1909-03-23

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Before the orders of the day are called I would renew the inquiry I have so often made for the following returns : February 2, the House ordered a return of the different armouries; February 25, return for certain statistical publications; February 26, appointees to service under the Transcontinental Railway Commission; February 26, permanent loans and cost of the same; February 5, with reference to the Royal Mint; February 8, orders in council, correspondence, &c., re loans negotiated since January, 1907; February 10, with reference to the dredge industry.


Hon.   S@: My deputy informed me this morning that he had told the Secretary of State that so soon as that portion of the return which was pertinent to the Department of Public Works was ready, the portion required from the Militia Department would be ready. He also told me that a similar return had been brought down last year or the year before, and he presumed it would be only necessary to bring the information up to date.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: One of the returns with regard to the loans will be brought down to-day or tomorrow; I will inquire as to the second one.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Out of the 26 returns which have been moved for from my department 13 have been brought down. There is a great deal of work involved in preparing these. As an illustration, one return asks for ail the expenditure upon public works running over a good many years in New

Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, and there is also a very lengthy return in regard to the county of Bonaven-ture. The clerks are working on these returns as rapidly as possible and in the course of two or three days quite a numbeT will be presented.


Mr.   POSTER@: I venture to say that any clerk in 20 minutes time could bring down everything in reference to the dredge industry.


William Pugsley: These returns must come in turn and they require a great deal of care.


Mr.   POSTER@: What care ?


William Pugsley: To have them correct.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: In what department is that statistical return ?


George Eulas Foster: All departments. The order was passed on February 25. The Prime Minister has not yet referred to the matter of bringing down the report of the Civil Service Commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: I told my hon. friend some few weeks ago that the commissioners did not interpret the law, that they were bound to make a report this session.


George Eulas Foster: The law exists requiring that report to be brought down within so many days of the opening of the session and that should be attended to.


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: With regard to the employees of the Transcontinental Railway 'Commission, the delay is caused by the commissioners finding it almost impossible to get the residences of all these men; the other information is Teady.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC LOAN.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: When may we expect the details relative to the proposal on the Order Paper as to the loan to the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


William Stevens Fielding: The information was furnished me last evening but I found some errors which will have to be corrected. It ought to be ready to-day or perhaps to-morrow.



THE BUDGET SPEECH.

Robert Laird Borden: If the Minister of Finance is not now in a position to announce the probable date of the Budget speech, I would like to ask that the usual notice of its delivery be given a few days in advance.


William Stevens Fielding: Assuming that the Grand Trunk Pacific loan resolutions were to be taken up now I had purposed going on with the budget the first of next week, but the postponement of the Grand Trunk Pacific resolutions rather upset that plan Mr. PUGSLEV.
a little. I will see that several days notice is given.



SUPPLY-THE NEWMARKET CANAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I would not like to be put in a position to define ample time. We always give sufficient time, or what we think is sufficient time for all parties to be heard. That is the rule of the department. My hon. friend says thirty days. It strikes\nme that would not be necessary. However, we will telegraph to the people in those localities that we are going to have a hearing at such a date, perhaps a little less time than he mentions. However, we will see that they get adequate time.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Mr. THOS. G. WALLACE (Centre York).: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I bring to its attention a .matter of considerable importance, not only to the county which I represent, but to the Dominion of Canada in general. We have at present in this country a state of affairs in which the revenues are decreasing and the expenditures are not being correspondingly reduced. I think this is a good time for the government to cut out all expenditures that are practically useless. One of these is the expenditure on what is known as the Newmarket canal in the county of York. This so-called canal extends from Cook's bay to Newmarket, and is in two sections. The portion from Cook's bay to Holland Landing, is section No. 1, and the portion from Holland Landing to Newmarket is section No. 2. We understand, from the statement of the Hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, that there has been no expenditure on section No. 1, which in my opinion is the only part that could be made of any particular use at all. Section No. 2 is the expensive part, and on this so far there has been expended nearly $200,000. The estimated cost of the canal is nearly $1,000,000, although as yet no accurate estimate of its cost has been made. In my opinion, the expenditure on this canal is an absolute waste of public money. I have spoken to a good many people in the county of York in regard to this canal, and every person to whom I have spoken is of the same opinion, that it is an utterly useless work. The hon. gentleman who represents that constituency in parliament (Hon. A. B. Ayles-worth) disclaims any responsibility or credit for this canal, saying that it was instituted before he entered parliament. I understand that it was started in 1904, although no work of any extent was done on it until the year 1908, as expended previous to March 31, 1908, $31,444.26; expended since March 31, 1908, the following figures
will show:	
In April		.... $ 440 06
May		.. .. 10,330 00
.Tune		.. .. 12,168 72
July		.. .. 10,073 26
August		.... 10,962 50
September		.... 26,986 50
October		.... 43,218 48
November		.... 22,145 73
December		.... 20,548 40

 156,873 65
Total to December 31, 1908.. $188,317 91

The first estimate of the cost of this canal made in April, 1905, was $291,249; the second estimate, made on June 19, 1908, was $967,814.50; and these estimates did not include reservoirs south of Newmarket for the conservation of the water to be used in the canal, which according to the reports of the engineers are necessary. We have no accurate estimate of the cost of these reservoirs. The hon. gentleman who represents North York said that there was only one opinion in that constituency in regard to this canal. In that I entirely agree with him: There is only one opinion, so far as I have heard, and that is that the canal is absolutely useless. Even if it were feasible, there is no business for it to warrant such a great expenditure by the government. There has been spent on the work already nearly $200,000, and the hon. gentleman who represents the constituency asks if it would be wise to throw away $200,000. I think it would be better to throw away $200,000 now than to throw away $2,000,000 in the future. My reason for bringing this matter before the House is entirely non-political. The constituency of Centre York, which never before, since 1867, elected a Conservative to parliament, has sent me here, by the votes of independent men, to give my best ability to looking after the expenditure of public money. There may be other parts of the Dominion where public money is being expendeid as lavishly and wastefully as it is in this particular work, but I do not know so much about them. I do know, however, about this work, and I ask the House to take into its_ serious consideration the expenditure of this large sum of money on a canal which, not only in my opinion, but in the opinion of every man who knows anything about it, is absolutely useless. For these reasons. I desire to move the following amendment:
That all the words after the word * that ' in the proposed resolution be omitted and the following substituted therefor:
The original estimate of the cost of the proposed canal between Newmarket and Lake Simcoe, in the riding of North York, was less than $300,000; but that estimate has now been increased to nearly $1,000,000, which latter sum, according to the engineer's report, does not include the proposed expenditure for conservation of water south of Newmarket;
That the total cost of the said canal when completed is as yet unestimated and can only be conjectured;
That the said canal when so completed will be practically useless; that the expenditure thereon is wholly improvident and unwarranted, and constitutes a wanton misuse and waste of public money.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that some other gentlemen who I know are interested in this matter would have spoken on it so that I might have seen their point of view. However, it is not a matter that need occupy a great deal of time. It might not be out of place for me to say a word or two on the canals of the world generally, to show the important part they play in the transportation problem.


Robert Laird Borden: It is well to talk about some other canals.


George Perry Graham: There are others I could talk of. There is at least one, that, if my hon. friend is right, would be similar to this, but I submit it is not as useful as this will be. Here are the figures of the total canal mileages:-
Franoe, 2,986 miles; Germany, 1,221 miles with about 774 miles of canalized livers; Great Britain, 3,511 miles, exclusive of ship canals; Holland, 2,050 miles of navigable waterways, including rivers and oanalized rivers; Belgium, 347 miles of canalized rivers, 454 miles of large canals, and 143 miles of small canals; Italy 549 miles of canals; Austria-Hungary, 217 miles of canals.
In Canada, we have some 19 canals, as follows:-
Name of Canal.	Miles.	No. of Locks.	No. of Dams.Lachine	*-o 00	5	Soulanges	14 {	4 lift. 1 guard.	Cornwall	11	6	Farran's Point..	1	1	Rapide Plat	
.. 	34	2	Galops	7i	3	1Welland	26f {	26 lift. 1 guard.	Sault Ste. Marie	H	1 ~	1 moveable.Grenville 	52	5	Carillon	I	2	iSt. Anne's Lock	1	Chambly	12	9	Name of Canal.	Miles.	No. of Locks.	No. of Dams.i	1	26 {	34 ascending. 14 descending. 2	l	1/ Length about \ 212 mile8. 2,400 feet.	25 2 lift locks. 1 tidal, 4 gates.	14
im 212		
			
	102		
	36		
	2		
	20		
	1		
			
* The new Soulanges canal having been completed, the Beauharnois canal is practically abandoned for navigation purposes, f Partly completed.
We have in Canada altogether completed 109J miles and something over 200 miles partly completed. There are 102 locks. These do not include the lift-locks on the Trent. In these canals we have 20 dams.


George Eulas Foster: There will be more in this.


George Perry Graham: I mean dams for the retention of water. This question of transportation by water is of course a very large one, and one of great significance. My hon. friend talks of the expenditure on the Newmarket canal. He says it will cost a lot of money and that it will be useless. To his first proposition I agree, but from the second I dissent. The canal, if we are to take the word of men who ought to know as engineers, is a perfectly feasible proposition, and will, when completed, furnish navigation equal to the Erie, which for years has carried the grain trade of the west from Buffalo to New York


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Is the grain trade of the west going through this?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend cannot tell what may happen, but to-day it is not, as the canal is not yet constructed. Regarding the water supply, some one has made merry over the possibility of the Minister of Justice and myself having to use a pump handle to get water into that canal. I think I have seen a cartoon to that effect. Well, it may be surprising to know that some of the canals in other countries are aided in their water supply by a pumping system from artesian wells. I want to call attention to a very important work on canals by Mr. Harcourt which deals with the question of their water supply. He proves that the majority of canals would be dry and useless were it not that their water supply is conserved by dams or other means. I ask the patience of the House while I read from this work *on page 365:-


George Perry Graham: An adquate supply of water must be provided for a oanal, to make good losses from leakage, evaporation, and expenditure of water in locking. Frequently this supply can be furnished by adjacent streams, or by the main river in the case of a lateral canal, or sometimes by a lake, springs, artesian wells or pumping; but when a constant supply is not procurable from these sources, which is especially liable to be the case at the summit level of a canal, an artificial reservoir must be formed, at a sufficient elevation, by plaoing a dam across the valley of a water course, which being filled in the winter, is able to furnish the neoessary quantity of water to the canal throughout the dry season.
This is the principle which is being applied to the canal in question:-
The largest reservoirs, dams for impounding water in artificial reservoirs in the valleys of rivers, have been constructed for the water supply of towns and for irrigation, to which branches of engineering the formation of reservoirs mainly belongs. Nevertheless, many canals are partially supplied, particularly in their upper reaohes, by numerous reservoirs which have been mestly formed by means of earthen reservoir dams placed across the valleys of small rivers at suitable points. Thus the Grand Junction canal is fed by eight reservoirs along the Tring, summit level, and by two reservoirs at the Braunston summit level, having a total oapacity of 7k million cubic yards, and the Leeds and Liverpool canal is supplied by six reservoirs with a capacity of 5J million cubio yards, and the Rochdale oanal navigation by seven reservoirs with a capacity of 9i million cubic yards. The Crinan canal draws its supply from nine reservoirs, having a capacity of million cubic yards; whilst the Caladonian canal is fed by the lakes through whioh it passes, and the Ellesmere canal by Bala lake as well as by two reservoirs.
Just another quotation from this work:-
The principal reservoirs, however, in Russia have been formed by dams across the upper portions of rivers, closed on the melting of the snow to provide water for navigation in

the river below during the summer. These dams, which constitute in reality draw-door weirs, are generally made entirely of wood, though sometimes masonry piers have been introduced, and the head of water retained does not exoeed 17i feet.
It may be asked why I quote from this work. Simply to point out to hon. gentlemen, who seem not to take the time to think it out along this line, that very few canals would be practicable were it not for a system of reservoirs as is proposed in the case of the Newmarket canal. The canal system, except in the case of canals along rivers such as the St. Lawrence, is based on the fact that there is water which can be conserved and forced into use either by power or by the use of dams. It would be impossible to have navigation to-day on the Trent canal, just as it would be in the Newmarket portion of that canal, if dams were not used. Every one who has gone through the Trent Valley canal must be aware of that. I can remember when men on both sides made jests, making light of the Trent Valley canal in any of its reaches, just as my hon. friend makes light of the Newmarket branch. When our Conservative friends were in office, the Liberal opposition pointed out that the Trent Valley canal was a mere ditch used more for mere political purposes than for practical reasons. And our friends opposite when in opposition, made the same references to that canal when it was out of their control. But owing to the scientific placing of dams and reservoirs there is going to be from Georgian bay to Lake Ontario a system of navigation which will be better than the Erie canal ever has been, which has carried the grain trade from the west to the east.
I think I speak with good authority when I say that the Newmarket section of the Trent canal will be as navigable in every part as the Erie canal is at the present time. Take the history of the work. As my hon. friend has pointed out, the estimate made was much smaller than the cost will be. But I think it is only fair to point out to him that the cost of materials and labour at the present time is at least from thirty to fifty per cent higher than it was three or four years ago, or perhaps, two years ago. In the construction of new works, where contracts are asked for, the Railway Department find that prices have risen, and when we make purchases we find that the prices are much higher than they were two or three years ago. Leaving aside that argument, and taking the mere fact that the cost will be more than the estimate, I want to say that the canal will be as practicable as any other portion of the Trent canal.
My hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) has read the reports, but I have before me only a brief synopsis. On July 17, 1905, Mr. Walsh
reports on the work and points out that he had investigated the question of the sufficiency of water supply for the operation of the canal, and that he had weir measurements taken of the main stream and its chief tributaries about Newmarket. He states that the measurements were made during the preceding winter-the winter of 1904-5-after a dry season of two months' duration, during which numerous wells and other sources of water supply had gone dry that, he was informed, seldom failed.


John Allister Currie: As the hon. minister is dealing with that point, will he tell us what the estimated average number of cubic feet per minute will be?


George Perry Graham: I shall come to that in a little while. If I leave this part of the matter, I may not get back to it again.


John Allister Currie: That estimate of Walsh's is altogether wrong.


George Perry Graham: I will come to the estimates that have been made. The result of Mr. Walsh's test showed an average flow of 30,420 cubic feet of water per hour. He further said that it was safe to assume that at no season of the year would the amount fall below this. He points out that to fill one of the locks would require about 28,000 cubic feet of water, and consequently a supply for the lock could be furnished in fifty-five minutes without damming or impounding water, but that he proposed to build dams at suitable places for storing freshet water and to have side ponds approximately close to the locks. It is the usual practice as I have stated, to supply water for the canals, except in the cases I have mentioned. Mr. Walsh goes on to give a computation of the drainage area tributary to Newmarket, and after making due allowance for loss through evaporation, &c., concludes that the available rainfall, which he takes at only one-sixth of the whole rainfall, would be 174,240,000 cubic feet. He concludes his report as follows:
In the meantime, I consider that sufficient data is afforded to establish beyond question the fact that the proposed canalization of the section of the Holland river between Newmarket and Holland landing, and the proposed improvements of the river between the latter place and Cook's bay is in every respect feasible.
That was the report of the engineer at that time, a report any department would be justified in proceeding upon, and that the House felt itself justified in proceeding upon. In the final report of Mr. Walsh, dated September 29, 1906, Mr. Walsh summarizes the question of water supply and states that the east branch of the Holland river above Newmarket has a drainage area of approximately sixty-one square miles, with an average annual rainfall from 1896 to 1905 of 30-67 inches. The annual precipitation of the whole watershed is, therefore,

3,921,259,584 cubic feet, and allowing for loss through evaporation, absorption by plants, &c., and, for this purpose deducting sixty per cent, he finds that the available water -which runs off to Lake Simcoe-for storage purposes is 1,568,503,834 cubic feet. The stream between Newmarket and Holland Landing has a drainage area of about fourteen square miles; it is not, however, thought necessary to consider this additional source of supply. The minimum flow of water in the stream above Newmarket was fcund to be 507 cubic feet per minute. This was ascertained by careful weir measurements taken at the very lowest stage of water, at the dryest season of the year and after a prolonged drought of two months' duration.


John Allister Currie: Now, would the hon. minister give the report of Mr. Grant on the same point, which he read here in answer to a question from myself some weeks ago?


