaign literature which did not form part of any discussion in the House at all it would be a different matter. As to what was really done, there is no doubt that some of my messengers did address a number of envelopes in the department. A large part of it, i feel confident, was done after hours. As to whether it was done in the working hours of the department 1 have not made inquiry. If it were done at that time perhaps it would be better that it should not have been done. If it has been done I shall not attempt to deny it for a moment.
Mr. LENNOX, il do not think the minister has quite met the point. I say that with very great hesitation but I feel justified in saying so. The question I was asking was this : Was literature addressed by his employees in his office to be sent out to North York during the time when they should be in the service of the country and during the time they were paid ? I am not distinguishing between different classes of literature. I do not care what it was. We are not dealing with the question of franking. We have nothing to do with that. Nobody is raising any question as to the franking privileges. The question is whether, while these people wrnre being paid by the country, they were engaged in sending out pamphlets or documents intended to advance the interests of ia political party in a campaign. If they were I have no hesitation in saying it was entirely wrong. The minister knows whether that is the case or not. The minister has not answered that question. Is it a fact that to his knowledge a portion of his staff were engaged in sending documents out to Centre York, intended to be used to enlighten the people in a certain way ? I do not want to argue with the minister whether it is right for an employee to devote his overtime to that service or not. I am not going to go into that minute question. Is the minister aware that a portion of the time of these officials was taken up in folding, addressing, and sending out this literature ?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is not so dense that he does not understand my answers. I said distinctly "that without any doubt some members of my staff addressed envelopes and mailed copies of the budget speech which was delivered in this House.


Robert Laird Borden: Why was that not done in the Finance Department ?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say. I make a distinction between a speech delivered in this House and the lugging in of outside matters. There is no doubt it was done by some members of my staff. What portion if any, was done inside the ordinary working hours or outside the ordinary working hours I do not know.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister know that any portion of it was done after office hours?


George Perry Graham: I think I would be safe in saying yes.


Haughton Lennox: Does the minister know that a portion of it was done during the ordinary office hours?


George Perry Graham: I cannot say.


Haughton Lennox: Was any private compensation given to these people so employed or did they do it as incidental to their service?


George Perry Graham: I paid them no compensation.


Haughton Lennox: Are you aware that anybody else did?


George Perry Graham: No.


Haughton Lennox: Even if it were done after office hours aud private compensation paid it is a most reprehensible practice. We have good reason to believe it was done by these employees as part of their public service and was paid for by the country. X hope the minister will look into it carefully and give us exact information and if he does not it will be necessary to have a rigid investigation made by some means. No more dangerous practice could prevail than that this country should be flooded with the speeches of one side at the public expense while the speeches of the *'Other side are not circulated. I am of opinion that not one half enough speeches go out into the country and I am also of opinion that we do not print nearly enough ' Hansards.' It is for the benefit of the people that they should know what takes place on Parliament Hill, and I would be very glad if the * Hansard ' were sent to the people generally. But to discriminate is absolutely wrong and I am sorry that the Minister of Railways, if he found the practice prevailing in his department did not stop it immediately.


George Eulas Foster: It always has been a practice to send out the budget speech delivered in this House. It has been the practice to print an extra number of the speeches of the Minister of Finance which are distributed by the minister himself as he thought best and by the labour of the
Finance Department. I think that is a. very good practice. There has been more than once a suggestion which never was adopted, however, that along with the budget speech there should be circulated at the expense of the country the speech of the-priuc-ipal critic of the opposition so that both sides of the financial position might be placed before the people. But when you circulate the speeches of individual ministers at the public expense, without anything being said in the House as to such a speech being an important exposition of public policy, you get on very dangerous ground. It is an indefensible practice that public employees should be engaged circulating speeches for campaign purposes. It is also suspicious that the Minister of Railways should think of distributing this speech so many months after it was delivered and when a hot campaign was going on in North York. A man on this side of the House has .iust as good a right to have his speech placed before the people at the public expense as has a man on the other side, and with the exception of the budget speech and unless there is an understanding to that effect, such conduct results in treating the people's representatives unfairly..


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do I understand the Minister of Railways to say that an ordinary member of parliament should get an official of the government to circulate his speeches for him ?


George Perry Graham: I did not say it that way.
I drew a distinction between speeches delivered in this House and the bringing in of outside matters. I think it only fair to make a distinction between campaign literature and the speech of the Minister of Finance. Perhaps my ideas are not right on the matter, but I always understood it to be the practice to treat speeches delivered in this House as in a different category from the ordinary campaign literature. It is arguable whether an employee, during office hours at least, should do that ; but I think a distinction should be drawn between speeches delivered in this House and campaign literature.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister is well' aware that not only speeches but campaign literature were sent into both North York and South Huron and all over this country. If that is the case, it is a serious question. If the people of the country are to pay for the cost of one party sending out campaign literature, surely the other party should have the same privilege.


George Perry Graham: I do not think that is ever done. It is outside of my knowledge.


Mr. BARR.: Considering the number of employees there are down below, I think that the members should have more consl-

deration than they have. I do not think it would be right and proper for the House to pay employees to send out campaign literature, but when the government employ so many as they do in order to give them work, I think members on either side should have the advantage of having these people come to their rooms and assist them in sending off copies of speeches of members of the House. If that were done equally for both sides, I do not think there would be any objection to it. But at present I think members on the government side have an advantage in this respect over members on this side. There are a great many men in the paste room who could be employed in this way. Perhaps it would be better for their health if they were. One never goes down there without seeing many of them sitting around doing nothing.


Mr. M. Y. McLEAN.: I cannot speak for North York, but I think I can speak for South Huron, and I have no hesitation in saying that I did have a number of copies of the speech of the Finance Minister sent to my constituents, not as campaign literature, but for their information and instruction ; and for the work of sending out these I paid the person who sent them, out of my own pockets. I not only pay for the service of wrapping them up and sending them out, but I also paid for the envelopes in which they were sent.	[DOT]


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is quite clear that the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has a better idea of the rights of the people than the Minister of Railways, because he took care to pay out of his own pocket for the work he was getting done. I want to protest against using public officials' for sending out campaign literature for any body. That is not what they are paid for. If a man is employed in any department, let him be employed in the work which he is supposed to perform, and give all his time to that work. I think the minister had better take some advice from the hon. member for South Huron and arrange his department so that his officials will not any longer be engaged in anything but the duties for which they are paid by the people.


George Taylor: I have in my hand a copy of a pamphlet which is being addressed by officers of the different departments and distributed throughout the country. It is entitled ' Eleven Years of Prudent Administration,' and is printed at the office of the Montreal ' Herald.' It is not the Finance Minister's speech and does not contain any speeches, but is simply a campaign document. I have placed in the hands of the hon. member for Beauharnois a copy of another pamphlet, in French, which is sent out in the same way by the staffs of the different departments. The country is being flooded with these pamphlets from the different departments.


John Barr: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The pamphlet which I have in my hand appeared at the commencement of the session, and was distributed by the Department of Justice mostly among the electors of the province of Quebec. It is a translation of an article which was published in a paper in New York called the ' Messenger.' There are two periodicals of that name published in New York. One is called the * Messenger,' and is published with the consent of the Jesuit Fathers of New York. It is not made by them, nor do they take the responsibility for any article which appears in it. The articles in it are written by anybody who has the reputation of being an honest or honourable person and they go for what they are worth. There is another periodical called the ' Messenger of the Sacred Heart.' which belongs to the Jesuit Fathers and everything in it is published by them and under their authority. The article in this pamphlet was taken from the first-named publication, and was written by a Canadian. It was translated here into French and was given out as having been published by the Jesuit Fathers in New York to give more force to it. It is entitled ' Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier, Prime ' Minister of'Canada,' and has a beautiful picture of the premier ; and it has these words on the first page : * Traduction d'une etude parue dans la revue ' The Messenger ', de New-York, public par les reverends peres Jesuites.' This statement is not true on the face of it, and the pamphlet is full of inaccuracies. This pamphlet comes from the Justice Department and is distributed all over the province of Quebec. It is not a speech delivered in the House, nor has it anything to do with parliament. It is intended entirely for political purposes. If what the hon. gentleman says would be allowed, if a speech made by a member should be franked and sent out by "an employee, this pamphlet does not fall within that eatagory.


George Eulas Foster: Where was it printed ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is nothing to show where it was printed. In any case, it is full of absolutely erroneous matter which is all the more reason why it should not be sent out with the frank of a department.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the exception taken to the franking of the document ? I can understand the objection taken that the labour employed should not be official labour, but I understand my hon. friend takes exception to the franking.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My great objection is to the pamphlet itself, it is absolutely false, and my next objection is that the fact of its being false makes it all the worse to send it out franked.


Mr. TALBOT.: Who is responsible for the printing and publishing ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There is nothing inside to show where it conies from, but that can be easily imagined because it serves the purpose of the Liberal party.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. gentleman does not object to the pamphlet V


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do, I say it is false.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Minister of Finance allude to the franking of this by the department ?


William Stevens Fielding: I asked whether the objection was to the franking or the labour of distribution.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 have now in my possession envelopes bearing the frank of one of the departments of this government, which were franked when the House was not in session, and which covered campaign literature.


William Stevens Fielding: If the distribution of campaign literature and the franking by one side is objectionable, I suppose it is equally objectionable on the other side.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORLlEN. I am not alluding to that.


William Stevens Fielding: I know that a year or two ago, the corridors of this House were barricaded with literature which hon. gentlemen opposite brought from the city of Montreal in order that it might be franked through the mails here.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: During the session.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly, what is the ground therefore of the objection made now ? I am not discussing the question of the labour employed, but surely hon. gentlemen opposite cannot take exception to the franking when they themselves have used the privilege enormously.


Robert Laird Borden: The regulations with regard to franking by members of parliament provide that it can be used in respect of any matter whatever, but there is no such provision with regard to the franking by departments of the government. They are restricted to matters of official business. I was referring to franking by a department when the House is not in session-to franking by members of the administration, not as members of parliament, but as members of the government. I can produce a document bearing the frank of one of the departments-and it is only one instance of thousands of the same character-conveying to the person to whom it was addressed, not matter of official business at all but simply certain campaign literature of the party opposite. That is
not a fair or legitimate use of the frankiug privilege.


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt, the theory of the franking privilege is that it should be confined to official purposes ; no doubt the intention was that members of parliament should have the privilege of franking letters to their constituents on public business and receiving, free of postage, letters of the same description. But that theory has been considerably broadened and members have not confined themselves to absolutely official publications.


George Eulas Foster: But this is not a matter of custom at all.


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt if any hon. gentleman desired to address a letter to any one on other than public business during the session he would be free to put his initials on the corner. If that may be pardoned in the case of a member of parliament-and it is only a privilege for a limited period-I do not see how it must be wrong in the case of a minister.


Robert Laird Borden: In the one case, the statute specifically gives the privilege my hon. friend has referred to. In the other case, it does not give any department any such privilege. That is the distinction between the two.


William Stevens Fielding: I am perfectly sure the intention was that members of parliament should only use the franking privilege for special correspondence.


Robert Laird Borden: The statutes say directly the opposite.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This was franked by the Department of Justice, and the franking was done before the opening of parliament. These pamphlets were distributed before the House opened.