George Perry Graham: I am going to give them all before I get through. I have a synopsis here of the three reports. To ascertain the feasibility and cost of supplementing the water supply to which I have referred, extensive surveys were made at several suitable places on the watershed for establishing storage reservoirs. The tabulated report on this point has been laid on the table. Mr. Walsh selected Lake Wilcocks, on the height of land-known as 'the Oak Ridge'-between lakes Simcoe and Ontario, the source of the Humber river, as being the best additional source of supply should it be found necessary to resort to the same, but, in his opinion, not required. After discussing a number of other points as sources of supply, he concludes, on page 9 of his report, that it would be possible to lock through a total of 4,707 vessels, or about twenty per day during seven months of each year, providing all the sources named by him were used. He gives his estimate, which, as my hon. friend has pointed out, is too low, amounting to $354,536. The storage capacity provided for in his proposed plans aggregates 88,667,925 cubic feet.
Now, let me go a little more into the history of the work as it has proceeded, givr ing also a digest of Mr. Grant's findings. Let us take section 2, Holland river divir sion. On February 12, 1908, Mr. Grant, who is one of the most efficient engineers in the whole department, after giving the results of the analysis, points out that the rainfall for 1907, which was a very dry year, was somewhat less than 30 inches, still showing that there was ample rainfall to operate the canal, if properly conserved. Mr. Grant himself has gone over the figures very carefully, and, in his report of 1907, although he finds that the rainfall was less than thirty inches, and less, than Mr. Walsh found it, there is still Mr. GRAHAM.
ample water to operate the canal. A good deal has been said about the necessity for conserving the water. I have discussed that point. As a matter of fact, we have to conserve the water on the Rideau canal, the Chambly, the Carillon and others-probably nine-tenths of the canals are run on this principle. The Erie canal could not exist but for the conservation of water by reservoirs and dams. Whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the traffic that may arise incident to this branch of the canal, or whatever differences of opinion may exist as to this work from a commercial standpoint, no doubt exists in my mind, and I think no doubt can exist in the mind of any person who bases his opinion on the statement of practical engineers, that there will be more than sufficient water to carry all the traffic that can be carried on the Trent Valley canal. I am not going to dilate on the trade of the county of York. Several gentlemen interested in trade not only in Newmarket, but in the city of Toronto, have spoken to me of the benefit to come to the city of Toronto if the canal were completed from the Georgian bay even to this Newmarket canal. I am not going to discuss that, because it is a question I have not gone into; I refer to it because one or two who are level headed business men have told me that I was free to say that in their opinion it would be a great benefit to the trade of Toronto to get water navigation direct north after a few miles of railway haul to join the Trent Valley system to Newmarket. The county of York is perhaps one of the most important counties in the Dominion of Canada. Not to impress my hon. friend with the fact of its greatness or with its traffic, I took some pains to gather statistics to find out the business done in the county of York. I find that the value of lands and buildings in that county is $30,000,000; field crops, $4,000,000; fruits and vegetables, $465,212. These figures are taken from the last census, the products of the county have largely increased since then. Value of animals killed and sold, $1,343,369 in thei year the census was taken. I find that the total manufactures in the county of York amounted to something over $14,000,000. That does not include the city of Toronto, but the region of the county outside the city of Toronto. I merely call attention to these figures, to point out the importance of that county. I wish further to say that if the building of this canal to Newmarket, or to any other point in the centre of that thriving and prosperous county where there are manufacturers as well as agricultural industries would tend to cheapen freight rates in any way, and bring to the people a lesser rate of freight for their goods coming in or their products going out, I think it would be sufficient benefit to warrant this

great outlay, because all the many millions we are spending throughout Canada on transportation has that one object in view.
The country is committed to building the Newmarket canal. It has cost a great deal more money than was estimated. In that particular regard it is not alone because nearly all the great works that are undertaken, either by private individuals or by public corporations, have cost a great deal more than their first estimate. If any of my hon. friends have undertaken to build even a modest house, they must have found that out. But in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to the cost -and I say this on account of the resolution of my hon. friend who states that it is only a conjecture-I may state that the cost as estimated by Mr. Grant is, as my hon. friend has pointed out, nearly a million dollars. Mr. Butler has estimated that the reservoir will cost $80,000; I think that will fully cover it. The canal itself will cost in the vicinity of a million dollars; it will be a benefit, and will be promoted as a means of transportation for any boats that can go through any other part of the Trent Valley canal system. These being the circumstances of the case, I think my hon. friend, while I disagree with him as to the cost, is altogether wrong in asking the House to vote for the resolution which says this canal will be practically of no use whatever. I submit to the House that it will be of use, that it will be of as much use as any other branch of the Trent! canal; and in conclusion I must ask the House to allow us to proceed to its completion and make it, as I believe it will be, an important branch of the transportation system.	f


Robert Laird Borden: Before the minister concludes, will he give us an idea of the probable tonnage that will go over it?


George Perry Graham: As I told the House the other evening, I have made no estimate of the tonnage.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE (North Ontario).: As this Newmarket canal is being constructed in a constituency that adjoins the one I have the honour to represent, I desire to trespass a few minutes on the attention of the House to speak in support of this resolution. It is not my intention to follow the minister so far afield as to ascertain and calculate the canal mileage of the world. The minister in his statement to the House, agrees that the canal is going to be a very costly undertaking; he also says it is going to be feasible. But that is a very flexible word; what is feasible may not be expedient or desirable in the interest of the country. The main question, in my opinion, is whether the canal is going to serve any useful public purpose. If it is not, then it is not in the interest of this country to incur such a large expense, particularly when the times are so stringent that it is necessary to curtail the expenditure of the country. When the minister was reading about canals which could only be made navigable by adopting an artesian well or a pumping system, I drew a picture in my mind's eye of a thousand electors in North York working pumps at election time at $2 a day to fill this canal. The Minister of Railways and Canals also stated that the original estimate was laregly exceeded, that the original estimate was something around $300,000, but that subsequent estimates which largely increased this amount were due to the increased cost of materials. I think he placed the increased cost of materials at from 40 to 50 per cent. But he failed to inform us that the original estimate had been increased some 300 per cent. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is an absurd comparison, to compare a canal that is connecting Cook's bay at Lake Simcoe with a dead end at Newmarket, with a great canal such as the Welland or Erie canals. The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals also took pains to gather statistics in regard to the great industrial prosperity of the county of York. It is a wonder that the hon. gentleman and his colleagues, before they initiated this project which is going to cost between a million and two million dollars, did not collect some statistics to show what the possible tonnage might be on this canal. You would think, Mr. Speaker, that the first consideration of the hon. gentlemen opposite, before embarking upon an expenditure of this kind, would have been to calculate the possible tonnage that would utilize this waterway.
But, Sir, this unique canal has certainly a very interesting history. It was first mooted prior to the general elections of 1904. It was initiated on the petition of nine electors, only nine electors of North York. They petitioned merely for the deepening and straightning of the Holland and Black rivers. So that it started as a very small and insignificant undertaking; but like the proverbial snowball it gathers in proportion and momentum as it goes along. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that no person within a radius of thirty or forty miles considers it other than as a political undertaking, certainly not a commercial undertaking. North York, as we know, is represented by the hon. the Minister of Justice; prior to his advent to this House it was represented by Sir Wm. Mulock, and it always had a normal Reform majority of 700 or 800. But when Mr. Lennox, a young Conservative, captured the constituency for the local legislature, consternation seized the Liberal workers. Something had to be undertaken in order to hold the seat for the Dominion House. Consequently a council

of war was held to consider ways and means of spending the public money in the interest of the party. No person pretended to suggest that it would serve any useful public purpose. But the main object and purpose was to devise some means whereby the public moneys might be spent in North York in such a way as to save the constituency to the federal House. For all (the good the canal is, they might have suggested building a railway to the moon, because no person considers seriously that it is of any commercial utility whatever. But they proposed the building of this canal, no doubt because it will cost more money, and the present generation will certainly not live to see its com; pletion. No doubt, in the view of those who initiated this foolish project, it will be a never-failing source of income to generations of young Liberals yet unborn.
What are the cold facts in connection with this canal? The distance from Lake Simcoe to Newmarket is 10J miles. The difference in elevation between the town of Newmarket and the water in Lake Sim-coe is 45 feet. The whole project is based on the report of an engineer dated March 17, 1905, in which he says:
This canal would, in my opinion, prove of great advantage to the towns of Holland Landing and Newmarket and the country tributary to those, and more especially to the latter town, where there are several thriving industries which should be a valuable feeder to the main Trent canal.
The engineer talks about the town of Holland Landing. I endeavoured to ascertain where the town of Holland Landing is situated. I looked up the list of mayors, boards of trade and directories, but I could not find any trace of the town of Holland Landing. I looked up the post offices and ascertained that Holland Landing consisted of 79 houses and 446 persons. The town of Newmarket has a population of 2,125, and a postal revenue in 1908 of $5,297. The real estate assessment of Newmarket is $714,865, and the real estate assessment of Holland Landing is $66,249, for a total real estate assessment of $781,114. These are the important commercial metropolises that this great canal is to serve. The expenditure on the project will exceed the assessed values of the two towns mentioned by the engineer. When the engineer drafted that report he knew he was deliberately misleading the authorities, and the authorities should have made further inquiries before embarking on such an undertaking. The estimates of expenditures on public works always show great elasticity when prepared by government engineers. The estimated cost of this project as given in an estimate dated March 17, 1905, was $291,249.86. On July IT, 1905, a few months afterwards, the expenditure was estimated at over $300,000. On Febru-Mr. S. bHARPE.
ary 20, 1909, the estimated expenditure was $967,814.50. In addition to that last estimated expenditure the engineer puts a rider:
The above estimate does not include any sum for conservation of water south of Newmarket, and I do not know what this item will cost as no plans or estimates have yet been prepared for storage reservoirs.
The steady increase in the estimated cost of this work shows the utter incapacity of the engineers and indicates that no reliance should be placed on their reports. Then there is no estimate for land damages, which will amount to thousands and thousands of dollars. I would suggest that the First Minister should take a trip into North York and see what an undertaking this is, how much damage is being done to the land and how many thousands we are paying for lands in addition to the real construction of the canal. There are four different road crossings to be provided for, and they will be overcome by overhead crossings with concrete abutments and steel superstructures. Then there are to be 4 or 5 locks between Holland Landing and Newmarket, and there must be dams and storage reservoirs to impound sufficient water to make the canal navigable. Houses for lock tenders must be constructed at considerable expense and the land damages will be very heavy. The annual upkeep must also be high. Interest charges at 5 per cent on the total cost will amount to about $100,000 per annum. In addition to that there are wages of lock-tenders and expenses of operation coming to at least $5,000, so that the annual upkeep or expense to the country for the canal after its completion must not be less than $105,000.
T|fe question naturally suggests itself: what public utility is this canal going to serve? There are in my opinion two insuperable barriers to its successful operation :	In the first place there is no water
and in the second place, if there were water, there is no traffic for which the canal could be used. I am not surprised that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), when the estimates for this work were being put through, refused to defend this in a vigorous and whole-hearted manner. He called upon the Minister of Justice to defend this peculiar expenditure which is to be made in his constituency. The Minister of Justice shifts the responsibility on his predecessor, the late Postmaster General; each endeavours to shift the responsibility on some one else. The Minister of Justice is so legal and judicial in his temperament that he does not like to be bothered with embarrassing questions of fact. We saw that yesterday in connection with the Canada Life Bill. When there was a simple question of fact to decide he shifted the responsibility to the Banking and Commerce Committee and

said he would accept their dictum. The other day when defending this estimate, he said: I rely upon the engineers; they ascertain as a question of fact whether it is feasible or not and I accept their dictum. The rest of us are confronted from day to day by embarrassing questions of fact and we have to find a solution for these questions of fact; I do not see why the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) does not apply a little common sense to these matters and decide these questions of fact for himself. I desire to say with all seriousness that this canal is an object of great curiosity in North York. There is no use side-stepping these questions, the construction of this canal is a political and not a commercial undertaking, it is useless to consider this question without calling a spade a spade. The residents of North York themselves say that it is ridiculous; the newspapers are a unit in denouncing this gross, wanton and useless extravagance. The people for miles around drive to see it as a curiosity. As the hon. member for York (Mr. Wallace) so well said, when the government are curtailing expenditures in other departments, why do they go on with the extravagant expenditure in connection with this work? Take the estimates for agriculture. You will find that the miserable sum of $931,000 has been appropriated for that industry, the staple industry of this country. The appropriation for this year was cut from $130,000 to $98,000 for experimental farms, a reduction of $30,000 and yet hundreds of thousands of dollars are being squandered on the North York canal. So with the votes for the development of the fruit industry, the encouragement of the growing of pure seed, the encouragement of the raising of live stock, and experimental farms, health of animals, There is a total reduction in the votes for agriculture this year of $585,500, and yet we see hundreds of thousands sunk on this waterless ditch. There are only $98,000 for experimental farms and there are $1,000,000 for the North York canal. There is a reduction of $585,500 in the estimates for the most important and staple industry in this country and $1,000,000 for the canal which will be of no use unless the government can devise a means of making water run up hill, in defiance of the laws of gravitation. One million dollars would accomplish a great deal in the encouragement of the agricultural industry. It would establish 40 experimental farms at $25,000 each or it would establish and equip 20 hospitals for the treatment of preventive diseases at $50,000 each. I say that it would be in the interest of the country and to the credit of the government if they would take a sensible and proper stand upon this question and stop all operations on that so called canal. Let them put up for sale the
land they have expropriated and let them discontinue this absolutely useless scheme. Such a stupendous undertaking as this should not have been lightly entered upon by the government, and the conclusions that should have moved them to initiate it were twofold, namely: was the scheme practical and if practical was it expedient? Certainly neither of these could have influenced the government or otherwise this work never would have been commenced. No words are too strong to criticise this bizarre and fantastical undertaking because it is nothing else. It is an insult to the intelligence of the electors of Canada to have hundreds of thousands of dollars squandered on this ridiculous project. I agree with the concluding paragraph of the motion which says:-
That the said canal when so completed will be practically useless; that the expenditure thereon is wholly improvident and unwarranted and constitutes a wanton misuse and waste of public money.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT (Muskoka).: Some two or three years ago when this project was first proposed to the House it was described as the Holland river and Newmarket canal, and we all knew what we were voting for, but for some reason or other later on the government hid it in a general vote for the Trent Valley canal, a proceeding which was unfair to the members of the House, because I know there are many hon. gentlemen here who would have entered a strong protest against it last year were they not deceived by the new title it got in the estimates. When the scheme was first proposed I protested and I expressed the opinion that the House was wasting time in discussing the question of the water supply, because this canal would be just as valuable dry as it would be wet, I point ed out that there never would be any vessels to navigate it and if it was to be used at all it would have to be used for some other purpose than a canal. What moved the government to undertake this is more than I can understand. We know that prior to 1904 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) ran in the county of Durham as a Liberal candidate and he had a mouth for the Trent Valley canal in that county and another mouth at Port Hope or some place else. It would appear that one of these mouths must have got lost and that it travelled up the Trent Valley canal and got into Lake Simcoe and in searching for an outlet it happened to discover the mouth of the Holland river and it dug itself into the bank and that was the end of it. If the expenditure on this work were trifling it would not require so much attention from parliament, but when there is $1,000,000 to be wasted it is time for hon. gentlemen to enter a protest and to declare that it would

be in the interests of the country to cut out this appropriation altogether. Many years ago the Trent Valley canal proper- of which of course the Holland river scheme is no part at all-was undertaken by the country and both parties were committed to it. The Minister of Eailways has told us this afternoon that when the Trent Valley canal is completed it will serve as useful a purpose to Canada in carrying the grain trade of the west as the Erie canal does in the state of New York. I hope that is true, and if it be true, then it behooves the minister to use every available dollar he can get for the completion of the Trent canal instead of squandering the money in this Holland river ditch. Those who are conversant with the Trent Valley canal project know it is intended to connect the Georgian bay and the great lakes with Lake Ontario and if that canal can be made a useful factor in the great transportation problems of this country then we would be justified in building it, and in completing it at the earliest possible moment. Instead of wasting the money in this useless Holland canal project it might far better be expended in securing an outlet for the Trent Valley canal either- on. the east or on the west. We know that so far nothing has been done between the Sim-coe lake chain and the Georgian bay at the westerly end, and neither has anything been done as far as I know in opening out into Lake Ontario at the eastern end, so that at the present moment although we have spent millions of money upon the Trent canal it is practically useless for the great purpose for which it was designed. I think it was commenced in the wrong way in the first place. I think it should have been commenced from either the easterly end or the westerly end, but whatever may have been the mistakes of either or both governments in the past it is the duty of the present Minister of Eailways to complete that canal at the first moment the finances of the country will permit. It is his duty now to stop construction upon this useless Holland river undertaking and to open up either the easterly or the westerly end of the Trent Valley canal proper. We know that the government is spending large sums of money at Tiffin, and at Midland and at other Georgian bay ports, so that large steamers can convey the grain trade of the west from the head of the lakes to these ports. In the fall the elevators at these poits will be filled with grain and we knew that ir the rush season there are not sufficient facilities to transport that grain to the sea-board. We know that if the Tient Valley canal proper were completed vessels could load at Tiffin and Midland and other ports so as to relieve the pressure at the elevators and allow the grain to move expeditiously. Looking at it from that Mr. WEIGHT.
standpoint and realizing the necessity for completing the Trent Valley canal at the first moment possible I deprecate this useless expenditure of money on the Holland river. Every one in that section of the country knows that it is an absolute waste of public money to construct this canal in the first place, and that its upkeep will entail a future waste of money for all years to come. If the Minister of Eailways and his predecessors had considered carefully all the conditions surrounding this Holland river canal there would have been no necessity to discuss the water supply because the canal never would have been undertaken. I do trust that the government, even at this late date, will take the money that it is intended to waste on this ditch and put it into the Trent Valley canal proper so that it may be completed and available for the accommodation of the trade of the west. Again I deprecate the hiding of this vote for the Holland river under the general vote for the Trent canal, because there are members in this House who would wish to continue the Trent Valley canal but whot at the same time desire to stop this wasteful expenditure on the Holland river. In conclusion I enter my most vigorous protest against the carrying on of this useless work.