George William Fowler: If the statements in the pamphlet are erroneous, it would come very properly from the Department of Justice as at present administered.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The franking of this publication and its distribution for political purposes come with very bad grace from the hon. gentleman's department (Mr. Ayleseworth), who made such a vigorous speech in opposition to my motion for a return showing the number of Roman Catholic and Protestant employees in the service of Canada. He deprecated any motion of the kind because, he said, it was bound to arouse race and religious prejudices. Yet we have his department distributing a pamphlet, such as the one referred to, purporting to come from the Jesuit fathers in New York, with the picture of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on it, and intended to mislead the Roman Catholics

of the province of Quebec. Why did not the Minister of Justice distribute that in Ontario ? Why did he not distribute it in North York ? If he desired to be as circumspect, as he tried to make the House believe he was, why did he distribute it in the province of Quebec ? There are two things about this which are wrong. The first is the employing of civil servants to do work of this nature for the government and its supporters which they would not be allowed to do for members of the opposition. Members of the opposition have to pay people for doing such work. If it be right that it should be done for the one side at the expense of the country, it should be equally done for the other. We on this side have to pay $2.75 to $3 a thousand for the work of addressing and folding these documents, whereas the other side have it done at the expense of the country.


William Stevens Fielding: I can tell my hon. friend that I have to pay in some cases.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We asked if there were any employees of the Department of Railways doing this work, and the minister rather shirked the inquiry. He tried to worm out of it. Our civil servants are not paid to do such work, and it is an injustice to the people and particularly to the opposition who have to pay for that work out of their private pockets, that this work should be done for hon. gentleman by public servants and paid for out of the public treasury.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. gentleman, who has just taken his seat, made some refer-tnce to the discussion which took place in this House some time ago, when I brought up some of the utterances at the meeting in Mount Forest of the grand lodge of Orangemen. At that meeting, at which my hon. friend was present in the capacity of grand master, strong representations were made by leading Orangemen that an evangelical campaign should be organized in the province of Quebec by the Orangemen of Ontario in order to prevent the lower classes of Quebec French Canadians from becoming socialists and the educated classes particularly in the city of Montreal, from becoming atheists. That is one of the statements to which we took strong exception. It was freely distributed throughout the Orange lodges of Ontario and we wanted to prove and show the hon. gentleman, who is the grand master of the order, that he was wrong when he said that the working class of Quebec were socialists and the educated class atheists.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is entirely wrong. lie is attributing to the member for East Grey something he never said. That was not the question under consideration at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. member was present when these things were said.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question under consideration was a motion by myself for a return showing the employees of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Printing Bureau, distinguishing as between Protestants and Catholics.


Mr. W. CHISHOLM.: Why make the distinction?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a distinction that was made years ago and never objected to. I said it in answer to that and moved the motion without a word of comment. It had nothing to do with anything in an Orange order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: It was following the discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When I made the motion the Minister of Justice pitched into me and so did the Minister of Railways for daring to make such a motion, for doing something that would arouse racial and religious prejudice in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And yet we find that same department distributes a document of the most extreme character purporting to come from the Jesuit fathers of New York among the French and Irish Roman Catholics of the province of Quebec.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Have you read it?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Distributed by a department of the government under frank and the work done by employees, I assume, of this country who were paid their annual salary, and yet the supporters of the government are prepared to defend this course and to condemn the other. Which is right and which is wrong?


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Have you read it?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard my friend beside me read a portion of it 20 minutes ago, and it is a misrepresentation and is misleading the people.


Richard Blain: This is the Act :
Letters and other mailable matter addressed to or by any member of the Senate or of the House of Commons whether on public business or on the personal affairs of such member while at Ottawa, during any session of parliament, or to any such member at Ottawa during the ten days next before the meeting of parliament may pass free of postage, provided these letters and other matters are posted at or addressed to the Senate or the House of Commons and not to the private residence in Ottawa of the senator or member of parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: Under which of those clauses would the campaign literature come.


Mr BLAIN.: I am not debating that point. I am pointing out that a member of

parliament lias the right to send to any person


William Stevens Fielding: On his personal affairs. Mr. BLAIN-while the House is in session.


William Stevens Fielding: Personal affairs.


Richard Blain: I am not debating the question ; I am only reading in connection with this discussion the clause which gives the member the right to send out under his frank


Mr FIELDING.: Not to send out campaign literature under his own reading.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the member chooses to make it a personal affair why should he not send it out?


Richard Blain: The charge Of sending out campaign literature is against the government and the minister's own department, and the point under discussion is whether the messengers who are paid by parliament have the right to fold up, address and send out throughout this country the speeches of the Finance Minister while members on this side have no such privilege or right.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think they have ; I agree with my hon. friend.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess. After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Costs of litigation in connection with Railways and Canals, $6,000.


Haughton Lennox: How do these expenses arise ?


George Perry Graham: Most of them are suits against the Crown in the Exchequer Court, There are quite a number of suits, often they are over right of way questions that we cannot settle, and we send them to the court. In our department there are a lot of old claims that are being revived all the time. It is hard to say what to do with them.
Mr. ,1. D. REID. Are there many now before the Exchequer Court unsettled?


George Perry Graham: There are some before the court all the time, in our department.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I understood Judge Cassels' time is taken up almost entirely with these.


George Perry Graham: The King being the defendant, we are not urging cases to go on. I do not know of any cases that are delayed.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit the government are right in not being anxious to push ~the cases ahead ; at the same time, when the government allows a case to go before
the judge, nothing should be done to prevent it from coming to a decision.


George Perry Graham: I have not heard of any cases being delayed. Judge Cassels' work in the Exchequer Court will not be delayed by reason of his having undertaken the Civil Service Commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish again to refer to the frequency with which we are violating the provision of the Civil Service Act. I have the Act in my hand, passed in 1882, one clause of which reads :
All appointments to the civil service shall he during pleasure, and no person shall he appointed or promoted to any place below that of a deputy head, unless he has passed the requisite examination and served the probationary term hereinafter mentioned, nor until he has obtained the certificates required by this Aot.
It makes two divisions. The first is a class some of whom may he appointed without passing an examination, officers who have special or technical qualifications, that is, such as engineers or draughtsmen, men having special qualifications. Therefore, they could be employed and paid without committing any violation of the Civil Service Act. It provides for :
Chief clerks, first-class clerks, second-class clerks, third-class clerks, messengers, packers and sorters.
Then schedule (b) provides that:
All the officers, clerks and employees hereafter enumerated and such other officers in the lower grades as may be determined by order in council.
It goes on to provide for the salaries of officers of the Customs, Inland Revenue and other departments. They have all to pass a civil service examination. To provide for those who ought to have passed the civil service examination but who had not done so and who were employed temporarily from . time to time an Act was passed in 1892, the provision of which is as follows :
Any person who, on the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, was in the service or employment of the government of Canada, or of any 'department thereof, and who has since been continuously engaged therein, may, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, be appointed to any position in the public service, without regard to age and without being required_ to pass the preliminary or qualifying examination provided for by the said Act, subject, however, to such regulations as are made by the Governor in Council, or by the head of a department, prescribing examinations for appointment or promotion in the civil service; and any such person may also, notwithstanding anything in the said Act, be temporarily continued in the public service.
8. All appointments of such persons, and all payments of salaries to thorn, heretofore made, are hereby legalized and confirmed.

3.	No appointment or promotion shall be made under the provisions of this section after the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four.
That is that after that date no such appointment might be made. Some years after that there was another Act of a similar character passed to enable the government to place upon the permanent list those who were temporarily employed from year to year. Speaking from memory there was a similar provision that in future this system should not continue and that applicants must, wheu coming into the civil service, be qualified by having passed the civil service examination, unless they were technical officers.
This question was brought up in the House with reference to an item in the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I have here the ' Hansard ' of 390(5, containing the discussion that took place. Mr. Hyman was dealing with his estimates and the following item was read :
Engineering branch-salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draftsmen, clerks and messengers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $94,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you make this exception with regard to the Civil Service Act?


Mr. HYMAN.: These are technical officers and the object is to be able to pay them a greater sum' than the minimum allowed by the Civil Service Act.
Well that would be a reason. They could be employed as technical officers under the Civil Service Act, but I do not know whether they could be paid a larger salary. The next item was :
Temporary clerical and other assistance, inclusive of services of all persons required who were first employed after July 1, 1882, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $45,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought nearly all these temporary clerks yere put on the permanent list.


Charles Smith Hyman: There has been no change made in the department with reference to these matters for a great many years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were certainly told a couple of years ago that the government intended to make these temporary clerks all permanent and place them regularly under the Civil Service Act.


Charles Smith Hyman: I made no such statement as that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Your predecessor did.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is right to some extent.
Admitting that I 'was right. It was the Minister of Finance who made the explanation to the House.
There were in some of the departments quite a number of clerks described as ' permanent temporaries ' and they were transferred to the regular list with the rank of first class. That did not apply to this department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that this change was to cover all the department? If Mr. SPROULE.
these were technical officers there might be a reason why they should be on the temporary list, but I understand a great many of them * are ordinary civil servants.
Then I went on to refer to It :


William Stevens Fielding: The change was made in several departments, but I hp,ve no recollection of the statement being made that it was to be a matter of universal policy.
It was made in several departments in harmony with the policy which was enunciated to the House and it was said that it would not occur in future. But we commenced the same system immediately and the proportions are growing larger and larger each year until to-day there are three items, one of which contains the names of thirty employees who are permanent as far as we know but who are outside the pale of the Civil 'Service Act. What is the use of a Civil Service Act if we are going to violate it in that way ? We placed that Act upon the statute book for a good purpose. We provided a means of taking in all who were outside the pale of the Civil Service Act and we declared that:
.No appointment or promotion shall be made under the provisions of this section after the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four.
That is that all those who have not passed the civil service examination would be ineligible for promotion or appointment, and yet we are going on and making promotions and giving employment in the same old way. I think this is an abuse which should not be continued for ever. If the Act is wrong we should amend it and make it right. Let us have a civil service founded on the principles of equity and then we will know who they are, what they are, whether they are getting pay from one or more sources and the exact amount that each gets. As it is to-day, we are doing the very reverse. I think it is time that we made a change. The Civil Service Commission drew attention to this vicious principle and they suggested that an improvement should be made, but the government, in so far as we know, have made no effort to improve it. Have they arranged for it in their Civil Service Act ? It is to be hoped they have, because it is high time they did something to get the civil service upon a more permanent and equitable basis, one that all would have to live up to. No parties in connection with the government of the country are more responsible for the continuance of this system than the ministers themselves. I think they ought to take note of it and try to live up to the requirements of the Civil Service Act as closely as possible.
I think the minister ought to give us some information about these officers. Wby does he require so many of this lower class of clerks to be employed without any examination ? How many have passed the ex-

amination, or have they passed any exam-atlon at all ?
Mr. GltAHAM. In so far as the technical officers are concerned my hon. friend has explained that himself.
'Mr. SPROULE. We will leave that out of the Question.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend made quite a lengthy argument on that but he answered himself. They could not be employed under the Civil Service Act at the salary which it is necessary to pay them. As to the others, they are extra clerks and there is no provision made in the Civil Service Act for such clerks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why ? Because I presume they do not pass the examination.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is wrong. I know that quite a number have passed the civil service examination, and I may say that I have had scarcely any appointments in my department, but when I do make one I give the preference to the person who has passed the civil service examination.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they have passed the civil service examination and if they are needed from year to year why are they not put on the permanent list? If they were eligible at the time, if they had passed the examination and were needed in the department they should be put on the permanent list and then we would know how many employees were to be provided for.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend's question is perfectly fair and worthy of consideration. If they were to be put on we would have to create a larger number of permanent clerkships in order to have clerkships to appoint them to. My own opinion coincides to a large extent with that of the hon. gentleman, that is that if these people are to be kept on permanently we ought to establish more permanent clerkships and appoint these persons to them. Were it not for the fact that the Civil Service Bill is likely to be introduced I "would propose to do that another year. When we have to have these clerks and when we know that they have to be permanent we should make them permanent. I agree with my hon. friend that we ought to try to find out how many permanent clerkships there ought to be in the department and appoint the clerks permanently. Of course circumstances will always arise when you will have to have additional clerks.
To pay expenses in connection with reference to cases before the Railway Commission, $10,000.