Hon.  A. B.@: thus mentioning individually every municipality in the riding of North York, with the exception of the town of Stouffville, 'which is in the extreme south-west corner, and half of which was in the constituency of East York for local purposes.
The account in the ' Globe ' goes on to say:
The various speakers impressed upon the government the advantages the improvement would bring to the large and populous district which would be given the boon of competition in rates by water carriage. The Holland river, it was pointed out, was already navigable a large portion of the distance. It was stated that manufacturers would save a large portion of the cost for fuel, and that there would also be large savings to the farmers for carriage of their grain through water competition.
I have no knowledge of what then took place or of what considerations moved the government of that day to recommend the undertaking of this work, but that recommendation was made to parliament during that session, before I was a member, and parliament passed a resolution devoting an amount of money, to this project. The House of Commons at subsequent sessions provided from year to year for that work by voting additional sums to carry it on. There has not been any occasion, during the time I have been a member of this House, for me to. speak on the subject by way of defending or supporting a proposition to appropriate money for this work, but if there had been, I should have been very ready at any time to do so because I am satisfied that this is a work for the benefit particularly of the riding I represent and which will also be for the general advantage of the rest of Canada, indirectly it is true, but in the same sense as any similar work is an advantage to the whole country.
A good deal of joking has been indulged in with regard to the possible insufficiency of the water supply for the canal when constructed. I stated practically everything I had to say on that point when addressing the Committee of the Whole House three weeks ago. It is an engineering question, of which I know nothing. If I were to sit down and examine for hours the reports of the engineers I should know no more about it when I finished than when I began. All I know is that two or three -years ago, when the first hint of insufficiency of water was made in a newspaper, I asked my old friend Mr. Butler, as an engineer, whether there could be any question in that connection. He said there was none and I have relied with perfect confidence on that opinion 'from that dav to this. I do not suppose that Mr. Butler made personal examination, no doubt he relied on the reports of the engineers who made such examination, but I do suppose that he applied to those Teports his knowledge as an engineer of Mr. AYLESWORTH.
eminence and experience and that, speaking from the facts those reports disclosed, he was in a position to say that there is no question about the sufficiency of the water supply. I am content certainly to rest upon that, and I do not think the hon. gentleman could find any better foundation for an opinion on a subject of that character.
With regard to the benefits which this work will give to the people, in the first place, of the immediate locality, and through them to people who are further 'away, it seems to me that the considerations which have been advanced in general terms by my hon. colleague, the minister in charge of the department, ought to be satisfactory and conclusive. I suppose that for every one there is no place like home.
I suppose that every member of this House thinks his own constituency is the finest.
I certainly have that opinion of mine. When I was a younger man, I used to think that nowhere in this country were farms to be found equal to those of Ernesttown and the Fredericksburghs and Adolphustown. I have changed my mind since, and I say-speaking with as much knowledge in a general way of the province of Ontario as any man here-I do not believe there is any section of the province of Ontario or of the whole of Canada, in which superior farms, better farm buildings, or more prosperous, thriving farmers are to be found than in the county of North York. If this constituency is one in which prosperity abounds, if it is a fine agricultural country and has the advantage of manufacturing establishments, the equals at least of those which any other community of the same size enjoys, what reason is there, when the advantage of water communication can be secured to the heart and centre of that territory by the digging and widening of a stream for a distance of some three or four miles, why that should not be done?
But the question to-day is not whether or no this work should be undertaken. The question before the House is ought we to discontinue it? Should we, by adopting the resolution proposed, condemn the government of four years ago and of to-day for recommending the undertaking of this work? Ought we now to abandon the work and lose the amount of money we have put into it? Facing that question and with the necessity of saying by our vote whether or not we want to censure the government and abandon the work which has been undertaken and upon which a large amount of money has been spent, I cannot see how any hon. gentlemen can hesitate to vote against the resolution. We have undertaken this work, we have committed ourselves to it, we have no reason to doubt that it will be efficient when competed, and we have as satisfactory reasons for believing that it will be beneficial to the community in which it is situated and, through that community, indi-

rectly to the remainder of the country, as we have with regard to any other commercial undertaking which this country is now concerned in as a public work. I can understand the local jealousy which might cause people, who reside at some little distance, to think that their own personal "peculiar interests would be injured by the completion of this work and to seek to prevent its completion. But when we are told that nothing of that kind exists, that it is absurd to suppose there is any kind of local jealousy on the part of the great city of Toronto, into which millions of the people's money have been poured in the past and to which the voters and ratepayers of North York have contributed their full quota, I cannot see why this enterprise should be singled out as one to be condemned and abandoned when I am convinced, oh the reports of scientific men and tny knowledge of the local conditions, that it will be of great benefit to the people of Ihat locality and through them to the people of the whole surrounding country.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, this question has been before the House in several forms during the present session. Objection has been taken to the form in which the vote for the Trent Valley canal appears in the estimates. The vote is in one lump sum of $1,000,000 without division. That matter has been briefly referred to by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright). I think that his ground is well taken; for we find that in the Supplementary Estimates, for instance, there is a vote for the Prince Edward Island Railway-a vote relating to this same Department of Railways and Canals-but it is divided into items with the amount specified for each. Throughout these estimates from end to end, we find the same form quite common. But, whenever there is a high-smelling item that is to be carried through, it is always coupled with two or three others and we are asked to swallow the pills, box and all. Many hon. members of this House support the continuation of work on the Trent Valley canal but they would like to see some effort made to complete the system, and are not satisfied with the prospect held out that our children's children and not they will pass by this outlet into Lake Ontario or Georgian bay. And of those that favour expenditure on the Trent Valley canal, many are prepared to vote down this expenditure on the Newmarket canal. The Minister of Railways and Canals, in his effort to defend a very bad case, has wandered far afield. He has quoted masses of statistics showing the number of canals to be found in the older countries of Europe, but he forgot to say that eighty per cent of those canals were built long before the days of railways, and that since the advent of railways very few small canals of
this description have been constructed. Any one who knows anything about the United States knows that canals of this kind were built through Pennsylvania and Maryland years ago, and you can see them there now choked with weeds and unused because the work for which they were designed is now better done by the railways.
Let me point out where this Newmarket canal is and what it is. One has only to look at the map to see where Lake Simcoe is. Lake Simcoe lies at an altitude of about two hundred feet above Lake Ontario. Of course, it has a natural basin with its own drainage system on all sides, and it empties into the Georgian bay by way of the Severn river. A number of small rivers empty into Lake Simcoe from the south. The greatest of these is the Holland river, and, a few miles from its mouth, the Holland river branches into what is called the east branch of the Holland river. The Black river runs a few miles to the east and empties into the lake at Jackson's point. Each of these rivers covers, in its course, a distance of from ten to twenty miles, and, at one time, they were navigable for two or three miles from their mouths for canoes and the batteaux used by the Hudson Bay Company and the settlers of the old days. Each river has its source from a height of from thee hundred to six hundred feet above the level of Lake Simcoe, making the fall in a distance of from ten to twenty miles. The Holland river rises only a few miles from Wilcocks lake, the source of the Humber. The east branch of the Holland river, from about Newmarket, runs through its own valley, and, to reach the main river from Newmarket westward you have to overcome a rise of probably 150 feet. To reach the Black river on the east side you would have to cross another divide about equally high. So, the only territory tributary to the east branch of the Holland river, lies along the Northern Railway. The drainage area of the branch of the river is stated at 61 square miles, which means, roughly, a territory ten miles by six. All the figures given us by the hon. minister relative to the tonnage of the county of York has no bearing on the question, because this tonnage nearly all travels in a different direction. That in the valley of the Holland river travels to the Canadian Pacific Railway and down to Toronto by Kleinburg. That on the east side goes to Toronto by the valley of the Don over the old Midland railway. None of that tonnage could be brought to this waterway because of the expense. The greatest extent of country to be served would be twenty miles by six miles.
I have been at great pains to go through the papers relating to this matter and learn why this ditch was begun. A petition

was presented-no date given-signed by several gentlemen. One bon. member who spoke said that it had been signd by gentlemen in North York. A number of those who signed it were from Barrie and other places. And what did they ask? Simply for the dredging of the mouths of the Black river, the Holland river and the East branch as far as Holland Landing to clear out the weeds and allow the barges that come through the Trent Valley canal system to go to Holland Landing, for their cargoes. In other words, they asked that these places be made harbours, like Barrie. Jackson's Point, or Beaverton, and not that a canal should be built. The section between Cook's bay and Newmarket is ten 'miles. From Holland Landing to Newmarket four and a half miles-the latter is all the country that has need of canalization. That is all that is to be covered by the canal. The rest is merely clearing out silt, and dredging out sand bars and other obstructions. But now, let us see the genesis of this work. The first mention of this canal was immediately before the election of 1904. Some time in October, 1904, Mr. Walsh, an engineer of the department, was hurriedly called from Orillia to that section of country to make a survey of this particular branch. There is a considerable vote around Newmarket and Holland Landing He had to ascertain if something could be done to make a canal or bring about the building of some public work there. Mr. Walsh goes down to that country, and in a few days every loose fish in Newmarket is driving stakes and eating his dinner at the country's expense.
By the way, it was just two or three weeks before the election, and every voter that could possibly be put to work was put to work on the job, and within a very short time they blew in $25,000 of this country's money in making these surveys. Bear in mind immediately before the election. Now you have the whole secret of the purpose of this canal. It was designed for a political purpose. It was so intended by the then Postmaster General, Sir Wm. Mulock, to enable him to carry that constituency, which was gradually goins? to the bad. Politically we find at the same moment that the hon. gentleman who succeeded him, as Postmaster General, and who is now the Minister of Justice, was carrying on an election down in Durham. The question of the Trent Valley canal was made a burning question in Durham. The hon. gentleman being new to politics, thought that he would enter political life with a bludgeon, and he decided the easiest way to secure a majority of the votes was by offering and promising large public works to his constituents. At the same time a gentleman by the name of R. R.


John Allister Currie: Gamey appeared in Durham. Apparently there had been some differences of opinion between the Minister of Justice and Mr. Gamey previous to that Durham election, and Mr. Gamey and the present Minister of Justice had it out in East Durham, with the result that Mr. Gamey succeeded in landing his man, and the Minister of Justice was defeated
The next we hear of this work was this great deputation that came down to the government asking to have this work carried on. They found out that although they had got the surveys, the thing was beginning to eret a little cold, either that, or the retirement of the Postmaster General, then the Hon. Mr. Mulock, was in contemplation, and it was necessary to make that riding sure for his successor. The gentleman who was to succeed him did succeed him. Bear in mind that the election was in the fall of 1904, this deputation came to see the government on the 22nd of February, 1905. The agitation was kept up during that whole period until away along in the fall of that year, when, on the 16th of October, 1905, the present Minister of Justice was appointed Postmaster General. It was well known at that time that Mr. Mulock had made himself possibly too busv with the question of public utilities, and that his views along the same lines as those of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) running in parallel grooves, did not meet with the approbation of the leader of this government. He was going to retire. his health being very poor at that time. Subsequently it got better when he became a judge. But this constituency must be kept in a ferment of excitement so that there might be a loyal supporter of the government appointed. The matter was carried on in that way. The Postmaster General, now the Minister of Justice, went up for election on November 22, 1905, against a farmer by the name of McCallum, and in spite of this canal agitation, no work having been done at that time, in spite of the surveys he carried the constituency by a reduced majority of 149. The minister says it is a great Reform riding. It is not a great Reform riding apparently, from that majority. Now, succeeding that, Mr. Walsh was asked to make a report. Mr. Walsh is the engineer of the government, who is apparently ready to make a report on anything at a moment's notice, and so far as his figures in this connection are concerned they are misleading in every respect. I do not think the Minister of Railways and Canals will rise in his place and say to this House that any single figure that has been given by Mr. Walsh to him as the responsible minister in charge of that department, in connection with this work, has been within 200 per cent of what the work actually cost, or of the estimate that was made by the responsible man, Mr. MARCH 23, 1909
Grant. We have had Mr. Walsh's report quoted to us. Mr. Walsh said in his first report that the amount of damages for the right of way to Newmarket would be $6,000. What is the amount of damages so far? $27,000 actually paid and the work is not all finished yet. Mr. Walsh also said that the original work would cost something like $300,000. His first report was made to Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, in which he placed the amount at something over $300,000. He made a subsequent report on the 17th of March, 1905, which the minister did not quote, and the amount waiS $291,249.86. With that report in their hands the work was divided into two sections, the lower section or the Holland river section, that is to say, from Cook's bay to Holland river, or Bradford road, and the upper section of the Bradford road up to Newmarket, four and one-fifth miles further on.	Tenders were called for the
first section.	There were four or five
tenderers, and the successful tenderer was the Lake Simcoe Dredging Co.,in which Mr. Cane, a very prominent Liberal of Newmarket, was a leading member, assisted by Dr. Spohn-I do not think he is a Conservative, he lives up in Penetanguish-ene, and used to be in charge of the government asylum at Orillia. This Lake Simcoe Dredging Company built a scow and placed a dredging apparatus on it. They took the contract for $46,497.10, and commenced work. As a result of their operations, in a very few months they discovered that their dredge would not work, and it is very amusing to read the comments of Mr. Grant on the apparatus they had there at work. He calculated there was some
270,000	cubic feet of earth to be removed, and although they had been at work dredging all the summer and fall, all they got out was 3,500 yards. You can calculate how manv -0-ears it would take them at that rate to finish the work. Mr. Cane wrote letters to this government calling on them for the love of everything good to send them a cheque, that they were hard up. Even when there was only something like $1,500 coming to them, he had the modesty to ask the government to send them $10,000 or $15,000 to help them out. However, nothing was done so far as that is concerned, with the result that this company, not having carried on its work, lost the contract and a new tender had to be called for. New tenders were prepared and were called for. The matter was taken hold of by Mr. Grant, and he made another estimate for the second tender. He estimated No. 1 section for the department at $131,239. I wish the House to note these figures particularly, they were the figures of the department. Tenders were called and a gentleman named Riley was one of the lowest tenderers. His figure for that work was exactly the same as the government estimate, except that in the hundreds column he changed the two into a three. His tender was $131,392, and he added 65 cents. That was a very strange coincidence. However, that contract was not let. The first tender was some $41,000, and after that section had been revamped and looked over on the very same drawings, the lowest tender was $131,000. The gentlemen who tendered were all returned their checks and No. 1 section, which common sense would havei suggested should have been the first portion to be constructed, was neglected and nothing has been done upon it since. Why ? Because the bullfrogs of Cook's bay have no votes. There was nobody living on that section who had a vote. Immediately an election loomed upon the horizon, it became necessary that something should be done where there were voters and an estimate was made, tenders were called for and the contract let for the second section of the canal. Mr. Walsh made *several attempts or bluffs at an estimate on the second section but Mr. Grant, who is without doubt a very experienced engineer, made an estimate of that work which was far short of the lowest tenderer. Mr. Grant's estimate on section No. 2 was $596,826, and the lowest tender received in answer to the call founded on that estimate was $652,009.50. That tender was by this very same Mr. Riley. When the government called on Mr. Riley to accept and sign his tender, he began side-stepping and correspondence went on for some months on this contract-and strange to say some correspondence of W. M. German appears on the files to aid Mr. Riley out of what was apparently a. difficult hole. A syndicate was formed which finally took over the work from Mr. Riley and the work is now) being carried on by this syndicate or company.	.
The lowest tenderer on No. 1 as revised, that is the tender by Mr. Riley, although there were six or seven responsible tenders, was $131,392.65. The present tender for No. 2 section is $652,609. The money blown in on surveys previous to the election of 1904, amounted to $25,000. There has been paid out for the right of way, so far, $27,102.90. A strange thing in connection with these payments for right of way is that a gentleman named Widdifield appears as a partner in about 50 per cent of the transfers of land made in and around Newmarket for this canal. I am told that Mr. Widdifield is a defeated candidate in that riding and a very close friend of our hon. friend the Minister of Justice. I cannot see why the government could not buy these lands direct from the owners without having a partner appear in all transactions. In addition to the right of way there will be heavy expenditure for bridges. I need not point out that there are steel bridges



in connection with this work. Of these two must be steel swing bridges of 88 feet span each, one of 49 feet and one of 64 feet. Any one who knows anything about steel construction will say that you cannot build a steel swing bridge at less than $500 or $1,000 per foot, and the cost, instead of being the $91,000 in the estimate, would be net far short of $150,000.
Then there are the land damages and the work at Wilcox lake. No one has made an estimate on that work except our good, Christian friend Walsh who says $41,000. Mr. Walsh estimated at $290,000 work which has now reached $900,000 so if he says that this work will cost $41,000, we are safe in saying that it will cost not less than $150,000, which with the land damages to be paid, farms expropriated, &c., will bring the total cost of the conservation up to at least $250,000. That would make a grand total for the work of $1,236,104.55- we will drop the 55 cents for the benefit of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham).
Now let us come to the vital point. The one string harped on by hon. gentlemen; opposite with reference to the canal is the feasibility of this work. Any one who knows anything about engineering will tell you that there is practically no engineering problem that cannot be solved. We all know the point to which engineering science has reached, so that to bring into the argument at all the question of the feasibility of the work is to treat us as a lot of children. The great question should have been, not the feasibility, but the commercial value of the work as a public undertaking.
I have pointed out to you how the various lines of traffic parallel each other in the county of York. I have pointed out that the only basin that could be served by this canal is something like 60 square miles in that portion of York. The distance to be saved is about 4 1-2 miles, because I eliminate from the question the amount necessary to dredge the mouth of the river. It is really the 4 1-2 miles that is costing the $1,000,000, as there is a lift of 45 feet in that distance. I have also considered the tonnage arising in Newmarket. I do not believe there is over 60 tons daily all the year around of tonnage in and out of Newmarket. Of that amount 50 per cent will go south to the city of Toronto and the greater portion of the balance will go north of Newmarket so that the total in and out tonnage of Newmarket on which the freight charges could be reduced by this canal would not amount to 20 tons a day. What would the reduction be on 20 tons a day? You can haul a ton 4 1-2 miles on a wagon for a dollar; that is a fairly good price. Therefore, this canal will at most save the people in the immediate vicinity of Newmarket about $20 a day, and as the Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
canal will be opened for about 200 days in the year the saving would amount annually to $4,000. But, we will give good measure and we will double that amount and we will suppose there is a saving of $8,000 a year to the people of Newmarket and its vicinity.
Now, Sir, if we take the total amount that that canal will ultimately cost and figure it at the rate of 4 per cent., there will be a charge on the people of this country of $40,000 a year. Added to that, at the very lowest estimate there will be a charge of $10,000 a year for the maintenance of the locks and for lock tenders, and you therefore have $50,000 a year that the people of Canada will have to pay by reason of the construction of this canal in order to save $8,000 a year to the people of Newmarket and its vicinity. Does any sane man think that that is a good business proposition? I think political economists would say, considering the conditions of this country at the present time, that if the government proceeds to spend say half a million dollars on any given work it should be ranked as a national enterprise, and before such a work is undertaken it should receive the most careful consideration. The question should be asked: will this work be of such a nature that it will serve the neonle of the country as a whole and not merely the people of a small section? Now, I challenge any man on the government benches to state that the building of this Holland river ditch will cheapen by the smallest fraction of a cent the cost of hauling grain from the wheat fields of the west to the sea-board. As a matter of fact the direction of the canal is north easterly, and as everyone knows the traffic of the west would naturally seek the opposite direction as an outlet. The one million dollars which this canal is going to cost if spent in carefully devised improvements at the terminals on the great lakes would appreciably reduce the cost of freight and to that extent benefit the farmers of the west and the people of the country generally. The Minister of Justice declared this afternoon that Toronto was jealous of the expenditure of this money in his riding. What nonsense. Why, the aggregate annual business done in that section of the riding that would be served by this ditch would not equal the business done in one city block in Toronto in the course of a year. But, whenever the Holland ditch is mentioned the Minister of Justice flies into a passion, and he seems to think that a political attack is being made on him. Sir, this is not a personal matter; it is a far graver question, of national concern. The Minister of Finance tells us that there is great difficulty in financing on the money markets of the world at the present day, and that there are small clouds

on the financial horizon which forbode danger. That being so, is it wise for us to spend such a vast sum of money for the mere sake of constructing a political work for the benefit of a single minister of the Crown? To my mind the Minister of Justice should be broader; he should not take such a narrow and sectional view of his interests. The Minister of Public Works told us the other night that expenditure was curtailed this year, and that even a great many necessary public works in his riding could not be proceeded with because the country could not afford it. Why does not the Minister of Justice try to get into the same frame of mind. He cannot; he looks at every thing in a narrow partisan spirit; he is like the man who lived all his life in a political barrel and knows nothing except what he sees through the political bung hole. Let me urge the government once and for all to stop operations on this canal. We have been told that the country is committed to the project, but what has been done already had far better be lost than that additional useless expenditure should be incurred. Sir, this is a political work and nothing else. It may suit the Minister of Justice in his own particular constituency to have us condemn this work, but I can assure him that if he forces it on the country it will not add anything to his political prestige in the rest of the province of Ontario where public works are urgently needed and with regard to which we have with great forbearance agreed to their postponement for this year. It shall afford me great pleasure to vote for this amendment. A political job costing $5,000 or $6,000 is wrong in principle, but when the cost runs into the millions and when it means a charge of 25 cents on every man, woman and child in Canada, it is a political crime.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I would like to remind the House at this stage that in my opinion this discussion is irregular. The estimates contain item 103 for the construction of the Trent canal, and I find from ' Hansard ' that this item was being discussed before the committee on the second of March, and that it remains open for discussion again when the House is in Committee of Supply. This debate seems to have proceeded so far by consent of both sides but under the circumstances it is irregular. If the House is willing to allow the discussion to proceed I am prepared to submit, but I think it my duty now to remind the House that in my view the procedure is irregular.


Mr. F. R. LALOR (Haldimand).: I listened with a great deal of attention to the speech of the Minister of Railways and I thought he deserved the sympathy of the House in his laboured attempt to justify 99i
the expenditure on the Newmarket canal. Since the Minister of Railways came to the House I have always admired him for the candid manner in which he has given us information and for the frankness with which he has discussed questions relating to his department. But to-day we witnessed the most laboured effort he has ever attempted here. He has our sympathy as no doubt he has the sympathy of his friends. We have seen in the press of the country amusing cartoons in reference to the Newmarket canal, and the Minister of Justice has been portrayed as pumping water out of a well to furnish the canal with a water supply. I thought at first that was only a joke, but it seems the Minister of Railways takes it seriously and he actually informs the House that it is possible to pump water to supply that canal. It would seem that the hon. gentleman thinks that such will be the ultimate result and that water must be pumped from artesian wells to enable the canal to float anything.
Therefore in his efforts all the way through he had the sympathy of the House. One of my reasons for speaking on this matter is that there is in my riding a canal somewhat similar to the Newmarket canal, that is, the Welland canal feeder. That was originally built for a good purpose: for a good many years it supplied the old Welland canal with water drawn from the Grand river. That continued until the Welland canal reached the Lake Erie level, and from that time it has got its water supply from Lake Erie. That canal feeder extends for twenty or twenty-two miles from Dunnville or Port Maitland on the Grand river to Welland, through a good section of country, with Port Maitland at one end and Port Col-borne dt the other. That is a rather important canal, and one might naturally suppose that it would be of a great deal of service and benefit to the section of country through which it Tuns, but let me tell the hon. minister and this House that apart from the original purpose for which it was built, that of supplying the Welland canal with water, it is of little practical value to the people of that section of country. In fact, it is never used. The Minister of Railways and Canals tells us that he has been told by prominent citizens of Toronto that manufactured goods might be shipped from Toronto to Newmarket, transferred there to the canal, and transported to the Georgian bay. I think every one of us knows that that is absolutely ridiculous. You could not do that and make it pay. I believe that that canal of ten miles or more, which is now being built at a cost of between one and two millions of dollars to the people of this country, will be just as useless when completed, as the Welland canal feeder, for the purposes of transportation. It will be of no benefit whatever to the farmers of

that particular section. The Minister of Railways and Canals tells us of the great extent of the farm products of the county of York. One would suppose that he expected these to be transported over this canal. He could apply the same argument to the counties of Haldimand and Welland through which the Welland canal feeder passes. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that there are practically no farm products whatever passing through that canal. A short time ago I put a question on the Order Paper with reference to the Welland canal feeder, asking among other things how many vessels had passed through it during the last five years, and what their tonnage was. ^ The question and the answers were published in the local papers of my county, and created a good deal of amusement, because it was stated that 700 vessels had passed through it in the last five years, when the hon. gentleman would have been nearer the mark if he had said seven. I believe the Newmarket canal will be just as useless to the people of the county of York as the Welland canal feeder is to the people of the counties of Haldimand and Welland for the purpose of transporting farm products or manufactured goods. The day has gone by for little branch canals. They never can be made to pay, because nobody uses them. We want through canals, and as a member of this House I am prepared to support any reasonable transportation project which the government may bring forward; but I am not doing my duty to the people of the county of Haldimand, whom I represent, if I do not on their behalf protest against an expenditure of nearly two million dollars which I believe is absolutely wasted. The people of my county must contribute their portion of that money, and on their behalf.I protest against this expenditure as being unwise and not in the public interest.


Mr. SAM HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton).: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I may tell the Minister of Railways and Canals that I am in favour of main canals, and I am in favour of branch canals where there is any possible excuse shown for their construction. What are the facts concerning the Newmarket canal? Newmarket stands at an elevation of 770 feet above sea-level; Lake Simcoe stands at an elevation of 717 feet; so that there is a rise between Lake Simcoe and Newmarket of 60 feet. The distance from Newmarket to Lake Simcoe is 6 -7 miles. The distance from Newmarket to Holland Landing, where navigable water is found is 3 -6 miles; and the country is asked to vote an expenditure for a little canal for this distance, in order in the first instance to secure the election of the then Postmaster General, and later on to secure the patronage for the succeeding Postmaster General, now the Minister of Justice, at a cost of $1,000,000. If this were a through canal or if it Mr. LALOR.
were to connect with a through canal, some excuse might be made for it. We find that grain is brought in transit by rail to the country towns, where it is ground, and then it is sent on to the sea-board on a through rate by train; but there is no such thing as a through rate for part water carriage and part land carriage. If this canal had the excuse of being on a through route, so that the grain could be brought in barges, ground, and then shipped on to its destination on a through rate, there could be some excuse for its construction; but there is no possible excuse for the construction of this canal. In the three and a half miles from Holland Landing to Newmarket there is a rise of sixty odd feet, and the water supply is absolutely inadequate, unless, as the minister suggests, reservoirs are constructed to catch the rainfall, or unless he sets all the boys in the country around pumping water with their house pumps. I know of no expenditure in the country more wasteful than this expenditure. I can direct the minister's attention to a part of the country where he might have a proper expenditure. Balsam lake is 838 feet above sea-level. Extending northward from it is the chain of waters which supply the Trent canal system with water. With one lock at Coboconk, one at Norland, one at Elliott's falls, there would be communication for thirty miles inland. All that thirty miles is a timber and an agricultural country in which the farmers have no proper access to the markets, and there are many more farms along that thirty miles than there are along the three and a half miles between Holland landing and Newmarket. The country along those three and a half miles has two lines of railway, one on one side of that little stream, and one on the other. In fact the distance between the railways in some places and the creek is not much more than the Minister of Railways could have taken in a jump in his young days. There is; no trouble crossing the stream at any time, and both the electric and steam railways are close together so that the people are absolutely served in every respect. If the people of Newmarket want to bring up any logs, they can do so by rail at a through rate, but they cannot bring them partly by water and the rest of the way by rail at any such rate. I venture to say that the hon. minister can take one-tenth part of the sum he admits this Newmarket canal will cost, and with that money have a canal built for 30 miles north of Coboconk and by the construction of a trestle north of Minden to Mountain lake and a dam between Mountain lake and Horseshoe, which would raise the water sufficiently to give 30 miles additional navigation; that by an expenditure of less than $250,000, 60 miles of naviable water could be added to the Trent system, and that would go through a country not served by

any railway or even by a decent wagon-road. There are so many ways in which this money could be better expended that I have never been able to see the first motive for building this Newmarket canal. There is not enough water to feed it and there is no need foil it. Three and a half miles is a short distance from a town to a port, and if Newmarket were to grow in size it would be down to Holland landing in a short time, and there would be no need to bring this canal up to the mill of a strong supporter of the government. For the life of me, I cannot conceive any justification for this expenditure, and I do not see why the present minister is carrying it out. I regret I was not present when he made his explanation, but with all his astuteness I. am satisfied he could not give any justification for this, and I believe that in his heart of hearts, he would be delighted tc see this canal wiped out of existence and no part of its construction proceeded with. But even supposing there is a grain of justification for the construction of this canal, the work should have been delayed until the ends were constructed, or in other words until the Trent canal is completed from the Georgian bay to Lake Ontario. There is| no need for this Newmarket canal. There is no timber on Lake Simcoe to bring to this man's mill and no goods to bring to Newmarket. The canal never should have been begun; but if the government are determined to construct it, its construction should be withheld until the Trent canal is completed from the Georgian bay to the Bay of Quinte. Its construction should also have been given second place to the branch canal I have referred to running up to the lakes in Hali-burton county, where there are thousands of settlers who have to drive miles to the nearest railway and where there are millions of feet of timber which cannot be hauled long distances to railways. This timber is not floatable and can only be got to market when a canal is opened. I trust that the hon. minister will reconsider his decision. In the first place I object to the item appearing as part of the Trent Canal system. That system has enemies enough. It has taken a long time to educate public opinion up to the point of considering the Trent as a useful waterway, but to have the Newmarket canal placed in the estimates as part of the Trent canal is adding insult to injury.


George Eulas Foster: How far is Cook's bay from any other portion of the Trent canal?


Samuel Hughes: The Trent canal runs into Lake Simcoe. That part which is at present constructed runs from Hee<-ley's Falls to Balsam lake which is the height of land and onward down the waters of the Talbot river into Lake Simcoe. It
is further navigable from Lake Simcoe into Lake Couchiching. This million of dollars which is being squandered on this Newmarket canal would go far to open up one of the ends of the Trent canal not yet completed. But in place of doing this and giving the traffic of our great northwest easy access to market, the minister is frittering away the public money on little side issues such as the one under consideration. I would not object if there was any use for this Newmarket canal after it is constructed, but it would pay the government forty times over to take this sawmill of this supporter of theirs for whom they are building this canal, and bring it down to Holland landing rather than squander the public money as they are doing. I give the minister warning that with all his dams and! reservoirs, he will never have sufficient water to navigate this ditch in the summer season; and I trust he will see his way clear, before the item is passed, to withdraw any reference whatever to its being part of the Trent Canal system, and let this item stand distinct under its proper name of the Newmarket canal. It is not a canal, it is not even a decent ditch. In dry seasons, not more than a pail of water a second runs down that stream just below the town, I trust the minister will see his way clear to withdraw this vote.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I am glad to be able to add a few words of protest against this proposed expenditure, because I am thoroughly familiar with the district in which this work is to be built. I should like very much to see the first report advocating this canal and the reasons it gives in favour of the work. With regard to the water supply, I think enough has been said about that, because no man who has been in that country year after year but must laugh at the suggestion that there is to be a supply of water for this canal except by artificial means. But I would not worry much about that, for there will be quite enough water for all the purposes for which this canal will be required. In the sixties, seventies and early eighties, Lake Simcoe presented a very busy sight. Steamers and tugs innumerable were on the lake. Going out at night, during the sawing season you were never away from the sight of a mill, while rafts were constantly being towed about the lake. I have lived there in summer for the last twenty-two or twenty-three years, and have seen the tugs towing the rafts. About fifteen years ago, I and many others witnessed the melancholy sight of the last tug and raft on Lake Simcoe. The logs that had drifted to the shore had been carefully picked up and a raft made, and it was towed to Bradford. Bradford is a very enterprising village, about one-third the size of

Newmarket. It has perfect water communication up the Holland river. There used to be enormous saw-mills there. Logs were towed up that river until there were no logs tributary to Lake Simcoe. The mills were burnt or torn down and the mills at Belle Ewart had been abandoned years before. Not for fifteen years has anything larger than a small gasoline boat gone up to Bradford. For years, as a resident at Roach's point, I used to take a party of youngsters up to Bradford every year to play cricket. There is perfect navigation there, unless the stream is over-grown with weeds. But there is not a stick of merchantable timber on Lake Simcoe. Nor is there a carload of bark. Newmarket has two factories and a tannery and they cannot get a stick of timber or a carload of bark for the factories and tannery from the waters tributary to Lake Simcoe. I am as certain as that I stand here that there will not be a ton of freight offered on this Newmarket canal; the work will be absolutely and entirely useless. There are wharfs on different parts of Lake Simcoe. The old Northern Railway built a very extensive wharf at Belle Ewart. The railway had a very prosperous branch while there was business on Lake Simcoe. When the mills were burned down, the Northern Railway took up its tracks running from Lefroy to Belle Ewart, a mile and a half and abandoned the whaTf. A few years ago, the railway re-tracked that line because large icehouses had been put at Belle Ewart. I do not think there is a more melancholy sight than that one sees when one goes down to the old abandoned wharf there. It has rotted and there is no timber, but the stones are there, and on either side are the wrecks of tugs and boats that plied on Lake Simcoe when business was done there. There are the hulls of five or six tugs and two or three passenger boats. There is only one passenger boat on Lake Simcoe, and it is run because they take excursions now and again in the summer. But there is no business to be done, and not a possibility of any business on this canal. And the expense of it will be about a million and a quarter of dollars. Now, the ministers of this government are trustees for the people, and they are wasting every dollar of the people's money that is put into that canal just as completely as if they threw it into the river; in fact, it would be better for them to take that money and throw it into the Tiver, for that would end the expense, whereas, spending it in this useless canal, there will always be more or less expense of maintenance. I passed that ditch yesterday. I went up to my summer place for the purpose of trying to get the facing for a wharf there-not a wharf for commercial purposes but only for bathing purposes. And I could not get even enough timber there to face that small Mr. OSLER.
wharf thirty feet long. The timber has to be brought from Toronto by rail to build that little bit of a wharf. The wharf that the government built there three or four years ago has been of great service. It i3 spoken of very highly by all the summer outsiders, and I was told yesterday that as many as twelve black bass had been caught by the boys off the end of that wharf last season. The bass are getting very scarce.


George Eulas Foster: By and by they will be gone.