Mr.  J. D.@: REID, I can only find in the Auditor General's Report one item of expenditure under this head last year, which is a payment of $1,132.35 to Mr. W. S. Buell.


George Perry Graham: Up to the 30th September, 1907, we have expended $8,723.90. There were payments to Mr. Buell, to Mr. Richardson, to Mr, Owens for reporting and to Macdonald & Shepley, and so on.


John Dowsley Reid: How much did Macdonald & Shepley get?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Shepley was chief counsel, and Macdonald & Shepley got $2,845.21. Mr. Buell got $1,132.35; Mr. James Richardson got $991.40; Mr. Owens, $396.90; stationery, $1,074. I need not read them all.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course this vote cannot be used for anything else.


George Perry Graham: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did the minister have time to find out the charges of Mr. Boyer for investigation into the Soulanges canal


George Perry Graham: I have not been able to go to my department since.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: This is a very serious matter and the minister should not view it lightly. The superintendent of that canal has been accused of very grave irregularities.


George Perry Graham: It was Mr. Sauvf; the overseer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: He is called the superintendent, but at all events Mr. Sauve who is in charge of the canal has been accused of serious irregularities, not to speak of other matters which might be looked upon as political in their nature. There is very great dissatisfaction on the canal, and I can assure the minister that he should not dismiss the matter lightly.


George Perry Graham: I am not dismissing it at all. I did not bring down the report this morning because it is customary not to place a report of that kind on the table until the minister is prepared to say what he is going to do about it, and I have not had time to digest it yet. I will bring it down before the canal items are passed.


Robert Laird Borden: This item is curiously worded ; to what particular use is it applied.
Mr. GRAHAM It is for legal fees, stenographers' fees, stationery and so on.


Mr SPROULE.: Why do you not include it in the vote for the expenses of the Railway Commission?


George Perry Graham: Counsel is named on behalf of the people to make investigation into special matters, such as the tariffs of the express companies and the telephone companies. This vote is for the expense of these inquiries. A question was raised in the House the other day, and it is one worthy of consideration later on, though perhaps we cannot do it this year, that is,

as to whether it would not he advisable to have in connection with the Railway Commission a permanent representative of the people who would appear in the public interest. I have not gone sufficiently into the matter to say whether that would be wise or not, but if such an appointment were made it ought largely to take the place of the purposes of this vote.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Robert Laird Borden: There is a great deal in what the hon. gentleman has just said. I was about to suggest the same thing myself. In fact, I took that ground last session or the session before. In Great Britain the law officers of the Crown consist of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, and they are actively engaged in the performance of their duties all the time. In this country, ever since I have been in parliament, the office of Solicitor General has been for the most part a complete absurdity. I have never known him to perform any public duty except to attend in the House of Commons and sometimes answer a question for the Minister of Justice. I do not agree with the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) that the Minister of Justice should perform any part of this work. He is at the head of a great department, the political and administrative work of which should occupy all his time. Nor do I think the Deputy Minister of Justice should undertake the task. He is a very busy man, with an enormous amount of work continually pressing him. As far as the Solicitor General is concerned, I have been trying for the last four of five years to find out what public duty he discharges, and I have not yet discovered it. If he is created and exists simply for political purposes, it is Mr. GRAHAM.
well we should know it; if he is created and exists for the purpose of performing any public duty, we should know that. There does not seem to be any good reason why he should not take charge of the interests of the country before the board of railway commissioners. Any man capable of filling the office of Solicitor General ought to be capable of doing that. I cannot understand why $10,000 should be taken out of the public exchequer to pay for the performance of duties which the Solicitor General ought to be able to perform and ought to perform: Before this vote is passed, I want to find out why the Solicitor General should not perform this important public duty instead of outside counsel.


Wilfrid Laurier: The office of Solicitor General is one which has been in existence, if I remember rightly, for over twenty years. It has been occupied by men of eminence, and my hon. friend will agree with, me that the office is made more or less useful according to the cnaracter of the occupant. The present occupant is a very-active gentleman as everybody knows. I do not know, however, that he hasl given attention to the class of subjects which come before the Railway Commission. The Solicitor General is chiefly engaged, I believe, in looking after the current business,, of the department. He has to look intjo all applications for pardon, tickets of leave, and similar matters which come before the Department of Justice. He has also to do some counsel work in attending before the courts and so on. I am not aware that the Solicitor General has ever attended before the Railway Commission. He may or may not have done so ; I do not know that he has. But I know that in many instances the Minister of Justice has thought it advisable to employ outside counsel. My hon. friend knows that legal work is very much specialized in these modern days. There are classes of lawyers known as corporation lawyers, railway lawyers, commercial lawyers. In the general administration of the law specialists are engaged for certain cases, and there are certain cases coming before the Railway Commission in which it is advisable to have legal ability that has been specially trained in railway matters, and I dare say that this is the class of cases for which the Minister of Justice has secured outside counsel.


Robert Laird Borden: I repeat that I would not expect the Minister of Justice to be able to give his time to duties of this character. He has a great deal of work in his department and very important political duties to perform. But the duties of the Solicitor General are relatively very light. I am very glad to hear of something that the Solicitor General really does. Before the right hon. gentleman spoke to-night I never could find out that he ever did anything. I understand now that he makes a prelimin-


IE 1908
[Stage Direction]
ary examination of the documents which have to be considered in cases of pardon. I do not know how much of his time that would take, but I do not suppose that it would take a very large portion of the year. I do not object to the employ-, ment of men who are specially capable of dealing with the particular questions that come before the Board of Railway Commissioners. I admit that that might be necessary in some cases ; hut I think that in the large majority of cases that come before the board the special services of such counsel would not be required. While legal work is becoming more or less specialized in this country, still the very ablest lawyers in any part of Canada engage in work of a very diversified character. I venture to say that the gentleman, whoever he may be, who is employed by the government in connection with cases before the Board of Railway Commissioners during the past year is one who practises in all the courts, whether in the first instance, on appeal at nisi prius, or otherwise ; and if he is able to do that, the Solicitor General,whose ability I am not depreciating in any way, should be able to do it also. In fact, it is because I believe the Solicitor General could attend to this work that I am urging on the government that he should be assigned to it. If he were assigned to it, there would be greater continuity in the system of the department. If he had not the requisite experience in the first instance, he would very soon acquire it. I think it is undesirable that so important an officer as the Solicitor General necessarily is under our system of government, occupying the position of one of the law officers of the Crown, should not be employed in work of this kind, instead of confiding it altogether to persons entirely outside of the departments of the government.
John Dowsley Reid: I quite understand that it would be unfair to expect the Minister of Justice to do all this work ; but I thought that he might be able to argue some special cases. I can quite understand, from what the leader of the opposition has said, that the Solocitor General could not be expected to do this work. But take a case such as this one, in which two men were employed-Mr. Shepley at $50 per day, and Mr. Buell, of Brockville, at $30 per day. I am not questioning the amount paid, but it strikes me that the Solicitor General would be able to fill the place of either one or the other. And if it were a case requiring an expert like Mr. Shepley, my hon. friend could have his assistance. Yet in every case before the Railway Commission, you will find two lawyers acting on behalf of the government. It seems to me that the Solicitor General should take up all these cases that are right here in Ottawa. There are cases before the Exchequer Court which he should argue, and I am quite satisfied he 329
would be capable of handling them. In the Justice Department, there are' officials to whom are assigned special duties, as the right hon. the First Minister has said. There is one who looks after these petitions for pardon and another who has another branch in his charge. These matters may have to pass to the Solicitor General and then to the deputy minister, but it does appear to me that for such work as the First Minister has described, mere office work, the men. of the department are well qualified. I think that the Solicitor General could be of valuable service to this country if in the future he would deal with these cases of the government before the Board of Railway Commissioners and engage outside assistance when necessary. But I do not think it is fair to the country that the office of the Solicitor General should be allowed to go on in the way it lias been going during the last few years.
I am not saying that the Solicitor General has not been doing sufficient work for the salary he gets', but there could be some change.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Judging by the way in which the Solicitor General is employed now, it would be quite reasonable to abolish the office. Not only before the Board of Railway Commissioners but in other cases in the Exchequer Court, we find that the Solicitor General, although quite competent to appear and defend our rights, is always replaced by some political friend of the government in the locality where the case originated. I have seen quite recently a marked instance of that. We bad some five or six bai'ges wintering in the Lachine canal they were injured in, the spring when the water was taken out of the canal in order to make repairs, and it seems to me that we were not responsible. These barges are allowed to winter in the canal and are supposed to be left in charge of some one who sees to their protection. At any rate they were slightly injured. It seems to me that the claimants for damages in these cases might have been induced to consent to a test case before the Exchequer Court. They were, however, as many cases taken out against the Crown as there were barges damaged, and it was not the Solicitor General, but a lawyer from Montreal, who appeared on behalf of the Crown. And if you look at the issue, because the Crown was condemned to pay damages, you will find that we paid more in costs than we did in damages. Those cases that come before the Exchequer Court are cases in which my hon. friend the Solicitor General, should appear, yet in very few cases in which a petition of right is allowed-in fact I venture to say none-does my hon. friend appear. Under the circumstances, we are paying a very considerable amount for that department; and if the principle laid down by my right hon. friend is right, if we re-



quire special lawyers for cases before the Railway Commission or in the Exchequer Court, we might as well do away with the salaries and expenses of the Solicitor General and his department? But what I wish particularly to call the attention of my hou. friend the Minister of Railways to is a matter to which I have already adverted some time ago this session and which the Minister of Railways promised to take into consideration. It is a matter of interest to us in the province of Quebec. While the secretary of the Board of Railway Commissioners is a very competent official, he does not understand French. A very considerable portion of the business of the board is transacted in the province of Quebec and a good deal of it in localities where the people are not as familiar with the English tongue as in the larger cities, and consequently, the necessity is frequently felt for a secretary who understands both languages. That has often been represented to my right hon. friend. I have not here the * Hansard,' but when the board was constituted, reference was made-1 think by myself-to the necessity of having a secretary who understood both languages, or at any rate a joint secretary who understood French. The expense of such a joint secretary is one which the House would be prepared to meet. The demand is a just one. I see that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has a Bill dealing with the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I do not know whether the question I am now raising could properly be raised in the discussion on that Bill ; but in any event I may not be here when that Bill comes up for its second reading and it may not be proceeded with this session. Let me refer my hon. friend to section 22 of the Railway Act :
There should be a secretary of the board, to be appointed by the Governor General in Council, who should hold office during pleasure and reside in the city of Ottawa.
That clause should be supplemented by some such enactment as this :
If the secretary appointed be not versed in the French and English languages, the Governor in Council should appoint a joint secretary having a thorough knowledge of the language in which the secretary appointed is deficient. Such joint secretary shall hold office during pleasure and reside in the city of Ottawa. His duties should be determined by the board according to section 23 of the Act, and his salary shall be the same as that of the secretary.
Even should there be no opportunity this session to amend the law in that sense, I think the government would still have the necessary power to appoint an assistant for the time being and thus give that relief to people in the nrovince of Quebec which has been claimed several times since the institution of the board.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: -
It is a reasonable request, it is a demand that seems to be necessitated by the fact that that tribunal has so much business to transact in Quebec. A great deal of that business is transacted by correspondence. Quite recently there was correspondence with the village of C6te des Neiges in connection with the Montreal Park and Island Railway. That correspondence had to be carried on in French. It was extremely delayed because the secretary of the board was not familiar with the language and a translator had to be resorted to. I myself had to translate at Cote des Neiges the communications coming from the boardi. Under all these circumstances the request I am making seems to me to be a reasonable one, and I would like to know whether the government have come to any conclusion in regard to the suggestion I made some time ago and which the minister promised to take into consideration?


Wilfrid Laurier: The request of my hon. friend is certainly reasonable and nobody would find fault with it, but I do not believe it is necessary, to reach the object we have in mind, to amend in any way the Act now in force. I confess I am surprised when I hear there is no one connected with the board at the present time to do the French correspondence. I know that Mr. Cartwright, the secretary, who is certainly a very valuable and most competent officer, is perhaps not sufficiently conversant with the French language to carry on the correspondence, but* I have been under the impression that Mr. Primeau, who is attached to the commissioners' office as registrar, had had attented to his office the duty of corresponding French secretary. I am under the same astonishment to hear now that those duties are not performed by anybody. My impression was, on the contrary, that whatever may have been the legal title of Mr. Primeau, part of his duty was to be corresponding French secretary, If that is not done, it ought to be done, and I hope the Minister of Railways will call attention to the fact.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say there was no one on the board or on the staff who could undertake to answer the French correspondence.


Wilfrid Laurier: I thought you did.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What I said was that the secretary, who is a very competent officer and who gives great satisfaction, is not himself conversant with the French language. The other officer referred to is the accountant and registrar, and there is also one of the commissioners whose language is the French language. What I think we have a right to claim is that if the secretary himself is not fully conversant with the French language there should be a joint secretary who, as secretary, could

carry on the large correspondence in French which is necessitated by the work of the board. I claim there should be a joint secretary in such a case as I have referred to, who would bear the title of secretary and who would have the functions and remuneration of a joint secretary. Of course when Mr. Cartwright finds correspondence from Quebec he can hand it over to the accountant for translation or Mr. Bernier could do the translation. But I think it is fair, the board being a Dominion board and having much business coming from the province of Quebec, that there should be a joint secretary knowing the French language who would receive the corespondence in French and attend to it immediately. Presumably Mr. Primeau is paid for his work as accountant and registrar. As a matter of fact, I think all his time is taken up in acting as accountant. I think he should be, and in fact it was understood when the board was organized he was to be a joint secretary. Mr. Primeau was a lawyer of several years' standing and I believe was appointed on the understanding that he would be French secretary. I think some competent accountant trained to that work should act as accountant and there should be a French secretary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For the benefit of those who ask what the Solicitor General does for his salarv. since he does not attend to any legal business, I might give a little information. A large share of his time. I understand, has been taken up in distributing circulars such as I have here. They are sent out from his department and are franked ' Jacques Bureau.' This circular is headed :
Great growth is manifest in all the departments.
R. R. Hall, M.P., for West Peterboro, in moving the address gives to the House gratifying and conclusive facts and figures as to Canada's trade.
Sir Wilfrid's merciless criticism of Tory platform.
Masterly analysis by Prime Minister.
Platform full of reservations, ifs and huts.
. Charges Borden with attempt to bribe British Columbia. Fielding's fighting speech; why Foster was unseated. Foster, the disciple of purity, after being unseated for bribery and corruption gave his criminal accomplice a fat job in New Brpnswick.


William Humphrey Bennett: Anything about Mac-Kay's last awful day ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, there is nothing about it. This has been going on, I am told, both summer and winter. I could understand it going on during the session, but I am referring to it in connection with the abuse of the franking privilege. As I understand the law. it is an abuse of the franking privilege for any minister of the Crown to frank those letters when the 329i
House is not in session, because what goes out from the department should be on the business of the country or connected with the official business of the country. Thus the Solicitor General is doing work which, no doubt, is regarded as very valuable ; it is of an educative character. Perhaps he is giving the country ample return for the large salary we vote him. As to his not appearing before the Board of Railway Commissioners, there are, of course, lawyers and lawyers. There are some who are corporation lawyers and some who are not.
I thought we might say of him, as our late friend Gourley said when the government appointed Mr. Fraser out of this House to the High Court bench ; he said they had always been blamed for filling these positions with lawyers, but, thank God, they could not say that this time. So with the Solicitor General. If he cannot go before the Board of Railway Comrnis.-sioners to attend a legal case, is he fit to be Solicitor General? What are the duties of his office? Is he a lawyer or not, and if not, why does he draw such a large salary for services to the country which are never rendered, so far as we know, except in doing some work like this, distributing letters to enlighten the people or. more properly speaking, to mislead the people of this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: I said more than that. My answer was that I was under the impression that the French correspondence was performed by Mr. Primeau, and I was surprised to hear my hon. friend say that it was not. Certainly, if Mr. Primeau is not allowed to perform the work which was entrusted to him, we should have a corresponding French secretary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say that Mr. Primeau did not perform that work, perhaps he does; I said he had been appointed as accountant and registrar. We have here a tribunal seized with cases from all over the province of Quebec, and from localities where they have to correspond directly with the secretary. We have a secretary, in other respects quite competent, but who does not understand that language. It seems to me a fair proposal that we should have a joint secretary, somebody who thoroughly understands the French language and can carry on French correspondence, without it being necessary to have recourse to other persons employed by the board. If the government do not feel inclined to adopt that view I would like to know it.


George Perry Graham: The real point is to see [DOT] that the work of the board of Railway Commissioners is done efficiently for all classes of the people. My own opinion is

that the correspondence received in French should be answered in French, and answered expeditiously. That being done, I imagine the object of my hon. friend would-be accomplished. I would not like to say just what condition you would create by appointing two secretaries. I am free to admit that it looks reasonable that we should have an assistant secretary with a portion of the board, when the secretary is with some other portion of the board. But the main object is to have the work done efficiently. I did hope to discuss this matter with the new chairman of the board.
I may say frankly that so far as I am personally concerned I intend to be largely guided by what he thinks are the necessities of the case, impressing upon him the fact that nothing must be left undone to make the work very efficient for all parts of Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am satisfied with the declaration of the hon. minister provided he follows it up. The suggestion has been made to me by a number of people residing far from Montreal. There has been a recent decision in the province of Quebec that it is not before our own courts that a farmer, for instance, must go if he wants a crossing. That is a recent decision in the district of Terrebonne, from which we must infer that a farmer who wants a crossing can no longer address himself to the ordinary tribunals of his province, but he must communicate either directly or through lawyers with the court. That opens up a very large field for correspondence, and if the party interested does not want to employ a lawyer and wishes to correspond directly with the board, he should be able to do so. Perhaps the accountant mentioned by my hon. friend might be named a joint secretary for the purposes of French correspondence, giving him a position which would not be equal to that of the regular secretary. But I think somebody ought to be appointed specially for that work. The present secretary should not have to rely upon such assistance- as he may get from other members of the board to translate letters and forward answers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I might remind my hon. friend that there is at present a member of the commission who is a French Canadian, the Hon. Mr. Bernier. I am informed that all the correspondence in French is forwarded to Mr. Bernier, who has his own secretary, and who answers according to the views of the board. As regards the sittings of the board in exclusively French districts, I may say to my hon. friend that not very long ago the board was called upon to sit in the county of Bonaventure. The sitting took place at Port Daniel, if I mistake, not, and was presided over by Mr. GRAHAM.
the Hon. Mr. Bernier, who was accompanied by his secretary. The proceedings were all in French and everybody was pleased with them. I do not say this to prevent the Minister of Railways from appointing an assistant secretary who would be the assistant of the whole board ; on the contrary, I think it would be wise on the part of the Board of Railway Commissioners to have a permanent assistant secretary. But I wish to remark that there is actually no complaint on that score against the board, because, as my hon. friend knows, Mr. Bernier is -a French Canadian, and a very able man too. There is no grievance on the part of our people in the province of Quebec in regard to the use of the French language before the board.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not pretend that there is any grievance in regard to the constitution of the board. But we are criticising the estimates, and when we find that we are paying large sums every year to gentlemen of the profession who represent the Crown before the Exchequer Court and before the Board of Railway Commissioners, a duty which naturally falls upon the Solicitor General, and when we find that his place is taken before the tribunals of the country in which the Crown is sued, by other lawyers, it seems the proper moment to claim that we should have a French secretary on the Board of Railway Commissioners. Mr. Cartwright may be able to translate the French language, and there may be others besides Mr. Primeau who can understand and translate it. But I go further, and I say that we should have a French secretary, in the province of Quebec we expect that all the clerks of courts shall understand both languages, because we are a mixed population. There are a great many matters brought before it and more particularly as these matters are brought before it by men who are lawyers by men who want a crossing, who want the assistance of the board and by municipalities, they prefer to write directly to the board. It seems to me the most reasonable thing in the world that one of the secretaries of that tribunal should be familiar with our language and I am satisfied from the assurance given by the minister that he will have the matter looked into. It is a matter that requires immediate attention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) raised another point, as regards the Exchequer Court, I am bound to say that it is not fair to criticise the present incumbent of the Exchequer Court as I have seen him criticised in some of the newspapers. As a matter of fact, the present incumbent, Mr. Justice Cassels, was born

in the city of Quebec, and, while he does not speak French fluently, he understands it and reads it thoroughly. I wish to say that in justice to Mr. Justice Cassels. No case that may be heard before Mr. Justice Cassels can suffer at his hands because he understands and reads French.. My hon. friend also referred to the position of the Solicitor General. As long as I occupied that position I always appeared, on behalf of the government, in the cases that were tried before the courts where my presence was necessary. But, I could not represent the government, as the present Solicitor General cannot, while the House was in session. The Solicitor General is at times obliged to be represented by other attorneys. There are some trivial cases in far away districts, in the Yukon, in British Columbia, in Prince Edward Island and in the maritime provinces, where it would be simply preposterous to think of sending the Solicitor General to represent the government. The cost would be exorbitant, the country would lose the large expenditure involved and the public interest would not be better served.	[DOT]
As regards the board of Railway Commissioners I quite agree with my hon. friend that the French element in the province of Quebec and in the other provinces are entitled to a fair hearing and a fair understanding before that board. I do not dispute at all the contention of my hon. friend that they should be placed upon a footing of equality. I believe that after the declaration made this evening by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals there will be no shadow of grievance in the future. . I contend that there have been no grievances in the past, but there will be none in the future-1 iam sure of that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) would have shortened the discussion if he had simply concurred in the suggestion I made that the government should look into this question. My hon. friend has spoken about Mr. Justice Cassels; I made no complaint whatever as regards Judge Cassels. He is perfectly satisfactory to us in the province of Quebec. What I did say was this-because I think my hon. friend the Postmaster General was absent at that moment-that if you were to take up the list of suits against the Crown during any given year and see what the defence of these suits has cost us through the employment of outside lawyers, you would find that the bill of expense has been very considerable indeed and you would wonder how it is that with a Solicitor General, to whom we pay $5,000 a year, and quite a staff in the department, we are not able, in the majority of cases, to see to the defence of the interests of the country without the employment of these outside lawyers. I, therefore, said that there is some extravagance in this. Well, if there is extra va-ganee in that the making of provision for a French secretary in the province of Quebec for the business that is to be transacted in French is a reasonable proposition; it is not an extravagant one. I do not make it in order to raise in any sense the question of religion or race. The matter has been brought to my notice seven or eight times during the past year and by a number of letters since the decision rendered in the district court in Terrebonne in a case which arose at iSt. Jerome where the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the ordinary courts of the province had no jurisdiction and that all requests for a farm crossing must be addressed directly to the Board of Railway Commissioners. I have made no complaint about Mr. Justice Cassels. I think that demand is a reasonable one and I wonder why the Postmaster General, who knows that such a demand exists in the district of Montreal, has not upheld it here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Which demand ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The demand for a French secretary where the secretary of the board is not fully conversant with both languages.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not against it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is my hon. friend in favour of it ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