Edmund Boyd Osler: They are nearly all gone now. Bradford is probably a more important point than Newmarket so far as grain is concerned. It is a large grain-buying centre. But the idea of buying grain at Bradford and shipping it by canal never entered the head of any sane man. I think, in all fairness, that a million dollars is a good deal of money, even in flush times. This government did not seem to think so when times were good, but now, I should think with the revenues in a less satisfactory condition, even they would look upon a million dollars as an amount of fair importance. Before spending the money on this work, it would be well to get a business man-not an engineer, he does not report on the business-but get one or two business men to report on the possible business for that canal when it is built. On the trolley cars, going up yesterday, this work was discussed by almost every one, and the general talk among those going in and out of the car was that the work would not go on any further. The thing was a laughing stock; one after another as he came in said, ' Well, I guess that is the last money that will be spent there.' The government will do wisely to have a report from a business standpoint and carefully reconsider their position. Then, let them have the boldness to say that they were mistaken in what they have done and cut it out, because this money will be lost just as surely as it is put into this work
It has often been a matter of remark and wonder that there seems to be so little feeling of the responsibility of trustees on the part of the government in regard to these matters. It has been remarked in my hearing over and over again, and I think it is generally recognized, that there is a great want of the responsibility of trusteeship in our public life. Now how can we expect anything else if the trustees for the government recklessly, deliberately throw away a million or a million and a half of the people's money without the first shadow of excuse for doing so ? I make the assertion that that canal when built will be absolutely useless, that never a ton of freight will go up or go down it. There is one saw-mill, or factory, there, which uses lumber, but it uses nearly all hardwood. Now there is no hardwood on Lake Simcoe

or on any tributary to it, indeed there is no timber of any sort. Even cordwood has reached such a price that it is cheaper for the farmers to pay freight rates on coal. They have to pay now $5.75 a cord for wood. I speak of what I know, and I appeal to the minister and to the government to reconsider this project and to save the country a million dollars.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (.East Grey).: I wish to say a few words with reference to this before the debate is closed. It seems to me that in considering whether it was wise or not for the government to expend this great sum, they ought to have had some estimate of the tonnage that was likely to be hauled over that canal. So far as regards any information disclosed to this House to-day, we have had no such estimate. No engineer seems to have estimated for the government the amount of freight that is likely to be hauled over that canal. The question was asKed the Minister of Railways, but either he did not deign to give the information, or he did not have it. Now in view of the fact that there was no information, what justification can the Minister of Railways give to the House for going on with such an unwise expenditure ? We ask ourselves, we who have some knowledge of the locality, what kind of trade is likely to spring up? The hon. gentleman behind me (Mr. Osier) said that there will not be a ton of freight carried over it. I would not go that far. There is one grist mill in Newmarket. The time might come when grain would be delivered from the Northwest at Victoria Harbour, and if small boats could go down the Trent Valley canal info Lake Simcoe they could bring a portion of the grain from Lake Simcoe into Newmarket. That is the only way of bringing in freight from the outside. With regard to the possibility or probability of handling the trade of that great and rich county of York, and the Minister of Railways seems to think there was a possibility when he spoke of its immense wealth, I think that might be well left out of the question entirely. Why ? Because the trade of that whole county of York goes to the great city of Toronto on the south, and the canal is away in the north. He said it was likely to cheapen freight rates. How could it cheapen freight rates, how could it come into competition with railways that are carrying trade from that county to-day ? The only way to get trade for the canal would be to go round nearly 200 miles to carry freight that is carried on the railways to-day to Toronto from Newmarket, which is only 25 miles. What kind of competition would you have if you had to carry freight over 200 miles where the railways can carry it only 29 miles ? There would be no competition at all. The thing is so absurd that no one who knows the
geography of the country and the direction of the trade of the country, would consider it for a moment. What other enterprise is it going to serve? Mr. Cane was the man who was chiefly instrumental in getting that enterprise started by the government. I think there is a fatality about it in some way or other, because we are told that he took the contract for dredging at $46,000, and after he had worked at it for a length of time, the contract had to be taken off his hands. The very man that was instrumental above all others in getting the government to build it is the man who is now going to suffer for it, and for what purpose? To bring in logs for his saw-mill From where ? The hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Osier) says there is no timber, practically, around Lake Simcoe. He is correct. Forty years ago there was lots of timber, when the ' Emily May ' was running on Lake Simcoe, and the ' Ida Burton ' and other small boats; there was timber all around it. But the timber has all been taken away, and there is no trade left in that line.
But there is one line of commerce that the Minister of Railways did not mention, and only one that is at all probable or possible. That is a trade that was carried on very successfully between thirty and forty years ago by men living on that marsh where this canal is going. What was it ? Catching frogs and sending them down to New York. That trade is going on yet, and there may be some freight carried in that article of commerce. I think it is capable of great development, because that marsh is a very extensive one, it is a marsh where the frogs grow to a very large size, and the business is likely to afford a permanent trade, and the only trade that the canal is likely to find. They used to carry the frogs by stage from Keswick to Newmarket, and ship them from there to Toronto, and thence to New York. Now they can swim the frogs down the canal and take their heads off at Newmarket, and ship them from that place, that will save something in transportation for at least a portion of the distance. That is the only permanent trade that will be found.
Now in regard to the water supply. I have jumped across that creek, I venture to say, hundreds of times-if I said a thousand times, I think I would be within the mark. That will give you some idea of the water supply. The minister said that 507 cubic feet of water passed over that per minute. Where under Heavens did it come from ? I dont know, nor can any man imagine, who has ever lived in that locality. I have lived there, and crossed it a thousand times. When you talk like that, why, it is totally absurd and totally incomprehensible for any one to think of it. It reminds me of a story that was told in the west, when some one was asking

who were the three greatest liars in the world. He said they were in the west, that a certain man was one liar, and he was the other two. I think the Minister of Railways and Canals must be the whole three. He must have had water on the brain, or a very fertile imagination. I say the expenditure of this money cannot be justified. Not only will it be a living monument of folly, but it will stand to the discredit of the Minister of Railways and Canals, and of every hon. member who supports it, and of every one who takes part in the expenditure of that money.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 79) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. W. McIntyre.
On section 1,
Mr. RUTAN moved:: That subsection (a) of clause 1 be struck out and the following added as a subclause:
The line of railway described in subsection (a) of section 3, of chapter 74 of the Statutes of 1907, shall be commenced within one year from the passing of this Act, and at least 30 miles of said line shall he completed in each year thereafter until the whole be completed.


Mr. NEELY.: As this line of railway, in reference to which the Canadian Pacific are applying for a renewal of its charter, has a direct interest to the people in the district I represent, I wish to strongly support the amendment, which I believe should receive the support of this House. I understand that a similar amendment was suggested in the Railway Committee, but for some reason it was not accepted in that committee. There can be no objection to the passing of this amendment as the Canadian Pacific Railway are in a position, so far as I know, if they have the wish and the will, to commence operations on this branch line of railroad within the next twelve months. Unless it is the intention of the Canadian Pacific Railway to undertake this work in the immediate future, we should not grant an extension of time. Between the main line of the Canadian Northern Railway and the most northern branch of that railway, which ends at the city of Prince Albert, there is a distance of 80 or 85 miles. That section of the country is well settled; every homestead quarter-section is taken up and farmers living in that part of the country are to-day hauling their grain from 35 to 40 miles in order to reach a market. If this branch line of railway from township 32, range 21 or 22, to the city of Prince Albert, Mr. SPROULE.
>
were built, I have every confidence that it would be a paying line of railway, right from the date of its completion. Objection has been taken to the imposing of great restrictions on the granting of these charters. In some cases that argument, I think, is good, but I do not see any reason why we should not place this restriction on the granting of charters to the Canadian Pacific Railway. We know they are in a position financially to construct these branch lines of railroad that are asked for in this Bill. We have evidence of their strong financial position in the recent issue of $50,000,000 of additional capital stock.
I am strong in my support of this amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Rutan) because I have a lurking suspicion _ that the Canadian Pacific Railway do not intend to carry out their proposals as contained in this charter for which they are asking. They have had this charter for the past two years and they have done practically nothing in the way of commencing operations. Why should they seek for a renewal and for an extension of time if they do not purpose going on with the road? The answer to that question is that there is a suspicion in the minds of the people of the constituencies of Prince Albert and Humboldt that the Canadian Pacific Railway's policy is to blanket that territory so as to hamper the construction of branch lines by other railroads. The Canadian Pacific Railway did practicallv no railway construction in northern Saskatchewan until the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific was carried through the central part of that province and then we found the Canadian Pacific Railway pushing forward the construction of their Kirkella line, which, east of Saskat-toon for some 75 miles and for a great many miles west of Saskatoon, parallels the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Just as soon as the Grand Trunk Pacific oorp-menced building the Canadian Pacific Railway got busy with their Kirkella extension. Now, the people of the constituency of Humboldt and of Prince Albert want this branch line constructed from or near the town of Lani"fln in the district of Humboldt to the city of Prince Albert. We have no reason to believe that the Canadian Pacific Railway actually intend to build this line; in fact I have it on good authority that the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway was interviewed recently by some persons who were very anxious to see the road built and he gave no assurance whatever that the company would undertake its construction either next year or in the year following. We have a suspicion, nay we have a belief, that the Canadian Pacific Railway are simply asking for this renewal and extension of time for the purpose of covering that territory by this charter and that being so we ought to insert the restrictions called for by the amendment.

Some may argue that the granting of this charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway does not tend to keep another railroad from building through the same territory but to my mind that is not a convincing argument because, just as soon as another railway obtains a charter through the territory and commences operations the Canadian Pacific Railway is in a position to step in ahead of them and effectually cut off the other company from constructing. We have reason tc believe that a branch line can be obtained from the main line of the Grand Trunk Pacific right over this same territory and that aid can be secured for such a branch line from the government of Saskatchewan. But, if this House grants this charter to the Canadian Pacific Railway without restriction as to time, then, just as soon as the Grand Trunk Pacific commences work on the line they might propose to build, the Canadian Pacific Railway can step in and parallel them every foot of the way to the city of Prince Albert. On behalf of the people of those districts who are asking for railroad communication and better transportation facilities I strongly support this amendment. To prove conclusively that the Canadian Pacific Railway are conspiring to blanket that country with these branch line charters I may say that they also have a charter which they obtained through the taking over of the Manitoba and North Western and which enables them to build some considerable distance east of the line for which they now ask an extension of time. That runs through the Fishing Lake country east of the Great Quill lakes and also north easterly to the city of Prince Albert. By another Bill, they are asking for an extension of time on that branch line although they have had that charter since 1893. For 16 years has that charter been in possession of the Canadian Pacific Railway and they have done absolutely nothing to carry out its terms. These two branch line charters into the city of Prince Albert ; the one under the Manitoba-North Western charter and the one contained in this Bill, practically cover the only two available routes into Prince Albert from the south and east, connecting with any of the main lines of the great trunk railways. The fact that they are also applying for an extension of time on this other charter is evidence that they are simply trying to cover this territory by charters so as to prevent any other railroads from being built. On behalf of the people of the constituency I represent and who require this line to be immediately constructed I very strongly support the amendment of the member for Prince Albert.


Mr. LAKE.: This question has been raised in the House and in the committees during the last few years, amendments have
been moved on the lines of the present amendment and the whole question has been thoroughly discussed. But, the question for us to consider now is whether any good result is likely to come from the passing of such an amendment and whether if passed it would result in any of these railways being built any the quicker. I suppose there is no member from the north west who has not received constant protests against the renewal of charters, not only of the Canadian Pacific Railway but of the Grand Trunk Pacific branch line company, and of the Canadian Northern Railway Company as well. I have received such protests couched in the very strongest language asking that this parliament should not renew charters unless definite guarantees were given that the lines would be built in the very near future. I have a protest in my hand from a meeting held at a place called Wiggins, Saskatchewan, protesting against the renewal of the charter for the Moosjaw-Lacombe branch, which is included in this clause, and I would ask the Minister of Railways to state whether he has taken any steps to endeavour to remedy the grievance which the people of Wiggins feel they are suffering under ; whether he has approached the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and asked them whether they are prepared to undertake the building of this branch in the near future, and whether he has used any argument with them to induce them to do so. I think it is up to the Minister of Railways to show that he has taken some such step. There is no doubt that the people of that section of country are suffering under a great sense of injustice in having been induced to settle in that country far away from the railway. The government is in a position, in dealing with the three great companies that have lines in the Northwest, to bring some pressure to bear upon them to build branch lines where they are most needed. For instance, in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway, we have been informed that the government have given their consent to the issue of common stock by the company at a rate which is generally (conceded to be far below its Teal value. That, I take it, is a concession to the company, and when these great companies come to the government asking for concessions, the government have it in their power to endeavour by negotiation to induce them to give something in return. I would therefore ask the Minister of Railways whether he has had a protest from Wiggins, the one which I have in my hands states that a similar one ha3 been addressed to him- -and whether he has taken any steps to endeavour to procure for these people the building of the railway , which, no doubt, they were promised in the

past, and which, it is to be hoped, they will receive at some time in the near future.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF.: I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Rutan). That hon. member and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), the two members representing the people in that part of the country through which this short line of about 130 miles will run, should be in the best position to know whether this charter should be renewed or not. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat says that it is a question whether the passing of such an amendment will increase the building of railroads in the country. Perhaps it may not; but speaking from the experience of my own district, I can say that where we cannot get the roads built, the people are unanil mously in favour of the charters not being renewed; and if the representatives from that part of the country who know what the people want, ask for a certain thing, I think it is up to this House to pass the amendment they propose.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I also agree with the previous speakers to this extent, that I think the government and this House ought to exercise serious control over the great roads in the west. It is a fact that there are large districts there which have no railroads, and the people in those districts are very anxious to have railroads; but it is also a fact that the great railroad companies, instead of devoting their attention mainly to giving to the people the accommodation they require, are engaged largely in a kind of strategy one against the other. I contend that the Minister of Railways has sufficient power to control the situation, and if he exercised that power he would see that none of the plans of these railroads which are for the mere purpose of strategy should be approved of while roads which are necessary for the settlers are not being built. The government should see that the funds of these companies are not wasted in building parallel lines merely to compete with existing lines. That is not opening up the country; it is only enabling these companies to play a game the one against the other. It is time that all that was stopped, and that any money which any of these companies have for the construction of new lines should be applied in opening up roads in new districts and giving a service where there is none at the present time.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I am surprised at the action of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Rutan) and the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neelv), and I might say the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). A few days ago when we had another question similar to the present one before the committee, an amendment was moved by my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Glen Camp-Mr. LAKE.
bell) to compel a railroad company to build 25 miles of road during the first year. That amendment was carried by the committee, though it was opposed by all of these gentlemen. The very same arguments which are put forward to-night in support of this amendment were put forward at that time by the hon. member for Dauphin and myself in support of the amendment he moved, with regard to the Winnipeg and Northwestern Railway Company. That company had four or five alternative routes, practically blanketing the whole country. The hon. member for Dauphin had petitions from every municipality in his district, asking the government not to grant an extension to the company without compelling it to build a certain number of miles every year. We carried that view in the committee, but when the Bill came before the House the gentlemen promoting it had it referred back to the committee, and it became practically a political question. Every hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House was arrayed against the amendment, and defeated it, though it was entirely similar to the amendment moved to-night. Consistency ought to be the rule of this House, and I am surprised that a member can take one attitude in the committee and an entirely different attitude in this House. I have no brief from the Canadian Pacific Railway; I have no reason for having a brief from that company. In my own county the Canadian Pacific Railway Company last fall stopped work on a Tailroad which was very much needed, and just in the midst of the political campaign, allowed my opponent, assisted I believe by the Canadian Pacific Railway engineers, to put on a large staff of men in the effort to compass my defeat. I mention this to show that I have no brief from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I would like to see consistency in the House, and I am not prepared to support this amendment because I believe that the men who have moved as they did in the committee and did not succeed do not deserve any better success on the floor of the House.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I am not going to detain the House at any length. I simply want to bring to its attention the fact that various gentlemen who have spoken tonight have shown the utmost inconsistency. I am not going to refer to the other Bill, which has been referred to by my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), further than to say that it seems with certain members in this House, to make a very great difference whose ox is gored. Those same gentlemen took a very prominent part in fighting against the wishes expressed in the petition of the men who sent me down here to represent them, and then they ask us to pay some attention to what their own people want. I wish to point out that it is certainly the people of the districts

through which these railways are to run, who should know what they want, and they have expressed, through their representatives in this House, what they do want. They want railways, but they strongly object to charters lor hot air lines being granted, and long experience has given them good reasons for their objection. These charters have done more to retard settlement than anything else, and it is but right that this committee should pay attention to such expressions of opinion, coming from the people who are directly interested. If the Canadian Pacific Railway intend to build those branch lines, it is no great hardship to ask them to show their good faith by building 20 or 30 miles the first year. The committee should certainly pay great attention to the message sent them from Prince Albert'.


George Perry Graham: It is easy for my hon. friends to ask this government to straighten out all these things.


Mr. LENNOX.: This is the place.


George Perry Graham: There is a place called the Railway Committee where attention should be paid them. We have a duty to perform as representatives as well as members of the government. I shall not have to make any apologies for the position I take on this Bill because I have taken it on other Bills as well. I take it that what the petitioners want in these various localities is a railway as speedily as possible. I may be wrong, but in my opinion to pass an amendment in this line will rather injure than hasten the prospects of getting that road. To say to the Canadian Pacific Railway that they must construct so many miles this year is only repeating in another way what we do say in their charter, and that is that they must begin operations in two years and build in five. If this amendment were going to hasten the building of the railway, it would be different, but it is more likely to defeat the object which hon. gentlemen have in view. This question does not come up only in the renewal of this charter but comes up regularly in the railway committee in the renewals of many charters. To place a clause of that kind in the charter would simply mean that these people would be back sooner for another renewal. If they are ready to construct the line, and if it be in their interest to do so, they will construct. But if we put in a more stringent clause, it will mean that the Canadian Pacific Railway will not build any more quickly but will come back in twelve months instead of two years, and ask for a renewal. Our object is to get railways into these parts of the territories that are not now served by them. I understand thoroughly, as the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) has said, that there are many instances where these companies spar for situation or location, not having, for the time being, any great desire to build, but rather to. keep some other line from building; but on the whole, the course we have pursued has been reasonably successful in getting lines built as rapidly as settlement required. It is a fact that many people have gone into remote parts of the west, and are in very needy circumstances so far as railway lines are concerned. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) handed me a petition, of which I think, I had already received a copy. My usual plan, on receiving a petition, is to make an extract from it and call the attention of the railway company concerned to the fact that I have received it, and urge them to do everything to grant the prayer of the petitioners. Suppose we put the provision asked for into this charter, we will have to put it into every charter for a branch line in the Canadian Pacific Railway. But it is impossible for any railway company to cover all the territory which requires a railway. It stands to reason that where the most people are found, the greater necessity exists and the greater traffic there will be for the line, and it is natural for a railway company to build where it will get the most traffic. Consequently, the places most needing railways will get them first. I am anxious to see this line extended, but I do not think the placing of this in any charter will help one iota to get a railway constructed but will rather have the opposite effect. In the Railway Committee, I have taken that ground. I have asked the committee on several occasions not to place such a clause in the Bill and I must ask the Committee of the Whole House to take that ground. I make that request in order to be consistent and for the further reason that I do not believe that the insertion of such a provision in any charter will facilitate the building of the road but will rather retard it.
Amendment negatived.


John Gillanders Turriff: I beg to move that letter G, clause 1, be struck out. This letter G refers to a short line of about 100 miles from the town of Estevan in a northwesterly direction. I am not going to ask this House to put in a clause providing for the building of 25 miles this coming year, simply because my experience during the past five years makes me understand thoroughly that it will not be carried. But I believe that I represent absolutely the views of the people in that part of the country where this charter exists, and consequently I move that that clause be struck out alto-

gether and the charter cancelled. If we cannot have a railway built in the near future, we do not want that charter on our statutes, because, so long as the charter is there, the Canadian Pacific Railway will not take any steps to go on with the building of the line, but will stand as a block in the way of others building it. That country has been settled the last 18 or 20 years and well settled, and the farmers there have to draw their wheat from 30 to 40 miles, if they draw it to a Canadian town and 10 to 20 miles if they draw it to the American town of Ambrose, in North Dakota. Last year, about 150,000 bushels of wheat was drawn from that comer of my constituency into North Dakota and shipped over the Jim Hill system. As I have said before, I want the Minister of Railways and the government to understand that unless some change is made in the handling of these railway companies, unless they are ocmpelled to do better in the future than they have in the past, the strongest effort will be made on the part of the people in the southern portions of Alberta and Saskatchewan to have the Hill system brought into the country. And if conditions continue as they are, while I should be sorry to see the traffic go out of the country and through the United States, yet, I, for one, wiM welcome any change in the state of affairs, and I know that ninety-nine, if not one hundred per cent of the people I represent will take the same position. I know, also, that in asking the committee to strike out that clause I am representing faithfully and correctly the views held by my constituents. And whose views should carry in this matter-the views of the Canadian Pacific Railway who have had charters for fifteen or twenty years for roads which they have not built, or the views of the farmers? Whose views should we in this committee consider? I am not asking for any favour of building twenty-five miles a year, but I am asking that that clause be struck out, so that other companies may be given an opportunity to come in and build these railways.