Haughton Lennox: I refer to what the right hon. the First Minister said in inference to specializing. That argument carries us just a step too far and it might just as well point out where a dlfli-culty is likely to arise. When we appointed the railway board it was the understanding that we were appointing a nontechnical body, that we were appointing a body that would not incorporate all the technicalities of the old law courts, that we were appointing a court which would be the court of the farmer, the mechanic, the merchant and the every day man; and that the rules would be so framed as that almost any man might plead his own case. When the First Minister points out that it is necessary to have a special pleader, a man who has devoted himself to some special line-in this instance to railway law-and that therefore there might be an argument against the Solicitor General appearing and representing the people before that board, I want to call the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that we must guard against that board becoming so technical by rules or procedure as that any ordinary man cannot effectively plead his own case. The argument in the main of the First Minister is an argument that we should work against. We must endeavour to have that board frame such rules as that the farmer or business man, who is affected by a railway

crossing or some other interest before the board, can come and effectively plead his case and that the rules of procedure shall be so plain and so free from technicality that there will be no difficulty in that respect. Parliament had that in view when it framed section 56 which provides that if it shall happen that the rules and regulations of the board are for any reason undesirable, the Governor iD Council can annul or modify these rules and regulations as he sees fit. As a matter of fact, at the present time, I do not think any great difficulty has arisen in that respect. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who are not lawyers have appeared before that board and presented their case. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Coek-shutt) did so, I know, very effectively and with great success and other hon. gentlemen have appeared as well. There is no reason why, in the majority of cases, the Solicitor General should not be the person to appear on behalf of the public in prosecuting the Interests of the party who is affected by the matter pending. If the Solicitor General devoted himself to a considerable extent to the practice of advancing the interests of the public in that way he would become a specialist himself. But, I have confidence in the Solicitor General's ability and I feel there is no difficulty in that regard. I feel very strongly that there is an opportunity for the Solicitor General to take on himself a greater part of the duties than he now discharges. It would be an advantage to the public that he should do so and it would be a justification for having a Solicitor General.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: On the 22nd of May I called the attention of the minister to the fact that the trade for Prince Rupert and the Grand Trunk Pacific was done through the port of Seattle to the detriment of the Canadian port of Vancouver. The minister treated my remarks on that occasion In a rather discourteous manner and he blamed it on the Conservatives because they would not allow the Yukon Railway to be built. I do not suppose the minister wants to open up that discussion nor does he want me to show the absurdity of the proposition of the government to give away millions of acres of land in that western country for the building of that road. Perhaps the hon. members from British Columbia would now stand up for the trade of their city and urge on the government the necessity of doing something to prevent it going to American ports. I should think it is the duty of the Minister of Railways to bring this question before the Railway Commission so that they may take steps to remedy the evil. The minister knows that not only the Vancouver Board of Trade petitioned him with respect to this matter, but that the Canadian Pacific Railway has also brought it to his attention.


Haughton Lennox: 


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I would point out to the hon. member that his remarks are not relevant to the item before the House.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This is a vote for the Railway Commission and I have urged the minister to bring the matter to the attention of that commission, but he has treated my representations in a very light manner indeed. I cannot help thinking that lie is neglecting his duty in this respect. On a former occasion I read articles from newspapers published in Vancouver referring to this question, and only to-day I received another Vancouver newspaper stating that it was the duty of the representatives from the province of British Columbia to stand by the rights of that province, and to see that the trade for the north went out of the port of Vancouver rather than out of Seattle. It is a question of vital importance not only to western Canada but to eastern Canada as well. The money of the people is going into the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and instead of that money being spent in Canada it is going to the United States.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) has spread his covering wings around this great country ; every down trodden part of the Dominion has been gathered by him under his special care, and of course he has not forgotten the province of British Columbia. It is amusing to hear the hon. gentleman cry out for the port of Vancouver when the party with which he is allied acted as destroying angels to that port and as benefactors to the cities of Seattle and Tacoma when they killed the Bill to construct the Teslin Lake and Telegraph Creek Railway. But the hon. gentelman should read a little of the history of the province of British Columbia before he engages in his self-imposed task ; he should cast the beam out of his own eye before he regards the mote in his brother's eye.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. gentleman object to my urging on the government the necessity of trying to get the freight and passenger traffic for the city of Vancouver ?


Robert George Macpherson: Not at all. I am delighted to have the splendid help of the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) for without his valuable aid we would be poor indeed. With his assistance there is no danger that we will not make port, because if the wind does not carry us we have got the hon. gentleman as an auxiliary steam engine to come to our rescue. But I want to tell the hon. gentleman that he is very wide of the mark when he says that large supplies for Prince Rupert are being bought in Seattle and Tacoma and other Amex'ican cities. Stewart & Larsen have the contract for the Grand Trunk Pacific for two hundred miles from the coast, and Mr. Stewart is a

Canadian operating a Canadian company and buying his supplies in the coast cities of British Columbia. Now, that is very different from what was done when the political party of my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) was in power, and when the Conservative Senate drove the people to buy supplies in American cities instead of in Canadian cities. He states he has a newspaper from Vancouver which says that large supplies for Prince Rupert are being bought in American cities, but I want to tell him that there is no more reliance to be placed upon that newspaper statement than there is to be placed in his own statement, although of course in making this erroneous statement he may have been misled. I am as desirous as anybody could possibly be that all supplies for the north should be bought in Vancouver, but I may tell the hon. gentleman that this is a matter with which the Railway Commission has nothing to do. It is a question of the abrogation of the order in council respecting the coasting (laws. If (he order ini council stopping American boats from coming into a Canadian port and loading to another Canadian port is to be abrogated, that is a matter for the government. But let me inform the hon. gentleman that there is by no means an undivided opinion in British Columbia or in the city of Vancouver as to the advisability of that. No later than last week I received a unanimous resolution from the Vancouver Ship Masters' Association composed of ICO ship masters who are good,Canadian citizens plying out of our ports, asking that I should use all possible effort to see that this order in council should not be repealed. I do not say that I am fully in accord with that. The city of Vancouver is not suffering at present. It did suffer for many years ; but it overcame the blighting aegis of the hon. gentleman's party. If for those nine million acres of land we had built that road, we would have had to-day a city of Vancouver 250,000 people, as Seattle has, which was built up by the short sighted policy of our good friends opposite.


George Perry Graham: Could I ask the committee to come back to where we were, to see if I can get a few items of these estimates through ?
Subscription to International Congress at Brussels, $97.33.


George Perry Graham: That is an annual vote.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I thought the Minister of Railways was going to reply to the remarks I made. I certainly do not agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver. He must know that the board of trade of that city sent their request to this government, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway have been agitating the question, as well as a large number
of the people of that province, and I am surprised at the stand he takes, in this regard.
I know the position the hon. gentleman took some years ago when the Conservative party were building the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Robert George Macpherson: I was in swaddling clothes then.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He will perhaps remember the position he took in 1903 regarding the building of the Transcontinental Railway. However, I think the minister should make some statement in connection with the matter.


George Perry Graham: The question takes up such a wide range that I do not wish to be led into a discussion of it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am afraid the minister widened it the other day.


George Perry Graham: In reply to a question that opened the door, I just pushed it open a little wider. The question of the coasting privilege is a large question, but it has nothing to do with the Railway Department. I suppose the Canadian Pacific carries eighty per cent of the traffic to British Columbia. With regard to the interchange of freight between the Grand Trunk and the Great Northern, I do not see how the Railway Commission could govern that. A man routes his freight by a certain line, and while we are all anxious that Canadian products should be carried by Canadian railways, I do not see any practical way of making people do it if they are inclined to do something else. As a matter of fact, this freight is sent in by the contractors instead of by the Grand Trunk Pacific Company. I imagine that the rails will go largely by water.
Mr. -SAM. HUGHES. Where will the rails be manufactured ?


George Perry Graham: They will be manufactured largely in this country.


Samuel Hughes: How would they go by water-around Cape Horn ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As far as the supplies are concerned, practically everything going up there is being purchased in the United States.
Remuneration to A. Brunet, government director, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, $2,000.


Robert Laird Borden: W'hat does he do ?


George Perry Graham: He is a member of the board of the Grand Trunk Pacific representing the government.


Robert Laird Borden: I know he is, but
what does he do ?


George Perry Graham: The usual duties of a director.


Robert Laird Borden: Does tlie board ever meet ?


George Perry Graham: I think it has regular meetings.


Robert Laird Borden: Where ?


George Perry Graham: I think it meets in Montreal.


Uriah Wilson: Does this repre sentative of the government ever make a special report to the government as to what is going on in that board ?


George Perry Graham: I could not say that he makes any special report. He consults with the government on various questions arising in which the government is interested. Of course, the general report of the board of directors is public property.


Uriah Wilson: He ought to be instructed by the government as to what course he should pursue on certain matters and he ought to report to the government as to the course pursued.


George Perry Graham: I imagine that he would not make a separate report as a director ; but he consults the government as to the position to be taken on any matter in which the government is interested that comes before the board ; but he iloes not make a separate report to the government.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that was the purpose of his appointment to the board. He is not there to represent the shareholders of the company. He is there for the sole and express purpose of protecting the interests of the country, and therefore I should think that it would be not only-proper but necessary that he should make reports to the government, as suggested by the hon. member for Lennox. I would like to know whether he does make any report or do anything at all? How many meetings of the board has he attended the past year? When did he attend a meeting last ?


George Perry Graham: We know that he does attend the board meetings and confers with the department on matters which come up before the board. The deputy informs me that he confers with him on matters before the board concerning the country's interests. He has never made any special report, and perhaps it might be wise for him to make a report from time to time.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it would. Could the minister give the committee information of any valuable advice he has given the government since he was appointed director.


Mr. L. G. MCCARTHY.: At the time the Act was going through it was pointed out that, in the event of a deadlock or any difficulty between the government and the company, we could get inside information by iMr. GRAHAM.
having a representative of the board. It was rather to act in that capacity that he was appointed than to report from time to time what the board was doing. That is my recollection.


Haughton Lennox: Well, we have a deadlock on now. This gentleman was appointed to represent the interests of Canada and to report how things were going on. There appears to have been a considerable deadlock between the Railway Commission and the Grand Trunk Pacific as regards classification. Perhaps the minister would inform the House what report this director made on that matter.


George Perry Graham: That matter of classification is not in dispute between the board of directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Railway Commissioners. That is a matter of engineering, for the settlement of which the Act distinctly provides. The Act provides that the Chief Justice of Canada shall appoint a third man, should the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific and tile engineer of the Transcontinental fail to agree, and the third man shall decide the difference. It is not a matter which the board of directors shall decide. And if any acute difference should arise between the Railway Commission and the board of directors as to the interpretation of a contract or the classification, that might be reported to the department, but the director has not reported that any such thing exists.


Haughton Lennox: Just that difficulty has arisen-a difference of interpretation of a contract and specification. It is idle for the minister to say that it is a difficulty confined to the engineers on the one side and the other. The engineer of the Railway Commission report to that commission and the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific report to that company, and the railway commissioners and the company's directors are the parties who see to the adjustment of that difficulty. That difficulty exists and probably many more. The minister intimates that our director has not called the attention of the department to this question at all. But he certainly should have called the attention of the minister to this difficulty. Yet the minister cannot recall that our director has done anything. He does not even know that there has been any board meetings or that our director has attended any. He cannot tell us anything that has actually occurred, and so we do not really know what we are getting in return for this $2,000, if we are getting anything. One hundred dollars a day would not be a bad compensation for a director to sit on a railway board, and there is nothing to Indicate that there were even ten meetings of the board. The minister cannot tell us. It is high time we should know what this gentleman is doing and have a report from him so as to judge

whether he is really doing anything of any value to the country.