Richard Stuart Lake: I would support, as I did last year, the motion to place in all charters and all renewals of charters provisos that a railway company should commence to build its line within a reasonable period of time. But I do not think it is quite right to make exceptions in these matters.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am not asking to have any of the other charters interfered with. This is the only one in which I am asking to have this clause dropped, and the Bill we are discussing now covers othei branches.


John Gillanders Turriff: 


Richard Stuart Lake: That is just the case; the hon. gentleman is asking that the renewal of one particular charter be refused.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: Thus making an exception in that case. I think we should treat all cases alike. The hon. gentleman has taken very strong ground with regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway, but that is the only company we ever heard him speaking against in connection with these matters.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is the only one in
my constituency.


Richard Stuart Lake: Only last year the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company, asked for a renewal of their charter, a charter given them three years before, blanket-ting an immense area of country for the construction of branch lines, not a single one of which had they started to build. Yet this House decided that their charter was to be renewed. I do not think that we should make fish of one and fowl of another. Until this House decides, as I think it ought to decide, that a provision shall be put in all charters requiring the company to begin and complete its work within a reasonable time, I think we should go on as we have gone on in the past, practically allowing free trade in charters.


Mr. STAPLES.: It is somewhat amusing to me to note how jealous the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) is of his own We have been fighting in the committee and in the House for just what he proposes in this particular case-we have asked that no charter should be renewed except on the condition that the company shall construct a certain portion of the line within a certain time. We had a case of this kind before the committee a short time ago and got such a provision put in the Bill. And what did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) do? He got up at the next meeting and asked to have the Bill reconsidered, and then we found him voting down the amendment we had already carried in the committee. He seeks to make that limit in his own constituency. But the Bill I have just referred to related to my constituency. I am quite willing to guard the interests of his constituents, but I would like him to reciprocate by assisting us who are just as anxious as he is to have railways constructed to serve our people. The hon. gentleman is very emphatic in that. He wants to get on the floor and make a little spiel that it may go to his constituents showing how strong he is on this subject. I am prepared to support the hon. gentleman notwithstanding his attitude on the general question.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff) and some other hon. members of this House, myself included, are charged with inconsistency in the position we take on, this charter and on a certain other charter that came before the Railway Committee and before this House some time ago. So far as I am concerned, I do not feel that charge. I do not intend to speak for the hon. member for Assini-boia or the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Rutan) or any other hon. member. But it seems to me that every case ought to be taken on its individual merits. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) knows that this is not a similar case to the other.


William D. Staples: Explain the difference.


David Bradley Neely: The hon. gentleman knows that the Canadian Pacific Railway is in a position financially to go ahead with the, construction of these branch lines for which they are asking extension of time. He knows that they could, within twelve months, build twenty-five miles on these branch lines if they wished to do so. But he knows that in the other case referred to, the company was not in a position to go ahead. If any leniency is to be shown, it ought to be shown to new companies, for they have their organization to complete, their financing to do, and other preliminary work to get through with. But the Canadian Pacific Railway has its main lines constructed and also has money to build these branch lines. The cases are not parallel, and the charge of inconsistency made by the hon. member for Macdonald and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) are not well founded.
Amendment (Mr. Turriff) negatived.
On section 2,


Mr. HERRON.: I would like to have an assurance from the minister that he will give the people ample time to be heard before he accepts the route laid down by this company. There was an amendment passed in committee in reference to this clause, we inserted the words ' High river ' in the charter. I would like the minister to consider the distance these people are from the head office at Ottawa, and that he will allow them, I should say, thirty days. It is sometimes important that these people should have ample time to take these things into consideration. I think the minister told the committee they would have at least two weeks. I would like an assurance that they will get ample time.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to be put in a position to define ample time. We always give sufficient time, or what we think is sufficient time for all parties to be heard. That is the rule of the department. My hon. friend says thirty days. It strikes
me that would not be necessary. However, we will telegraph to the people in those localities that we are going to have a hearing at such a date, perhaps a little less time than he mentions. However, we will see that they get adequate time.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
House Tesumed debate on motion to go into Committee of Supply and the amendment thereto.
George Eulas Foster: I want to say a few words on this motion before it comes to a vote. Primarily the motion affects the locality in which the work is situated, but it is that kind of a motion which I think, if we are attentive to our duties and mindful of our responsibilities, challenges the attention of every member who has a seat in this House. It is a case of the expenditure of a million dollars of the public money for a work in a locality the grounds for which are altogether inadequate. The discussion well illustrates three positions: First, the way in which the money is sometimes appropriated-I wish I could say 'sometimes,' I think I ought to say in which the money is very frequently appropriated by this government; in the second place, it is illustrative of the way, after the money is placed in the hands of the responsible ministers, it is used for the work; and lastly, it has been illustrative of the methods by which ministers undertook to defend, if you can call it a defence, a vote of this kind, appropriated in this way, and carried out as this has been carried out. Now I made a motion for the papers, and one of the cardinal points I made in that motion was this: I asked for all reports, or papers, or documents which had regard to the commercial foundation of the transaction. After all, ought that not to be the basis and the beginning of the whole thing? Surely it is not enough to say that you will appropriate money because an engineer tells you that what you want to build is feasible and can be properly built? The foundation of the whole thing is this: Is it a necessary or an advisable work? Is it in the interest of the development and commerce of the trade of the country; and if it is not a military necessity, if it is not a national necessity, there is no other ground upon which to place it than that it is a work necessary and advisable, and for which that amount of money is not too much to appropriate. Now, when these papers were brought down, what did I find? -or rather what did I not find? I did not find one syllable from the beginning of the papers to the end showing any attempt by anybody to find out whether there was a commercial basis for this transaction, not one. The only thing that is given with reference to the commercial side of it, if you


Samuel Hughes: Did you ever see the creek?


George Eulas Foster: I have looked for the creek but I have not seen it yet. Now, as to the engineering part of this work, I ask the Minister of Railways if under the circumstances surrounding it he thinks this House or the country can have any confidence in his enginering department. What are the facts? The canal is divided into two sections and one section takes you from Lake Simcoe to Holland Landing, that being the improvement of a waterway and not the building of a canal. That is the first /Sedtion, and the one which one would suppose it would be economical to build first. But what happens: the Minister of Railways sent his engineer and told him to make his examination and give an estimate
what it would cost to put it in shape and the engineer gave him an estimate of $46,000 and the contract was let for $46,000. For two years the contractors held that work and did absolutely nothing. Under what rule did the department leave that work in the hands of the contractors-some of them their own friends and very near and strong friends and influential in the constituency-by what rule were thev en-

abled to hold that for two years without doing any work? The contractors had a pumping machine, the engineer was on the ground, he had no faith in the machinery from the first. After the contractors had been at it a year and done practically nothing he wrote to the department that he had no more faith in the machinery and their capability of doing the work than he had a year before and yet the work remained in the contractors' hands, they doing nothing. But the gravamen of the charge against the railway department is that when it came to a second letting of the contract and the making of the second estimate, the engineer of the department estimated the work to be worth not $46,000 but $131,000. What reliance can we place on the engineers of a department who will take the very same piece of work under the very same conditions, with a lapse of two years, and make such a difference in the estimate. But up to this date not a stroke of work has been done on this initial part of the undertaking. That was dredging work and nothing could work on it but a dredge and the few men engaged on the dredge. It did not distribute the patronage sufficiently and the election was coming on in October, and instead of going on with the first part of the work the department gave their energies to the second part of the work where they could multiply the employment of men and teams and spend $150,000 or more during the few months preceding the elections. What happened? The minister's engineer made the first estimate of the cost of the whole canal at $291,000, and that was the estimate we had when we first voted money for this; in fact I think we were told it would cost less. A little while after the engineer made another estimate and it came up to about $328,000; he afterwards made another estimate of the whole thing, and it came up to $354,000, and a short time afterwards another engineer of that department went on the very same ground and put on it an estimate of $596,826. How are we to reconcile operations of that kind with a well conducted department and a competent set of engineers. Tenders were called for and the lowest tender was $652,000 and the contract was let at that price, which was $50,000 or $60,000, more than the estimate. And now, at the very last we have dragged out of the department that this work which at first was to cost about $300,000, entered into by parliament on an estimate of $291,000-is now estimated to cost about $970,000, not taking into consideration the water conservation which is necessary, and which will bring the total cost up to about $1,200,000. In that way we were led by misrepresentation, absolute misrepresentation, and whether by the engineer or the minister matters very little to this House. I challenge Mr. FOSTER.
any man to show a business foundation for that undertaking. What does it mean ?	$1,200,000 taken out of the people's taxes and put into that place, when all over this country men are starving for railroad facilities in the west and in the east, and cannot get a dollar for development because of such expenditures as this. The other day, in the far east, a much desired and long promised bit of railway was pleaded for by members on both sides of politics. It would cost altogether some $300,000 or less. What was the plea for not building that railroad? 'These are times of financial stress; we have not the money, and we cannot go on with the work.' To-day we have coming from every portion of the great northwest, where the hardy sons of the older provinces and the men we have invited from other countries have gone and taken their lives in their hands, and with their small families have settled in advance of the great lines of transport, appeal for transport facilities; and you tell them that you cannot raise the money to subsidize railways; but you can find a million dollars to put into a ditch at the request of our Minister of Justice who must be buttressed by things of that kind. How much is there to be done in this country? What forest conservation is there staring these men in the face, and how little are they doing to come up to their responsibilities in that respect; it cost money; but a million dollars can be found to put into this place in North York, and the Minister of Justice has nothing better as a plea than to say, "with his accustomed modesty, that he does not want to take the credit of having originated the work, but he would be proud if he could take that credit, and anyway he stands up for it.
Mr. Speaker, I only wish we could have in these galleries the taxpayers from every part of this country, to listen to this discussion of what I am sorry to say is but a sample of the many ways in which their money is wasted. We are not charging any graft; we are not charging any dishonest work in the department or with the contractors in this case. There may be graft; we do not know it, and we are not charging it. This case rests entirely on its business merit. It is cheap logic, very cheap logic, for the Minister of Justice to try to turn the point when the argument is against him, by saying that it is the jealousy of other constituencies, or party zeal, that is urging this discussion. For my part, party does not enter into it, nor do I believe that it does in the case of other gentlemen who have spoken on the subiect. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is painful, absolutely painful, to see the waste of money in such a place and on such a construction and to see it going through this House apparently

treated in a spirit of light comedy by the responsible minister, and with absolute indifference by the other ministers of the Crown. Will any of them stand up and give us a reason for it? Let them show to the representatives of the taxpayers, who if not here to-night, may hear something of this by the only voice we have to reach them, the voice of the press, how they can justify this expenditure. We have dug things out in the province of Quebec that have been shameful, in the Public Works Department and in other departments; we have dug things out in other provinces which have been shameful; but for sheer, wanton, absolute waste, I do not know anything that equals this case of a million dollars of the people's money thrown into a profitless ditch.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, in the course of his observa-vations, did me the honour of saying that he would like to know what was passing in my mind when I was listening to the debate. I am glad on this occasion to be able to gratify the curiosity of my hon. friend. What was passing in my mind, when I was listening to my hon. friend and to some of his associates, was that this motion was a fair sample of how scandals are manufactured.


George Eulas Foster: I am sorry that you had not anything better than that running in your head.


Wilfrid Laurier: To-morrow we shall have in the press the speech of my hon. friend, the gist of which, coming after the other speeches to which we have listened, is that the government are corruptly spending $1,000,000 for the purpose-to use the elegant language of my hon. friend- of boosting a minister of the Crown.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad to find that I interpret correctly the sentiment that prevails on the other side of the House. This is the reason we have now another scandal. The scandal in this instance is that we are spending $1,000,000 for the purpose of boosting a minister of the Crown. The minister of the Crown at that time was a gentleman who was much respected in this House while he was here, and who is much respected in the position he now occupies-Sir Wm. Mulock. For my part, I do not believe that any man in Canada who knows Sir William Mulock will believe that he ever tried to encourage any work in his constituency for the purpose of boosting his own nolitical fortunes. I think the reputation of Sir William Mulock is above any aspersion that can be cast against him by my hon. friend or anybody else. I think his reputation is above any such argument, if I can dignify anything of that kind by calling it an 100
argument. But, Sir, how did we come to undertake this work? If it was for the purpose of boosting the election of my friend and colleague at the time, Sir Wiliam Mulock, how was it that it was the opponent of Sir William Mulock who came here and asked the government to undertake this work? My hon. friend said, in almost the last words he pronounced, that he would be glad if we had in this room the taxpayers of the country to see how their money was wasted. Why, Sir, if there is any wasted money in this instance, it was at the instance of the taxpayers of this country. We had a delegation here of the sound electors, the best men in the riding of North York. We had the mayor of the town of Newmarket, and the leading citizens of that town and its vicinity. They were not party men, not political friends of Sir William Mulock coming here to boost his election, but men who came in their capacity as citizens, laying aside all party differences, and asking us, in the interest of the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York, to undertake this work. I remember that delegation very well; it was one of nearly one hundred, certainly more than fifty. So large was it, at all events, that there was not room in the ordinary rooms of ministers to receive it. We had to get the use of the Railway Committee room for the purpose, and there man after man rose up and told us that this was not a party question, but that they asked us, in the name of the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York, to give them that improvement.
Now, is the Holland river to be improved? If a boat is to be taken from Lake Simcoe to Newmarket it cannot be taken any other way than the way contemplated by the present work. My hon. friend tells us now that all these representations made to us by men of his own political persuasion were ridiculous, and if I am now to take the word of Conservatives in the House of Commons, the Conservatives in the town of Newmarket land the riding of North York are not trustworthy and their representations are to be treated with contempt. This is the position after all. My hon. friend told us we had not taken any precaution to ascertain whether ot not there would be any business for that canal when built. That is not fair. We had the representations of these -men all. My hon. friend told us we had not treated their statements with the contempt with which my ihon. friends opposite now treat them. We treated them as the representations of honest men, but my hon. friends say no, this whole thing is ridiculous. We complied with the requests of these men, and are we to be told that we did a corrupt action because we took their statements and representations as those of honest men? Yet that is the



position hon. gentlemen opposite are taking in order to make a point against the government. These gentlemen are ready to throw -contempt on men of their own political persuasion in order to make a point against us. What was our answer to the petition presented by these -men? We did not tell them it was ridiculous. We told them it was worthy of consideration and that we would send an engineer to investigate. We did send- an engineer, and he reported that the work could be done for some $300,000. Well, we thought that if we could have that useful work done for the town of Newmarket and the riding of North York for an expenditure of $300,000 we ought to do it. It turns out, however, that the work is -costing more than was expected. That is not unusual in works of this character. My hon. friend says it is going to cost a million dollars. But even if it should, even if there be a mistake, that is verv different from a corrupt act. My hon. friend, however, will not make that distinction, and says it is a useless waste of money. That is not the impression I gathered from the debate. I was not present when my hon friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier) spoke, but I remember a speech he made some two or three years ago on this same question. I admit that he then opposed the grant, but he also stated that there would be work for the canal, and the ground of his objection was that there would be no water for it. This is what he said on the I2th of July, 1905:
There is a very extensive manufacturing concern m Newmarket but there is no guarantee that that factory will remain -there a month. Any one conversant with business knows that if that factory at Newmarket had to be located again, it would not be located at Newmarket. It is not a town that is suitable for a factory such as this, and there is no guarantee that it will remain there.
That was all the exception he took, namely, that there was no guarantee that the factory would remain there. He did not say that there was no work for the canal, but he was not sure that the enterprise would remain where it was. But if the factory be -still there, I presume -there is -a fair amount of work to be -done.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I think I said a great deal more than that. Senator Campbell who then represented North York in this House, said the canal would be used to bring lumber up to th-at mill, and I said that the logs were hard wood and would not float. He, however, said they would float.


Wilfrid Laurier: That was work to be taken to the town, but the products of the factory are to be taken out of the town, and all my hon. friend had to -say was that he was not sure the factory would Six WILFRID LAURIER;
be there for ever. But if he was sure it would be there for ever. I take it for granted he would be satisfied.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I can quite understand why the minister and his government have gone into this canal if he assumes that by my statement that is what I meant.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that is another evidence that we are not to trust Conservatives when they address us, whether as members of the House or as a delegation. If a delegation should ever again come to us as Conservatives and represent that what they want is not a party question and is for the advantage of the locality they represent, and if I should be still in the position I enjoy to-day, I shall profit by the lesson I have just learned and will tell them: You say now it is no party question, but you will make it one as soon as the work is done.


Samuel Hughes: But before the vote was cast in this House, did the right hon. gentleman not hear from Conservatives that -this work was perfectly useless?


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly.


Samuel Hughes: Then why did you go on with it?


Wilfrid Laurier: That was after we had listened to the Conservatives in North York and made up our minds and brought down the estimates.


John Allister Currie: Had there been any m-onejy spent on this work before that delegation of Conservatives and Reformers waited on the government?


Wilfrid Laurier: Is my hon. friend serious? I tell him very seriously there was none.


John Allister Currie: There was $25,000, as my right hon. friend will see if he will look up the record.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am satisfied there was no money spent until we heard of the project from that delegation.


John Allister Currie: $25,000 was spent on surveys in October, and the delegation waited on the right hon. gentleman in the February -following, after all this work had been done.


Wilfrid Laurier: There might have been a survey, but I do not understand that a survey is the work itself. What is the trend of this motion? It is that while this work i-s going on we should stop it. Why, even if a mistake has been made it would be a greater mistake not to go on. It is sometimes a mistake to do certain things, but once a thing has been undertaken it i-s best to follow it to the end. In this matter we have the Con-

servatives of the county of North York and of the House of Commons at variance, and I am disposed to listen to the voice of the Conservatives of North York.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has accused us on this side of the House of unworthily casting ridicule and contempt upon this work which had been advocated by a delegation, which, as, he says, was composed partly of Liberals and partly of Conservatives. He seems to be seized with amazement that any opposition to what we regard as an absurd expenditure should be offered by us in this House, considering that some Conservatives were members of that delegation. That certainly is a remarkable view to take of the duty of hon. gentlemen on either side of this House. The right hon. gentleman may establish that criterion, if he likes, for the members of his own party;-I do not now know how many of them will be prepared to accept it ; but if he supposes that hon. gentlemen on this side will refrain from criticising an unjust expenditure, simply because it is advocated by Conservatives as well as Liberals in the particular riding affected, I desire to tell him that he has absolutely mistaken the temper and disposition of hon. gentlemen on this side. He tells us that ridicule and contempt have been cast upon this undertaking by the lack of defence on the part of himself and his ministers. His concluding words declared that because $200,000 had been expended already on this manifestly absurd and useless undertaking, therefore we should go on and spend $800,000 or $900,000 more. To state the argument is to refute it. The severest condemnation of this undertaking is the reply of the three ministers who have spoken. The argument in defence of this proposal is two-fold. In the first place, the argument is that this work is feasible. Feasible ? Of course, it is feasible. If you spend $10,000,000, no doubt, you could build a canal in a portion of the country that now has no water communication at all-and the work might not be worth $10 when completed. If you spend enough money on this undertaking, I suppose you can construct the canal under discussion, unless the absolute lack of water stands in the way. Next the defence of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) is that Conservatives and Liberals have asked for this woTk. Well, perhaps you could embark upon many expenditures in different ridings in this country that would receive the support of some Conservatives and a great many Liberals. But does that absolve-the prime minister seems to think it does-the government as trustees for the people from all responsibility in connection with the expenditure of the public 100J
money? Does he lay down as a doctrine to be accepted by this House and by this country that, if you can get Conservatives and Liberals to demand a certain expenditure, and if you convince yourself that the undertaking can, be carried out within the revenues of the country, the government, without further consideration, should embark upon it ? I ask the Prime Minister, as I asked the Minister of Railways and Canals this afternoon, what estimate is he able to give to the members of this House as to the business to be done on that canal and the tonnage to be carried over it in one year? Is the Prime Minister prepared to offer an estimate?
As the right hon. gentleman remains silent, his silence when that question is put to him across the floor of this House is an absolute condemnation, not only of the enterprise itself, but of the conduct of his government in entering upon it. Have we so much money in this country that we are ready to put a million or a million and a half into any enterprise, provided that money will carry it out, and provided that some Liberals and some Conservatives go to the government and ask for it? Yet, I leave it to hon. members who have listened to the Prime Minister and to the gentlemen who preceded him, whether there has been any defence of this undertaking otheT than that I have just mentioned. The right hon. gentleman seems to hint that it is a reproach to us for attacking this unjustifiable expenditure that three or four or half a dozen Conservatives advocated it three or four years ago. He seems to forget that what that delegation asked for, as I have understood it, was not the construction of a canal at a cost of a million or a million and a quarter of dollars, but the dredging of the Holland river; and, as pointed out by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) I venture to think that the enterprise had been already engaging the attention of the government, because it appears they had spent some $25,000 in surveys before that delegation was brought down. It looks very much as if the delegation had been brought down for the purpose of the enterprise, and that it did not initiate the enterprise in the mind of the government.


Haughton Lennox: That is perfectly correct, as I know.


Robert Laird Borden: Without knowing the facts, that is what I should be in dined to think the true explanation of this case. So far as this expenditure is concerned, there has been absolutely no defence worthy of the name made in this House to-day. There is no estimate-there never has been an estimate-of the traffic to be carried on the canal. When all parts of this country, as my hon. friend

from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has said, are clamouring for the expenditure of public money in aid of transportation, the government, in their flush times, when they used to ask from their supporters throughout the country applications for the expenditure of public money, handed out a million and a quarter of dollars with no more benefit to the people than if they had thrown it into the sea-with less benefit, indeed, because, as the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) has said, not only will the money spent in the work be wasted, but if it is attempted to maintain the canal, from $20,000 to $40,000 a year must be taken from the public revenues for that purpose. I do not desire to prolong this discussion. There has been no defence of this expenditure from the mouth of any minister. The right hon. Prime Minister tells us that he has given us his mind in this case. Perhaps he has. But I venture to think that if that is all that has been in his mind about it, he quite justifies the boast he made during the late election campaign, that he could not be troubled with so small matters as questions of proper or improper expenditure of the public moneys, that his soul-as he quaintly expressed it- is turned to higher things. I do not know whether that is a very great advantage to the people of this country after all. It seems to me that if his soul, on this occasion, could have been turned to the question of the traffic that would probably go over that canal, if his soul could have been turned to a consideration of the business aspects of this enterprise, that would have inured more to the true interest of the people than some of these eloquent phrases which we hear from the right hon. gentleman both in this House and on the public platform. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the expenditure is absolutely undefended. If a judge in a court were addressing a jury on the arguments pro and con in connection with this expenditure, he would be obliged to tell the jury that it was an absolutely undefended case. That is the way it stands before parliament and before the people of this country to-day. No minister of the Crown has ventured to say that there was the slightest estimate or consideration of the traffic that would go through that canal. The Minister of Railways and Canals told me that very frankly across the floor of the House this afternoon. When I asked the Prime Minister, after he had spoken upon this question and endeavoured to justify this expenditure, if he could give me the slightest idea as to what traffic will go over those four and a half miles of canal, he sat silent in his seat and returned no answer whatever.	And yet the Prime Minister
tells us that it was not a purely political enterprise-	Under these circumstances I
venture to submit that the resolution which has been proposed in this House is a proper one, and that, to use the words of that reso-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
lution, this is an absolutely ' wanton misuse and waste of public money.'
House divided on amendment (Mr. Wallace).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ames,	Lancaster,
Armstrong,	Lennox,
Arthurs,	Lewis,
Barker,	Lortie,
Barnard,	Macdonell,
Barr,	Maclean (York, S.),
Beattie,	McCall,
Blain,	Magrath,
Borden (Halifax),	Middlebro,
Boyce,	Nantel,
Bradbury,	Northrup,
Broder,	Osier,
Burrell,	Paquet,
Campbell,	Perley,
Chisholm (Huron),	Porter,
Clare,	Rhodes,
Cowan,	Roche,
Crosby,	Russell,
Crocket,	Schaffner,
Crothers,	Sexsmith,
Currie (Simcoe),	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Doherty,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Donnelly,	Smyth,
Edwards,	Staples,
Elson,	Stewart,
Foster,	Taylor (Leeds),
Fraser,	Taylor (New West-
Goodeve,	minster),
Gordon (Nipissing),	Thoburn,
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Thornton,
Henderson,	Wallace,
Herron,	White (Renfrew),
Hughes,	Wilson (Lennox and
Jameson,	Addington),
Kidd,	Worthington,
Lake,	Wright.-71.
Lalor,	
NAYS.	
Messieurs	
Allen,	McCraney,
Aylesworth,	MoGiverin,
Beauparlant,	McIntyre (Perth),
Beland,	MoKenzie,
Bickerdike,	McLean (Huron),
Black,	McLean (Sunbury),
Borden (Sir Fred'k.),	McMillan,
Boyer,	Major,
Brodeur,	Martin (Regina),
Brown,	Martin (Wellington),
Bureau,	Mayrand,
Calvert,	Meigs,
Carrier,	Michaud,
Cash,	Miller,
Chisholm (Antigonish)	Molloy,
Chisholm (Inverness),	Murphy,
Congdon,	Nesbitt,
Conmee,	Neely,
Currie (Prince Edw.),	Oliver,
Delisle,	Papineau,
Demers,	Pardee,
Dubeau,	Parent,
Dugas,	Paterson,
Ecrement,	Pickup,
Ethier,	Proulx,
Fielding,	Prowse,
Fisher,	Pugsley,

Fortier,	Rankin,
Fowke,	Reid (Restigouche),
Gauvreau,	Richards,
Geo-ffrion,	Rivet,
German,	Robb,
Gervais,	Ross,
Girard,	Roy (Dorchester),
Gordon (Kent),	Roy (Mointmagny),
Graham,	Rutan,
Guthrie,	Savoie,
Harris,	Schell,
Hodgins,	Sealey,
Hunt,	Seguin,
Knowles,	Sinclair,
Ivyte,	Smith (Middlesex),
Lachance,	Smith (Stormont),
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Stratton,
Napierville),	Talbot,
Lapointe,	Templeman,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tobin,
Lavergne,	Todd,
LeBlano,	Tolmie,
Loggie,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Lovell,	Turcotte (Quebec
Low,	County),
Maclean (Lunenburg),	, Turgeon,
MaoN utt,	Turriff,
MoAlister,	Warbnrton,
McCoig,	White (Victoria, Alts
McColl,	Wilson (Laval).-112.
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Blondin,
Macdonald,	Maddin,
Lemieux,	Haggart (Lanark),
Harty,	Reid (Grenville),
Sifton,	Sproule,
Emmerson,	Monk,
Sutherland,	McCarthy,
Smith (Nanaimo),	Daniel,
Carvell,	Bristol,
Clarke (Essex),	Marshall,
Maroile (Bagot),	Forget,
McIntyre (Strathcona), Owen,	
Law,	Stanfield,
Chew,	Meighen,
Clark (Red Deer).	Price.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Trent canal construction, 81,000,000.
William Wright: How much of this vote will be devoted to opening out the two ends of the canal into Lake Ontario and the Georgian Bay?


Hon.  G. P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) As a matter of fact the contract for the western end into the Georgian bay has not been let at all and no money out of this vote will be spent on it. The outlet to the Bay of Quinte has been let to Larkin & Sangster.


Samuel Hughes: Has the whole work of connecting the navigable waters of Rice Lake to the Bay of Quinte been placed under contract?


George Perry Graham: There are two contracts not yet let.


William Wright: Is it not the intention of the minister to go on with the opening of the western end at once? It would seem to me to be the most important part of the work. Until the ends of the canal are opened up the canal will be useless for the purpose for which it was designed.


Mr. STRATTON.: When does the minister expect to place under contract the section between Lake Simcoe and the Georgian bay?


George Perry Graham: We have had two surveys made and the report on one of them at least has not yet been placed before me in its entirety.


John Allister Currie: Were there not three surveys?


George Perry Graham: One by the Severn river and the other by Kempenfeldt bay. No decision will be arrived at until my hon. friend (Mr. Currie) will have full opportunity to come down with a deputation of his friends and advocate what he thinks is the better route.


George Eulas Foster: If the deputation has both Liberals and Conservatives on it I suppose the thing wdll go?


George Perry Graham: As I said at Barrie during the last campaign, whichever the engineer thinks the more feasible route will be accepted.


John Allister Currie: When the minister referred to this matter in Barrie during the last campaign the people living along the valley of the Nottawasaga river inferred from his remarks that the canal would surely be built along the valley of that river. As a matter of fact the county of Simcoe has appointed a committee on canals to take the question up, and the chairman of that committee has written to me to know if I could ascertain whether there has been a survey and a report made. If the question is considered on its merits it will be found that the canal can be built much more cheaply via Kempenfeldt bay and the Nottawasaga river than by way of the Severn river, because there is nothing but sand and gravel and clay on the western route whilst on the eastern route there will be a tremendous amount of rock cutting, and as every engineer knows one yard of rock cutting will cost about twelve times as much as a yard of gravel. I strongly urge that the minister give favourable consideration to the western route. Notable engineers of the past who have surveyed these routes unhesitatingly give their opinion in favour of the Kempenfeldt bay or Barrie-Nottawasaga river route. I strongly urge the advisability of completing the report as soon as possible so that I may

have the opnortunity of bringing down here a lot of good Reformers to interview the minister, and incidentally I suppose I may be allowed to bring a few Conservatives who are also interested in the matter. There is no doubt but that the western route is the easiest and the best route. It was the route followed by the early voyageurs; it was the war route in 1812, and from an engineering standpoint in the present day it is undoubtedly the most acceptable. Then, I would urge upon the government that they should seriously consider the advisability of making it a modern canal from Lake Simcoe on and not have it in the same category as the canal on the Trent route. The cost of making the locks larger and the waterway deeper would be comparatively small once the plant is erected there, and what a magnificent idea it would be to have these large freighters coming into Lake Simcoe and discharging their cargoes at Beaverton or at this dock at Holland Landing. The minister will be well advised if he does not give the preference to the Severn river route, althouffh during the last campaign a supporter of the government was elected m that riding. This canal has been a political question for so many years that it is time for us to call quits and turn it into a business enterprise at last.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The Lake Simcoe Dredging Company had a contract dated April 7, 1906, which they were in default with respect to. Did they get back their deposit of $4,649?


George Perry Graham: No; we forfeited it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did they get the balance of $750 which they claimed?


George Perry Graham: Not yet.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are they still claiming it?


George Perry Graham: They still claim and the matter is under consideration.


Mr.   POSTER@: Did they get anything?


George Perry Graham: They got about $1,600 on progress estimates for work done.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is that all they are going to get?


George Perry Graham: I think so; the $700 is under consideration.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: On July 15,
1908, tenders were called for a second letting and the lowest was $94,960 and the highest $167,023. Why was not the contract let on these tenders?


George Perry Graham: The figure was so much larger than the original contract that


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 'Your Engineer's' estimate was $131,000.


John Allister Currie: 


George Perry Graham: I did not say the estimate; I say the figure was so much larger than for the other contract which had been cancelled that I did not consider the matter so urgent that I should not look into it thoroughly. I had not the engineer's estimate with me at the time as I was away from the department and I would not accept it without inquiry.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It never was accepted?


George Perry Graham: No. If the approaching elections had anything to do with it, I would have let the contract immediately to get men to work.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: My information is from prominent men in Newmarket, that political friends of the hon. gentleman's party were interested in the contract, and that they dare not let it to the lowest tenderer.


George Perry Graham: Nonsense.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Will the hon. gentleman explain in what way Mr. Widdifield is identified with almost every lot that has been taken and paid for in damages
there?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Widdifield, a lawyer, is the agent of the Minister of Justice, and as such passes the titles when we take possession of the lands. We do this, not directly, but through the Department of Justice, which has an agent at each of these places.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the minister know whether or not Mr. Widdifield has any personal connection with or interest in these lands?


George Perry Graham: I do not know. The business is not done through my department.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The reason I ask is that there are some lots in which neither Widdifield nor the other agent appears, but the parties deal directly with the department.


George Perry Graham: I do not think there is
any case in which there is no agent. There must be a legal agent representing the Department of Justice.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There are two cases in which there is no agent. _


George Perry Graham: I am informed that they cannot be for that.


Samuel Hughes: Is each of the parties who is indemnified for drowned land paid the full amount of the cheque issued to Widdifield?


George Perry Graham: I think there is no question about that.


Samuel Hughes: There was a question about it many times. We have had many instances in which the farmer who was being indemnified had 20 per cent commission taken from the amount of the cheque for party purposes.


George Perry Graham: In any of these cases?


Samuel Hughes: In none of these cases, but there was a ease only a few years ago.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the name of the other agent?


George Perry Graham: Williams. He is also an agent of the Department of Justice.


James Robert Stratton: I may say, for the information of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) that in all cases in which damages were paid in the county of Peterborough, the full amount was paid to the people who had the damaged land. There was no deduction in any case.


John Allister Currie: Was the cheque a joint cheque?


James Robert Stratton: Yes, but there was no such deduction made as the hon. member for Victoria alleges. The Department of Justice itself paid for the legal work done by the solicitor.


Samuel Hughes: The instance to which I had reference was an old one. I referred to the drowned land around Cameron lake, in which the agent of the government, part of the time, took 20 per cent commission from the people. But we discussed that, and I presume the practice was stopped. I desire to ask the minister about the surveying of the drowned land. I happen to know that at the present time in the county of Peterborough an engineer is surveying the drowned land and that he does not start from any known level of the canal or waterway, but just goes by the water mark on the trees. I am not finding any fault with him, because he is one of the most honourable men in the country; but it strikes me that there should be some datum point from which to take the level.


George Perry Graham: The chief engineer informs me that that is done in every case.


Samuel Hughes: Then, the man who is doing it does not seem to know that. Will the minister give us the data concerning the dam being erected at Lindsay? Is the water going to be higher than before, or lower? Is it going to be maintained at an even level, or is it going to be allowed to fall to five or six feet below the top of the dam? Are there fish slides in the dam and passages for small launches?


George Perry Graham: The intention is not to raise the water, but to keep it at a level. The question of fish slides is one on which
there is a difference of opinion. Within the past ten days I have discussed that question with a deputation that came to see me on other matters, and their opinion was that where there were locks a fish slide was not necessary or satisfactory. The fish pass through when the locks are opened, while the fish slides get clogged up in a few weeks. With regard to small launches, there is no provision beside the ordinary locks.


Samuel Hughes: The minister promised that he would provide a small lock or something of that kind.


George Perry Graham: We have considered the question of putting in intermediary gates, but we have not decided on it yet.


William Wright: What size of boat will the locks accommodate?


George Perry Graham: Six feet in depth and 122 feet in length. All the details are in the report.


John Allister Currie: How many acres of land have been taken for this Newmarket canal?