Uriah Wilson: If this gentleman is only an ordinary director, why should he not be paid by the railway company? But if he is our special director he should report from time to time to the government and his report should be laid on the table. It appears, from what the minister has said, that the company pays his salary while the company pays the salaries of the other directors.


George Perry Graham: To make it clear let me quote section 43 of the National Transcontinental Railway Act :
During the time of the said lease, so long as the government assumes liability for any portion of the bonds issued by the company, the government shall have the right to appoint one director. Such director shall not receive any remuneration from the company but be paid a salary by the government, not to exceed $2,000.
Mr. URIAH WILSON*. How much money has he drawn?


George Perry Graham: $2,000 a year since he was appointed. This is the second year.


Uriah Wilson: Doing nothing.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend should not say ' doing nothing.' If my hon. friend were on the board of directors of the Grand Trunk Pacific he might find some hard work to do.


Uriah Wilson: But the minister has told us he knows nothing about it. He knows nothing about the board meetings.


George Perry Graham: Neither does my hon. friend.


Uriah Wilson: But I'm not getting $7,000 a year from the country.


George Perry Graham: Since neither of us know anything, neither of us should say that this man is doing nothing for his money.


Uriah Wilson: I am only saying what the minister said.


George Perry Graham: No, I said that this man did attend meetings of the board?


Uriah Wilson: When ?


George Perry Graham: I cannot give you the dates. The board holds meetings in Montreal and Mr. Brunet represents the government at these meetings. What I do say is that up to date he has never made any written report to the government.


John Graham Haggart: Has he verbally reported ?


George Perry Graham: He has discussed time and again matters coming before the board, with the deputy-minister of the department.
If it is thought better to have a written report that could be easily arranged because under the Act we are entitled to that protection. We must insist on having a representative on the board because if nothing has arisen yet demanding his services, as between the government and the board, something might arise at any time.


Robert Laird Borden: Has he ever brought up the question of classification ?


George Perry Graham: That has not arisen so as to be a distinct issue between the company and the Railway Commission. It is a question that is provided for in the Act.


Robert Laird Borden: He apparently has not brought it up according to the minister, and it is not so simple as the minister would have us understand. It might work out that the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway would cost the country $150,000,000 and that we would be unable to charge the Grand Trunk Pacific a rental for more than $120,000,000. Therefore it is a very important question. Of course provision is made for arbitration as between the country and the Grand Trunk Pacific, but that arbitration would not in any way bind the contractors, as I understand the provisions of the statute. Therefore the country might find itself in the very unfortunate position I allude to. If it were worth while having a director on that board surely he should be a director who would find out what was going on, who would know that the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific and its directors also have been objecting to the classification if as is rumoured that is the case. So, while there is no objection to the appointment of this gentleman, and indeed his appointment or the appointment of some person is made absolutely necessary by the statute, we would not care to have him act as a mere figurehead, performing no other duty than drawing $2,000 a year from the public treasury of this country. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to send a telegram and find out just how often, within the last twelve months the board met, how many meetings this gentleman has attended and how long each of these meetings has lasted. Then we could ascertain the value of the services of this gentleman per hour. We could let the item pass in the meantime and the minister could give this information later.


Haughton Lennox: Who is this gentleman and what was his occupation ?


George Perry Graham: He was formerly general manager of I.a Banque Nationale, Montreal. Then I am informed he was on the construction commission of the National Transcontinental Railway.


Haughton Lennox: Has the minister ever met our director and had a conference with him ?


George Perry Graham: The communications and discussions have been with the deputy and chief engineer who is practical on these questions, more practical than my hon. friend and myself.


Haughton Lennox: I am a little practical myself and look at this in a practical way. I would have expected that, when we have a director and have been committed to this scheme for nearly five years, there would have been repeated conferences and consultations between the minister and our representative on the board as to the line of policy that would be advocated and would be, as far as possible, carried out by our director. I would have imagined that gentleman would have referred to the minister from time to time and that they would have put their heads together to protect the people as far as possible In the construction of this railway against possible invasion of their rights by the Grand Trunk Pacific. I do not think it would have been improper to have anticipated that that might be necessary. I think the country will learn with surprise that although five years have elapsed there is no reason to believe that any Minister of Railways has had a conference at any time with our director upon this railway board, and that we are to-day, at the end of five years, without a line from this gentleman except possibly an application from time to time for his cheque; that the conferences and correspondence Rave been between this gentleman and the deputy,-and when I say that I speak with the greatest respect which X actually entertain for the deputy minister. I repeat that the actual living head of the institution, the minister, is the primary person to consult, and we now have it on record that not a word has passed, written or verbal, between the Minister of Railways and [DOT]our representative on this board.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I believe my hon. .friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) is quite right in trying to find out the work done by Mr. Brunet for the money he receives ; Rut I wish to say that I know Mr. Brunet very well, he is a wealthy man to whom $2,000 a year does not amount to much. He has been a real estate man in Montreal for years has been manager of the Banque Na-tionale and was one of the commissioners -of the Transcontinental Commission. He is very wrell qualified to act as director if he does so. The government could not have a better man for the position of course with the condition suggested by my hon. friend that he does something. I know :him to lie a very honourable man, and-


George Perry Graham: 


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend will understand I am not speaking about Mr. Bru net but about the singular attitude of the government in this matter.
Mr. BERGERON1. I heard some one ask who he was, and I thought it my duty to say that he is a very honourable man and a good man for the position.


John Graham Haggart: Do I understand that the minister has received no formal communication from Mr. Brunet informing the Department of Railways that the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers take a different view of the classification from that of the government engineers ?


George Perry Graham: I have no communication. I am speaking for myself, for no other member of the government. I have had no such verbal communication. Mr. Brunet may have had many interviews with the Railway Commission which represents the government.


Samuel Hughes: Is this officer the servant of the minister or the servant of the Railway Commission ?


George Perry Graham: He represents the government on the board of directors.


Samuel Hughes: To whom does he report ?


George Perry Graham: Probably he should report to the minister. There Is no difference as to the specifications, that is arranged for between the commission and the board, and agreed to by both parties. The only difference is as to whether the specifications are being lived up to. The point is as to whether the engineers are interpreting the specifications properly and compelling the contractors to live up to them.


Haughton Lennox: It is more than that, it is also the question whether the men who are carrying out the work are honestly classifying it or not.


George Perry Graham: That is what. I said, whether they are obeying the specifications and interpreting them properly. My hon. friend should not say ' honestly or dishonestly.' The one thing I always try to do Is to be careful not to impute dishonesty to any person. It is a fair presumption that the great majority of mankind are as honest as we are. The Act provides for just what has arisen between the engineers when they may have a difference as to the interpretation of the specifications; the Act provides that if the chief engineer of the Railway Commission and the chief engineer of the company cannot agree, then the Chief Justice shall appoint a third man and the majority shall decide, which means of course this third man. But the third man is not I appointed until the engineers fail to agree.
.0385

It is not at all fair to imply that there is any dishonesty in the engineers on either side. They may both be perfectly honest and still disagree as to the interpretation.


John Graham Haggart: That would not apply as to the classification.


George Perry Graham: Whether the classification or the specification, where the engineers cannot agree, the Act provides that the Chief Justice shall appoint a third man.
iMr. HAGGART. I know Mr. Brunet perfectly well, and as my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) says, he is a very capable and honest man, and anything he undertakes I should judge he will do It faithfully and honestly. But I have not had an answer to my question. I did not ask the Minister of Railways whether he had any verbal or written communication with Mr. Brunet on any subject with reference to the road; I asked whether the deputy head had had any verbal communication as to the differences between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the government in reference to specifications or classification.


George Perry Graham: Nothing of the kind from Mr. Brunet.


Mr. CROCKET.: In regard to this question of classification, was there a disagreement between the engineer of the Railway Commission and the engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


George Perry Graham: Such a disagreement has never yet been reported to the department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understood that the chief engineers agreed, and that the disagreement really occurred between the engineers and the Transcontinental Railway commissioners.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend is entirely mistaken.
Maintenance and operation of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, $90,006.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What does that include?


George Perry Graham: It includes the staff not provided for by statute. The members of the commission themselves and the secretary are appointed under the statute. The other items are made up by the chief engineer, two assistants, electrician, clerk, traffic officer, law clerk, inspectors, private secretary of the chief commissioner, stenographers, and various other officers. There is a Bill before the House for the development of the commission. This provides for the payment of all the officials they may employ as the board is at present constituted. When that Bill goes through the Senate we will have to ask a supplementary estimate for the payment of the three additional commissioners. After consultation with the chairman I may have to ask for an additional amount for an enlarged staff, and if
the chairman of the reorganized board convinces me that he needs money on account of the enlargement of the staff and additional salaries, I shall have to ask for a supplementary estimate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the commission are empowered to employ railway experts to assist them. Would that include the employment of legal gentlemen, outside lawyers to go before that commission ?


George Perry Graham: A legal representative would appear before the commission rather as a representative of the people than of the commission. I do not feel like asking the House to appoint such an officer at the present time. I want, if possible, to make no mistake in that connection. I understand that such an officer is employed on the staffs of some of the commissions in the United iStates. I am told that in many cases the state attorney takes the case for the people. I want to look into that matter and find out what is the best practice, because, as a matter of fact, railway commissions are comparatively recent organizations. Our Railway Commission has wider powers than any of the commissions appointed anywhere else. I am very anxious that we should do the right thing with reference to the people being represented by counsel. I would rather not go as far as to say that we would appoint a legal representative on that commission. I want to investigate other commissions and see how they got on and if that is the best method. If I find it is and if I am here in a year I propose to do it. But, the commission is only in an experimental stage.


John Graham Haggart: Have you a report from the Railway Commissioners ?


George Perry Graham: I submitted a report earlier in the session from the Railway Commissioners showing the whole work. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) made a statement that I fully endorse and that is that we do not want this commission to transform itself into an ordinary law court. It was to get rid of the technicalities of the law courts that the commission was appointed. My idea is that the Railway Commission should be a board for the ready and speedy adjustment of differences so that any man from any where might place his case before that board and reach an adjustment of whatever grievance he may have. There are many cases that come before the commission which are very technical and it is necessary to have men of legal training on the commission. There are very delicate questions of law as between railway companies themselves, as to the interpretation of certain statutes and as to what their rights may be. But, I am in full accord with the idea that what we want is not so much law as a quick settlement of disputes upon a business basis,

always keeping within the law. But, as a sample of the way the board is constituted, I would refer to a decision given the other day which shows that the members of the board themselves share the view which I have expressed. My hon. friend from South Simcoe noticed the other day that in Toronto there was a long, quite technical and highly legal argument before the Railway Commissioners as to the authority of the board to deal with the viaduct question in that city. The mayor of Toronto waited upon me and asked me to amend the law so that the board would have that power. Though not knowing much about law myself, I told him that 1 was assured that this board had the power to do almost anything with railways. A great many people think that we have given them too much power but, if we adopt the amendments which are before the House, the Railway Commission will have power to do almost anything that any person can conceive of with reference to railways. The chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, after hearing these legal gentlemen present their argument, pointed out that possibly, if this were a law court, the arguments would carry more weight and that from a strictly technical standpoint it might be that the commission had not the right, but this not being a law court, but being a tribunal established for the settlement of differences, he gave judgment that the Board of Railway Commissioners had the right to deal with the question. It has accomplished what I think it was intended to accomplish, and if it had power to deal with such a question there is no doubt that it has power to deal with almost anything that concerns railways.


John Graham Haggart: The judgment of the chairman of the Railway Commission may be perfectly right, but the reasons assigned are extraordinary ones if he held that he might not have the strict legal right but that he had a moral right as head of the Railway Commission to do it. I thought that all the rights of the commission were strictly legal and statutory and that they were not moral rights.


George Perry Graham: They are statutory rights, but if he had followed what I call technicalities closely he might have given a decision the other way. He did not do that, but he held that although he might, technically speaking, if it were in a court of law, not have the power-possibly he did not use the language which I have described- the commissioners as a matter of fact had the power.


John Graham Haggart: The judge never gave such a decision as that. He never laid down the doctrine that he had not the statutory right to deal with that question but that he took the power for the purpose of doing it; there must have been some other Mr. GRAHAM.
reason than those assigned by the Minister of Railways and Canals.


Haughton Lennox: The fact is anyway that the judge did decide that he had jurisdiction. It is very fortunate that he had that jurisdiction and if he had not I have no doubt that the minister would have clothed him with authority during the present session. I have not read the decision fully, but I presume that the judge pointed out that as that was essentially the object of the law he had no doubt that they had the legal jurisdiction to deal with the question. Does this item of $90,000 cover the salaries of the commissioners ? *


George Perry Graham: No, the salaries are statutory.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know whether the minister would feel disposed while we are ou this item, to indicate the class of men that he proposes to appoint on this commission. It is a very important question and the opposition are quite willing at any time to give him some advice ou the question.


George Perry Graham: At the present time I cannot make any other statement than I did when the Bill was before the House. It may not get through the Senate. When we bring down the supplementary estimates for the salaries of the three commissioners the question will be up for discussion. We want to get men who will do the business properly and it does not matter what position they hold now.


Haughton Lennox: I infer that the minister will not make the appointment in the meantime.


George Perry Graham: Not until the Bill passes.


Haughton Lennox: I mean before he brings down the supplementary estimates. We can discuss it with the minister and give him some advice as to what we think would be proper appointments.


George Perry Graham: I am always glad to get advice from my hon. friends. No doubt the supplementary estimates will be brought down before these appointments are made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to revert to the question of the employment of lawyers in connection with the work before the Railway Commission, If we are to continue to have a Solicitor General who is only an artificial employee and who cannot attend to the legal work, and if we are to continue employing lawyers from time to time for each specific case I would say that we would give the country better service at less cost by appointing a lawyer for the purpose of doing this wo lie year after year. I think every one who looks through the Auditor General's Report and sees what legal expenses have cost ns in individual cases will agree that it would be much

cheaper to hire a man and give him a salary to attend to these cases. It might perhaps give it too much the appearance of a legal court but. there are questions of law involved where lawyers would be employed, and I think it would be cheaper to employ one for a year than to employ a dozen of them at different times and give perhaps $1,000 or $2,000 to each. When the lawyers are working for the government they do not do much before they have rolled up a bill for $1,000. The minister should give some assurance that the Solicitor General will be employed in a portion of this work or that some definite system will be followed in future.


George Perry Graham: It is only fair to the Solicitor General to say that he has attended to many cases for the Railway Department during the past year. The Justice Department selects the counsel and we are not particular so long as he is a man who can defend our case.


George Taylor: And the right kind of politics.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Solicitor General should give the country something in return for his salary.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much does the minister expect the appointment of additional commissioners will cost ?


George Perry Graham: The commission appoints the officers and I could not answer that question until I have had a discussion with the chief commissioner.


John Graham Haggart: Was there more than the $90,000 expended last year ?


George Perry Graham: I think we made them keep within their appropriation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it cover travelling expenses and all ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: I suppose these commissioners will have their secretaries, but it will not anything like duplicate the staff.


George Perry Graham: If the commission were divided into three parts it would Increase the expense for reporting and that kind of thing but it would not increase the expense proportionately.


Haughton Lennox: I hope the dividing up of the commission will not result in the multiplication of private cars.


George Perry Graham: Official cars.


Haughton Lennox: It would be a serious matter if we had to get additional cars for these new commissioners. What is the policy of the minister as regards that ?


George Perry Graham: That policy has not struck me yet. There is no doubt in the world that if they have to do business expeditiously they will have to make the car their office and carry their staff with them. It would probably be cheaper to do their work in the car as they go along, particularly as nothing is charged for hauling the car, than it would be to move the staff by the ordinary transportation. One great advantage of an official car is that your correspondence can follow you and you can keep up with your work-just as well as if you were in your own office.


Haughton Lennox: I am afraid that means we are going to have another private car. It would not be necessary for these gentlemen to be travelling in different directions at the same time as one portion of the board could be sitting in Ottawa. If the present official car were kept working overtime we could do without getting another one, and these gentlemen might be able to borrow some of the other private cars occasionally. I hope the minister will not inflict another official car on the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you (divide the commission into three bodies they would want more than one car because one section would not ride in an ordinary conveyance while the other section had a private car.
Inspection, Grand Trunk Pacific, $28,000.


Haughton Lennox: This is the first time we have had this appropriation and the Minister of Railways might give us a satisfactory and elaborate explanation such as the Minister of Agriculture always gives.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Give me a chance to get on with my estimates and I will be brief.


George Perry Graham: We have an engineering staff to look after the Grand Trunk Pacific and probably some additions will have to be made to that staff.


Haughton Lennox: When will these gentlemen start to work and what are their duties ?


George Perry Graham: There are four or five at work now and as the Grand Trunk Pacific extends through the mountains, others will have to be appointed.


Samuel Hughes: How far has the Grand Trunk Pacific gone now ?


George Perry Graham: I will produce all that information when we come to the Transcontinental Railway vote. It is very important and I want to give the House all the information I can. I would like to be exact about it and I would prefer to give the information all at one time.


Samuel Hughes: Who is making the suvey-the Grand Trunk Pacific Company or the government ?


George Perry Graham: The Grand Trunk Pacific makes it, but our engineer checks it.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHE'S. The statement is made that all the officers of the Grand Trunk Pacific are United States citizens, and that there is no chance of a Canadian getting any service on that railway. Has the minister anything to say about that ?


George Perry Graham: That refers to the company part of the work. I am told that the company has a large number of American citizens on its staff ; I think the majority are Americans. I would like very much if we could induce the company to employ our own men ; but I do not know how we could compel them to do so. Until comparatively recent years we have not been in a position to provide a great number of engineers, though we have had in Canada some of the best engineers in the world. This is a question which I intend to discuss quite freely with the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.


Samuel Hughes: Our young men go to the United States and get the very best positions there.


George Perry Graham: I will endeavour to have a heart-to-heart talk with the president of the company in reference to that matter, because I am as anxious as any one can be that Canadians should be employed.


George Taylor: If I am not mistaken, this question came up when the contract was made, and provision was made in it for the employment of Canadians ; and yet the minister Is allowing the company to employ all the Yankees they require.


Samuel Hughes: Does the government, which guarantees the bonds of this road to a certain extent, have anything to do with selecting the route ? In other words, when the plans are submitted, does the government send its engineers to inspect it and to see that the best route attainable is selected ?


George Perry Graham: We have a government engineer overlooking the route all the time, examining the 01-0files and also examining the country. The government approves the route before it is settled. As we are guaranteeing the bonds by the mile, we want to get the shortest route possible so long as the standard of the road is kept up.


Samuel Hughes: It is a question what is the shortest route. The Grand Trunk Pacific, from the time it crosses the South Saskatchewan river until it reaches the Beaver Hiils, does not take the shortest route. On a map it would seem to be the shortest route, but it is not, because of its numerous curves. If the southern route had been selected it would have gone through a better country and would have had perhaps as Short a mileage, and it would not have paralleled the Canadian Pacific for a long distance. Is there a government en-Mr. GRAHAM.
gineer with each party or does he go over each route ?


George Perry Graham: He goes over each route. I do not think there is one with each party.


John Graham Haggart: If I understand rightly, the company do not go on building the road at all until the route is approved of by the department. You enter into a contract in reference to the construction of it, do you not ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Will this amount be charged to the Grand Trunk Pacific? Why should we pay it ? Is it not as much an expenditure for the purpose of building the road as any other expenditure ?


George Perry Graham: The inspection is not for the company, but for our own protection in guaranteeing the bonds. That is the reason we pay it, I imagine.


John Graham Haggart: Why should it not be charged to the company ?


Samuel Hughes: In considering the 75 per cent of the cost of the mountain section, the government, I presume, considers the purchase of rails, the transport of rails and the purchase of supplies of all kinds, and sees that there is no rake-off or crooked work ?


George Perry Graham: Every account of the company is audited thoroughly.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the government an inspector at Prince Rupert, and, if so, does he make a report, and how often ?


George Perry Graham: The government has an inspector at Prince Rupert, and he reports, I think monthly, and oftener if necessary, directly to our engineer, Mr. Schreiber.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a previous item of $18,000 which I understood was appropriated for the purpose of inspecting the Grand Trunk Pacific. Why is there this additional item, and what different purpose does it serve ?


George Perry Graham: The inspection of last year was paid out of the other item, but it was not as much as it will be this year. From time immemorial there has been an item for inspection for subsidy purposes. Last year we had not this 'specific item : but my idea and the idea of the department is that it is better to take a specific vote for the specific purpose of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understood that the minister this afternoon justified the increase of that item upon the ground that an additional amount would be needed for the inspection of the western division of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is justified to a certain extent in taking that view of the discussion. 1 took the Auditor General's Report and pointed out how the item was made up last year and am not surprised that the impression was left on my hon. friend's mind which he had expressed. That item which we passed is one which is put in the estimates regularly every year. Some years we may use the whole amount and others less. The full amount was not used last year, but it may be this year. In the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific, we agree there ought to be a specific amount for the specific purpose because in years to come we may require to add that amount to the cost.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend said that he would later on make a statement regarding the National Transcontinental Railway. I would like to ask for certain information; and if he cannot give it tonight, he might prepare to give it later on. The return already brought down gives the estimated cost at $63,437 per mile for 1,803-55 miles from Moncton to Winnipeg. That excludes the Quebec bridge. In reply to a question the minister also informed me that the sum referred to includes the cost of terminal yards, station houses, engine houses, turn-tables, water tanks and all buildings and construction necessary for the effective operation of the road. It does not include the terminals at Winnipeg, iu regard to which there is an agreement among the various railways interested. Nor does it include the shops east of Winnipeg or the terminals at Quebec, plans of which have not yet been made. I do not understand that the estimate of $63,437 per mile takes into consideration the interest charges, but I do not know whether it does or not. In discussing the cost of this road in the sessions of 1903 and 1904, we took a certain estimated actual cost per mile of the road, and we estimated the length of time which would be occupied in construction. Prom that we made up the interest charge to be added to the actual cost of construction, and the two would represent the total cost at completion. I would like to know therefore what is the present estimate of the length of time to be occupied in the construction of this road. I would like to know also the approximate rate of interest to be paid upon the money which will have to be borrowed for that purpose. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways may be obliged to seek the assistance of the Finance Minister, but I think that the information I ask is reasonably required for the purpose of the discussion which will take place when the minister makes his statement. I would like the minister to give me the estimated rate of interest which we shall have to pay on the cost of the road during the period of seven years after its completion, in which period the Grand Trunk Pacific will pay no
rental. The same remark will apply to the three further years during which the Grand Trunk Pacific will pay no rental if the net earnings are not sufficient. I would like also to ascertain the exact amount of the liabilities of the country in connection with the Quebec bridge up to this date as well as the approximate estimate of the cost of the rebuilding of that bridge. I ask that, inasmuch as the bridge is a necessary part of the system.


Samuel Hughes: That would include the cost of moving the bridge.


Robert Laird Borden: Include everything. I would like the minister to give an approximate statement of the cost of our share of the terminals at Winnipeg, also the cost of the terminals at Quebec and at Moncton, should any terminals be necessary at the latter place. Also the cost of any of the items mentioned in the minister's answer which I have just read, or of any other structures which will be essential to the effective operation of the road and which are not included in the estimate of $63,437 per mile.	,	,	.. ,
The minister will also remember that under the provisions of the contract the country is to guarantee bonds to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost of the mountain section. I would like to get a statement of the total length of the mountain division and its estimated cost and in that connection the estimated amount of the bond issue which will be guaranteed by the government. The minister will no doubt remember that under the original contract the country was to guarantee bonds to the extent of 75 per cent of the cost of the mountain division not to exceed $30,000 a mile. That was modified by the contract of 1904 so that the country is bound to guarantee bonds to the amount of 75 per cent of the cost of the mountain division, whatever that cost may be. Then the minister, of course, remembers that for a period of seven years the country is to pay interest on those bonds so guaranteed without recourse. I would like a statement which will follow from the information already asked of the estimated amount which the country will pay over without recourse in respect of the mountain division.
In order to understand the obligations of the country so far as they have not been covered by the information already asked for, I would be glad also to have a statement of the length of the prairie division in respect of which the country also is to guarantee the bonds, but its guarantee, of course, in that respect is limited by the condition of $13,000 per mile.
Some of the information may be a little difficult to procure, but I trust the minister will be able to give us some approximate idea, where it cannot be given exactly. I

would like at least some approximation, because it is now four years since the conclusion of the final agreement with the Grand Trunk Pacific and nearly five years since the conclusion of the first agreement and we had a good many estimates of these matters even before the road was commenced. We ought to be in a better position now to get something substantially accurate-and correct. While I do not for a moment desire to cause any unnecessary labour, still 1 think we should have some approximation of the information I have asked for, which seems necessary for any intelligent discussion of the situation.


George Perry Graham: I am glad the leader of the opposition feels the conviction that he has given me quite a large order.


Robert Laird Borden: Because I knew the minister was able to fill it.


George Perry Graham: So far as the financial part of the question is concerned, I shall ask the Finance Minister to furnish me with that information which I know he will be glad to do as far as possible. I am endeavouring to get all the information that is essential to the discussion of the question from the different sources where X think that information is available. I shall take up{ the question in the morning in ' Hansard ' as outlined by my hon. friend and as it will take some little time to obtain that information it may be some time before I make the statement; but I assure my hon. friend that I want to place before the House and the country every piece of information we have concerning this line, not only the government section but the company section as well, because it is a great national undertaking and we are interested in it from Moncton to Prince Rupert. I will endeavour to do my best to fill the order and I think I will be able at least to approximate the information asked.


Samuel Hughes: Will the minister give the House information concerning the Winnipeg terminals, that is what terminals the National Transcontinental will have there, what terminals the Grand Trunk Pacific will have there, and what terminals will be jointly theirs with the Canadian Northern ?


George Perry Graham: I will get that information.


George Taylor: The minister did not answer my question as to whether the contract contained a provision that the company should employ only Canadian engineers. I think that if it is not in the contract there was a distinct understanding with the government that that rule would Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
be put in force. Now the minister admits that he is going to have a heart-to-heart talk with the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific to see if he will not oblige him and employ some Canadian engineers. I am satisfied the House and the country believed when they entered this contract that only Canadians would be employed on this work.


George Perry Graham: I imagine that is not in the contract. X think the contract will show that materials, so far as possible, were to be Canadian materials. I am in entire sympathy with my hon. friend in the desire that Canadians should be employed to the fullest possible extent.


George Taylor: I understood that would be part and parcel of the contract and that that arrangement would be carried out. It is certainly breaking faith if the railway people are not doing as the government said they would see they did when the contract was entered into.


Samuel Hughes: The serious part is that there is a prevailing opinion among Canadian engineers, many of them eminent men, that they are absolutely discriminated against, that, in other words, no Canadian need apply for work on this road. It is a very unfortunate state of affairs. This applies not only to engineers but to subordinates as well. It looks to them as though there was a desire to have men who would be absolutely under the control of the company and whose friends would not be likely to get any information from them in Canada, as though there was an attempt to have these persons there to increase the cost of the road for one purpose or another. At all events there is an impression abroad that no Canadian has an opportunity of getting a position there. These men can meet the American or English engineers in Mexico or anywhere else and hold' their own, and why should they not be able to hold their own on their own soil ? I am glad the minister is going to look into it and have the heart to heart talk he has promised.
Department of Justice, civil government, salaries, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $37,253.12; contingencies, $12,937.50.


Mr. BUREAU.: There is an increase of $50 for Mr. Gisborne, Mr. Chisholm and Mr. Cot6. Mr. Narraway is promoted and gets no increase for the first year. He is promoted to a chief clerkship and is accountant of the department He has been more than 20 years in the service and has been for a year at the maximum of his class. The accountants of all the departments belong to the chief clerk class.

Department of Agriculture-for the development of the dairying and fruit industries, and the improvement and transportation of, and the promotion of the sale and trade in food and other agricultural products, payments made from' this sum not to be subject to the Civil Service Act, $115,000.


George Taylor: There are gentlemen interested in this subject who are not present to-night. I think this item should stand.
Mr. FISHER, Then take the next item.


George Taylor: We did not expect Agriculture would be taken up to-night and we are not prepared to discuss it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Out of these items are paid the whole of my staff which are engaged in these brandies. I cannot pay them out of the civil government, and the consequence is that my agricultural staff, my quarantine staff and health of animal staff have no pay.


Robert Laird Borden: Which vote is it that you want?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Particularly the dairy vote, and 46, 47 and 49. I may state that in . each of these branches I may ask for a small supplementary estimate, so that they will come up again for discussion. If these items can go through it will be a great boon to my employees in these branches who have not been paid for the last month.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman had money to pay them up to the 15th of last month.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, my deputy tells me , the salaries were not paid.


George Taylor: One-eighth was voted.
Mr. FISHER; But there were other things besides salaries that had to be paid.


George Taylor: But salaries were included in the eighth.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There were a lot of big accounts that had to be paid at the beginning of the year. We supposed when that eighth was taken that we would get a further supply.


George Taylor: That eighth was not voted to pay old accounts.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, accounts of the current year.


George Taylor: Certainly the hon. gentleman did not spend the money before it was voted.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Those things were due on the opening of the fiscal year and are paid out of these accounts. These payments became due on the 1st of April and had to be paid, and the result was that we did not have sufficient to pay salaries.


REVISED
Mr. BRODER.: I understand that the outside service are only paid at the end of the month, not the beginning.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the outside service. The civil government vote has nothing to do with my services for dairying, live stock, the seeds division and the experimental farm. The only officers in my department who are paid out of civil government are those in the inside service who are on the civil government list, and that I got through some time ago.


Mr. HENDERSON.: There seems to be a misunderstanding on this side of the House. When, the eighth of the entire estimates was voted we thought it would apply for each item of the estimates. If we voted one-eighth of the salary account, surely the minister does not mean to tell us that he took it to pay something else with. If the minister did so and thus has kept his employees out of their money, he must not blame us if his men have not been paid.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not blaming you.


David Henderson: I understand the minister to say that he has taken money that was voted by the House to pay salaries and has paid other accounts with it, and thus has kept the men out of their money.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I must take exception to that. I received one-eighth of those votes for the purposes mentioned in the votes. Salaries are not the only purposes. I had to go on and pay other things which came due as well as salaries. The one-eighth gave me one and a half months salaries and one and a half months of everything else. That one and a half months comprised the month of April and half the month of May, and a portion of the salaries for May was paid, but not the whole, because I did not have enough.


David Henderson: The minister will admit that he had lots of money to pay salaries up to the middle of May.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


David Henderson: That has been paid ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


David Henderson: I understand that salaries have actually been paid up to the middle of May ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Up to the middle of May.


David Henderson: I do not think my hon. friend has very much to complain of. Is there anything more due ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


David Henderson: When will the next instalment be due ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The salaries of these people in the outside service are paid at the


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
end of the month and when the end of May came I did not have enough money to pay them for the whole of their May salaries, because I only had a one and a half months vote given to me. When the end of June comes, if this vote does not go through, I will not be able to pay them anything and they will then be six weeks in arrears. In addition to salaries there are other expenditures necessary for the service. It happened that in April and the early part of May some heavy expenditures came in and they were met out of the money which had been voted.
Samuel Hughes: The minister left the impression that at the beginning of May he had used money for other purposes that was intended for salaries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did not intend that.


David Henderson: If these estimates are voted to-night when is it intended to bring down a Supply Bill in order to pay these men ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot tell.


David Henderson: We go on voting money for salaries and other purposes and the cry is going out through the country that we are keeping these men out of their money for salaries and other purposes and steps to make the money available.


William Stevens Fielding: We are anxious to get a little more.


David Henderson: How much more ?


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, as much as we can get.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it would be wise to bring down a Supply Bill, pay certain services and neglect others. As far as the services are concerned, which require a regular routine out-go of money, they are all on the same footing.


David Henderson: I hope this will be a lesson to the minister not to delay until the fifth or sixth month in the session before bringing his estimates down. These should have been before the House in January or February and disposed of.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I did manage to pass three or four small items some months ago and I was stopped then by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Robert Laird Borden: How were you stopped ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: By their saying that they could not pass any more that night.


William Stevens Fielding: Whatever else happens the farmers' service really ought not to suffer.
Air. ARA1STRONG. The Minister of Agriculture has not been doing justice to the agricultural interests by not bringing Mr. FISHER
these estimates down before this because these are estimates which require to be debated very fully. There are questions that require very serious consideration and yet he tries to force his estimates through the House in a few moments. I cannot help noticing that at the end of each of these items there are these words :
Payments made from this sum not to be subject to the Civil Service Act.
As far as the civil servants are concerned they are apparently not to get anything out of these items which the minister is asking for. They are for men in the outside service. What proportion of this amount will go towuirds salaries ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I could not say how much will go towards salaries off-hand, but I would explain these words. They were put in four or five years ago at the request of the late Auditor General. As a good many of these employees are in the city of Ottawa and paid here the late Auditor General said that they ought to have these words in to make sure they would be properly paid. The thing had been going on for many years without him saying anything about it, but four or five years ago he requested that in future these words should be put in.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister state again the items that include salaries ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. 46, the dairying vote ; 47, the seed commissioners vote; 49 for the development of the live stock industry and 53 for the administration and enforcement of the Aleat and Canned Foods Act.


George Taylor: That item of $115,000 takes in practically the whole dairy industry. There will be a very lengthy discussion on the cheese curing rooms. I understood that the cheese curing room at Brockville had been shut up for a number of years and rented to Air. Ayer, of Montreal, but I see a loss in connection with that of $1,036. It is the same with all of them and we will have to go into them in detail.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We expect to ask for a small additional sum for these items and there will be an opportunity to discuss them later on.


George Taylor: I know that our agricultural committee want full information and they are not here to-night.


Robert Laird Borden: These items might pass provided it is distinctly understood that any discussion or criticism which may be made on them may be made on any other item of the minister's estimates.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am quite satisfied with that.


Robert Laird Borden: Any discussion or criticism of these can be made on any other item; on that understanding they might be allowed to pass so as not to inconvenience the civil servants who want their salaries.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Would my hon. friend put No. 53 in ; it is for salaries.


Robert Laird Borden: I will put that in also.


George Taylor: What items remain ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No. 48 is not for salaries and I do not want that. I want items 46, 47, 49 and 53.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When are they likely to come up ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am willing to go on to-morrow if the hon. gentleman will let me.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business tomorrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Agriculture will continue.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.


HOUSE 0E COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 12, 1908.