George Perry Graham: The amount paid so far is about $27,000. I cannot tell the number of acres. That is worked out elsewhere. The hon. gentleman will find it in the report page 97-134 x 33 x 5.


John Allister Currie: Have you settled all the land damages at Newmarket down to Cook's bay?


George Perry Graham: Nearly all settled. There may be two or three cases yet to be settled.


Samuel Hughes: The lock-master at Fenelon Falls has for a number of years been in the habit of raising and lowering the waters. Sometimes there would be a difference of two feet between the extreme high and the extreme low water caused by the eccentricities of this young gentleman. Consequently for weeks at a time, the water will be up on the shore and when winds come along those who own lands on the shore occasionally see portions of them floating down the lake. In other words considerable damage is done along the shores of that lake owing to the high waters. Is the minister paying damages caused by that class of irregularity ? There are a number of gentlemen there who have claims of that nature. Has he paid similar damages elsewhere? I understand damages nave been paid at Stony lake and also Rice lake.


George Perry Graham: We have paid damages for raising the permanent level of the water on Stony and Rice lakes but not in any case such as my hon. friend mentions.


Samuel Hughes: You should.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: What amount is to be spent on the eastern end of the Trent Valley canal now under contract ?


George Perry Graham: There will not be more than $200,000 spent on the Holland river and the balance will be spent on the main canal.


William Wright: I understood the minister to say that there were a couple of sections not under contract on the eastern portion of the canal. What amount will be required to build them, and how long will it take to provide an eastern outlet into Lake Ontario?
. Mr. GRAHAM. I .should imagine it would take four years. I could not tell what would be the cost oi those sections as they are not let.


John Albert Sexsmith: When do you expect to let the contract for the Healy Falls section and the one outlet at Rainy Falls ?


George Perry Graham: It is difficult to say. I am not getting as large appropriations for the canal this year as I would like. I tried to have the amount doubled but was not able. The Healy Falls contract might possibly be let during the autumn, but no work will be done this yeaT and I would not like to make a promise that it will be let. I want to go on as rapidly as the finances of the country will permit.


Samuel Hughes: The finances of the country are all right. What is wanted is more energy. This thing has been dawdling on since 1833, and it is just wasting money to have it go on as it is. I had hoped that the minister, having come here full of vigour and energy, would have set an example and if he had not been given his way in getting this work completed, he would have resigned and brought on a crisis in the cabinet.


George Perry Graham: That would not help it.


Samuel Hughes: I am not so sure. We are told that the cabinet was brought to time by a minister threatening to resign and also by the Finance Minister in like manner.


George Perry Graham: My resignation would not have that effect.


Samuel Hughes: - I would not take that line until all other means had been tried and failed. The minister should first try his persuasive power in order to get this thing completed. In its present condition it is an eyesore, having a long complete stretch in the centre but the two ends unfinished. I want to draw attention to two things-the lighting and the opening of the locks. The department has a very good system of lighting by acetylene gas buoys. Along this canal you could have a number Mr. HUGHES.
of piers constructed on which these automatic buoys would be placed, and in that way the waterways could be lighted. There is a great deal of travel on these waters at night, and it is an immense advantage to have them well lighted. A part of the line around Lindsay and Fenelon Falls could be lighted by electricity. But between Lindsay and Sturgeon lake and above Lindsay to Port Perry, which could not be lighted by electricity, these piers could be readily constructed. There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. The locks are very burdensome to operate. You use the old winch system which came down from the time of Moses. I would suggest to the minister that he should bring that part of his department up to the 20th century and get a proper system of opening the locks along the line. All it requires is a little energy. The minister has a deputy who is willing, and if he will set his energy at work, he will not allow this old fashioned system to continue.


James Robert Stratton: I think the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) is quite right with regard to the improvements that might be made and on the modern locks that are being constructed. So far as I can observe, the department is dealing with that aspect of the case. I would like to point out that the lakes might be better buoyed and lighted. I was going to Lindsay one night last fall myself, and stayed out nearly all night, not being able to find the way. It would be much better for the passenger boats if the lake were buoved, and there is no doubt that the passage into Lindsay and up the Scugog is dangerous, and should be better lighted. And, now that there is sufficient power to light by electricity, I would be willing to support the hon. member for Victoria in advocating the proper lighting of these channels.


John Albert Sexsmith: Has it been decided what kind of locks are to be put in at Healy Falls? It is a great pity that the minister has not included in the estimates this year enough to complete the lower end of this canal. It is a very important work. The minister, when asked when we might expect it to be finished, said in about four years. He knows that the Healy Falls portion is a very difficult one. I think that, even if he lets the contract next year, it will be many years before it can be finished. The same is true of the portion just below the village of Campbellford at Raney's Falls. Had the money devoted to the work that was so long under discussion this afternoon been expended on these portions of the canal, it would have been of much greater benefit to the country. I do not pretend to be very well posted on this subject beyond the information we have gathered in the discussion to-day, but considering the defence made by the ministers

one can hardly come to any other conclusion than that the money spent on the Neymarket canal will be practically thrown away. There has been a good deal of speculation as to just where this canal is going to run. I would like to ask the minister to tell us if he has yet decided whether it is to follow the river at Raney's Falls, and what kind of locks they intend to place at Healy Falls?


George Perry Graham: At Healy Falls, we will follow the river with the ordinary lift-lock. I think my hon. friend will see that it would not be wise, in the public interest, to announce what we are going to do at Campbellford at this time.


John Albert Sexsmith: Some Campbellford people tell us the canal is going to follow the bed of the river, while others say it will go along the bank.


Samuel Hughes: They will not follow the bed of the river at Campbellford. I desire to draw the attention of the minister to two branch canals, of one of which, the Haliburton branch, I have already spoken. The minister has never been up that route. In order to impress the officers of the department with the importance of keeping the water up to a certain level, I got two of the officers in a boat out in a lake and succeeded in running themj aground. Fortunately, or unfortunately, a very violent storm arose. There was no chaplain aboard, so I had to officiate in receiving their final confession, because they thought they were going to kingdom come. If we could get the minister or deputy minister to come up there, I promise I will look after their safety. But I would like the privilege of showing them that the Haliburton canal is an absolute necessity and that it mav be easily constructed. The waterway is there and the construction of six locks would open up sixty miles of navigation. It would assist in developing a very fine country and bringing out valuable hardwood timber, such as maple and birch now so largely used in the manufacture of furniture, and bringing it out in the only way possible, because no railway will be put in there. But I have already spoken on this subject, and will not detain the committee now. Another point to which my attention was drawn bv the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Wright) was this: Muskoko lake and Lake Couchiching are on nearly the same level, and a little work would open u.t>
the connecting link between these waters, that is between the waters of Severn river and Muskoka lake, and so bring Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and a large area of country into water communication with the outer world, that is, if this canal is ever to be completed. Now, I would like to ask if the minister has looked into the Haliburton canal? I may say that we have ways and means of directing the attention .of the government to these things. This is a new parliament, and I am giving the hon. gentleman a preliminary canter on this subject this session. But I promise him that next session, if something is not done meantime, we will make it considerably more interesting, and will continue in that way until we impress upon the minister, even better than a deputation of Grits and Tories could do it. that something ought to be done in this matter.


George Perry Graham: I have not paid much attention to these branch lines that have been mentioned several times. To be frank with the committee, I do not feel inclined to undertake more branch lines than the present, nor until we get the main line through. When that is done, I think it will be reasonable to discuss some betterments to connect with other places.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is it the intention of the department to dredge between Trent bridge and Hastings, or between Hastings and Rice lake this summer? I had the privilege of taking a little trip there last summer, and like my hon. friend from Victoria, we did not know whether we were going to get back the same night or not ran on the rocks. That part of the river is used to a considerable extent during the summer, and it would not be a very difficult or expensive proposition to have the work done.


George Perry Graham: I think it is under contract.


John Albert Sexsmith: I am very glad to hear that.
Patent Record-further amount required, $9,000.


William Wright: Is there really any good purpose served by printing that large pamphlet called the 'Patent Record'? I think all the members receive it, and I was wondering whether there was any necessity for getting so many of them printed. Possibly it could be done away with.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: The expenditure is largely due to the cuts of the different patents. It is a book that inventors are anxious to have, as without it they would have no record of inventions, and they might he working on an invention which had been already recorded. It is sent to all the public libraries in the country. The total cost is $17,000 or $18,000 a year. This year we have to pay up a lot of arrears. It costs $1,800 or $1,900 a month. At the beginning of this year we were in arrears some nine months, now we are in arrears only three months.
Year-book-further amount required, $4,600-


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: How many Yearbooks are printed and distributed every

year, and how many are the members allowed to have for the purpose of distribution?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are 11,000 printed each year, 7,000 in English and 4,000 in French. I am told that 5 or 6 are sent to each member.


Uriah Wilson: What proportion of them are bound in cloth and what proportion in paper? WThen bound in cloth they make a very nice book for a library.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am told there are about
4,000	bound in cloth, and these are chiefly sent out to libraries and places where we know they will be preserved. Those bound m paper are sent out for ordinary distribution.
Further amount required for the development of the dairy and fruit industries, and the improvement and transportation of, and the promotion of the sale and trade in food end other agricultural products, $13,000.


Uriah Wilson: What is the whole amount of which this is supplementary?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The whole amount last year was $125,000. The reason for this vote is almost entirely due to some arrears of accounts with the railroads for the refrigerator cars.	~


Uriah Wilson: Will the amount be less another year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will ask for the same amount as we ask for this year, without these arrears.
Mr- Ih A. GORDON. I would like to ask the minister if he has considered the advisability of including in some such estimate as this, a sum sufficient to erect a cold storage warehouse to experiment in the handling of apples. I may point out that Kent county has the greatest number of apple trees I believe of any county in the Dominion, but, our orchards are going to waste seemingly because the farmers are not in a position to handle their crops to advantage. I believe it is largely owing to the fact that the cold storage warehouses are not in the vicinity of the orchards, and there has not been sufficient development along that line to induce people to invest m building them. I think an experimental warehouse for that purpose is absolutely essential, and 1 hope the minister will promise that a sufficient sum will be included to make a testing station, and let us see if we cannot handle the apple crop to better advantage. To-day, although there are so many apple trees in that vicinity, you cannot get an apple at any price, whereas in the city of Ottawa apples at $8 to $9 per barrel are coming in from the eastern end of the country where they are properly handled >
presume largely owing to assist-Mr. U. WILSON.
ance offered by the Dominion and local governments.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The proposition the hon. gentleman makes would more naturally come under the vote foT cold storage warehouses. That vote is under a statute, and the statute does not provide for such an experiment as the hon. gentleman talks of. I have no doubt myself that one of the most important necessities for our apple trade is a means for cooling apples immediately, or very soon after, they are picked, and before they are shipped. The fruit, if copied down as low as possible without being frozen, will keep much better afterwards than in ordinary storage, or in ordinary cars for shipment. No doubt one of the main improvements which the apple trade must look to is cold storage facilities close to the orchards, where the fruit can be cooled as soon as possible after it is picked. I have not in my vote for the coming fiscal year any provision for such an experiment as my hon. friend has outlined. I had hoped that the provision for cold storage warehouses under the Act would be sufficient to meet the necessities which my hon. friend has alluded to. It is possible that the circumstances and conditions in the fruit districts are not such that the people are able to fully take advantage of the provisions of the cold storage Act and if so perhaps it would be well to amend that Act or to provide other facilities which would meet the necessities of the case. But in the estimates for the coming fiscal year I must say there is no provision for such an experiment as my hon. friend outlined.


Mr. D. A. GORDON.: I believe the sum required will not exceed $12,000 or $15,000 for one station of that character. I would not hesitate, realizing the importance of this work, to recommend in the strongest language possible that a movement be made to introduce an amendment at once for the purpose of this experiment. As I understand we have to be educated as to the methods that we must adopt in order to take care of the crop in a proper way, and the only way that we can ascertain the best method is by having an experimental warehouse. Personally I feel like adopting a much more comprehensive method but it may be well to go slowly under the circumstances and take up the matter in this way as suggested. 1 hope the minister will not allow the opportunity to go by, because I am satisfied our farmers are not getting 25 per cent of what they should for their apples. Last fall I know apples were marketed at prices ranging from 8 to 25 cents per hundred simply because there was no provision whereby they could care for the ai>ples and market them as the country would be prepared to absorb them and pay the price. I believe the House is convinced

that if the apples can be kept in proper condition and be delivered in the fall, winter and spring in good condition that people will not only demand them but pay the price. Matters of this kind are so important that we should not neglect the opportunity to assist this industry. In one night we passed military estimates aggregating $6,000,000 and if we are satisfied that cold storage is the proper means for the handling of the apple crop, so that the greatest advantage shall accrue to the farmers, we should not hesitate to undertake the expenditure of a small sum for that purpose. 1 trust that the resources of the minister will not only provide the funds but will also indicate the best way in which to put this system into operation.


Uriah Wilson: A farmer in my county who has a large apple orchard has built a cold storage warehouse at his own expense to handle his own apples and those of his neighbours. If the suggestion of the hon. member is carried out, will that man receive fair treatment and have a fair proportion of the expenses to which he has been put refunded to him ? If he does not receive a refund, I think all should be treated alike. If one part of the country builds its own cold storage warehouses I do not see why we should help others. I have sometimes thought that these are things that should be left very largely to the people themselves. A great deal has been done in this work and I feel that anything that can be done to help our farmers-I do not mean the agriculturists, the men who work the farmers-will be liberally supported by this House.


Mr. BARR.: I am very glad to hear the remarks of my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. D. A. Gordon). I consider this one of the most important questions that we could consider in this House. There is no question that the apple crop this year was good in most parts of the country, but owing to want of cold storage, the farmers have not received the remuneration they should have received. The result is that many orchards throughout Ontario are not cared for as they would be if it was a paying business. The agriculturists and fruit growers do not receive the consideration in matters of this kind to which they are entitled. We spend millions on the militia, we pass these items without consideration, whereas it is exceedingly difficult to obtain any substantial assistance for the farming community. I hope that the remarks which have been made will receive consideration and that next year the estimates will contain a substantial amount for the encouragement of farmers to build these cold storage warehouses. We may have enterprising men such as the gentleman mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. U. Wilson) who will build such warehouses, but they are few, and I
do not think the farmers are called upon to pay for cold storage warehouses. I think they should have assistance from the government.


John Albert Sexsmith: I am pleased to learn that Lennox county contains men who have gone so extensively into the fruit growing that they are able to build cold storage warehouses for themselves. I agree with the hon. member for Kent (Mr. D. A. Gordon) that this is a very important question and that the very small amount spent in the interests of the farmers in the past might be doubled or trebled and still the farmers would not be getting anything like their fair share of public expenditure. If we had as the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Gordon) suggested, even one proper cold storage warehouse at some point where it could be utilized and where the farmers would be able to experiment with it, we would be in a position to know the full value of such assistance. Hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of fruit go to waste every year. At present we have a system of co-operation in many parts of the province where the farmers ship their own apples. Where that system is in vogue, if we had what the hon. member for Kent (Mr. D. A. Gordon) suggests, a cold storage plant to which the farmers could ship apples and keep them properly until the market developed, it would be a great advantage to the farmer and I think the minister might well consider this question. What amount did the government pay last year for refrigerator car service ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have here accounts for 1908 amounting to over $9,600, and we paid something during the summer. I would think the total amount would be from $13,000 to $14,000, speaking from memory.


John Albert Sexsmith: That is not a very great donation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That has served the purpose.


Mr. SEALEY.: In Wentworth a co-operation plan has been organized and the details pretty well arranged to construct a cold storage warehouse for apples in particular, and while under the general Gold Storage Act this establishment would come in for some encouragement it seems to be the pretty general opinion that perhaps that encouragment could be increased in an experimental way and as no vote could do more in the general interest of the country than something to encourage an improvement along agricultural lines, the consensus of opinion seems to be that if this vote could be increased, it would be generally approved and result in great good not only in the counties of Wentworth

and Kent but in other places, particularly in two or three of the large fruit and apple growing centres.


Mr.   BAKE@: It is a question of so much importance that the House should impress on the Minister of Agriculture to increase the grant in this respect,


Mr. FOWKE.: It is impossible to overstate the influence that the Department of Agriculture under the present minister has had on the creation of wealth in this country. Any real addition to our national wealth must come from our natural resources, and I know from personal contact wth farmers that they appreciate very highly the Minister of Agriculture as their representative in this government. I am fully in accord with every proposition that has proceeded from the government so far in relation to the important matter of affording cold storage for the perishable products of the farm, and I should be glad if we may witness a large extension of that part of the work of the Department of Agriculture. The suggestion from the hon. member from Kent (Mr. Gordon) is well worthy the attention 'of the minister, and I sincerely hope that the gentlemen who have spoken on this question will have the satisfaction of learning that there will be a larger measure of cold storage in future than we have known of in past experience. In the one item of apples alone I find that in my own county there are more bushels of apples produced annually than the total quantity of barrels exported from this country, which would seem to indicate that large quantities of apples go to waste for want of proper attention. I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will see his way clear to devise some method by which in a good many localities in the province of Ontario, in the fruit season, the people may be able to avail themselves more fully of the advantages of cold storage.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act under which bonuses are given to cold storage warehouses covers such as would be required for the apple trade. I know that some people have felt that another arrangement of the bonus than that provided in the Act would be more likely to encourage the building of ccld storages for this particular trade. I confess that I have been considering somewhat whether the terms of the bonus may be modified to meet the particular necessities of this kind of cold storage. I shall be very glad to arive at a favourable conclusion because I am very anxious that ample cold storage facilities should be provided. The trouble with cold storage for apples alone is that while a building is very necessary during the short season of the apple crop, apples are bulky and take up much space, and the profit on the venture has to be made in a very short period of the year. That makes it a difficult prob-Mr. SEALEY.
!em. I shall be glad to further consider the question of changing in some degree the conditions of the cold storage bonus for such a cold storage warehouse, for I have closely at heart the providing of warehouses for the apple trade. The organization of the fruit growers' asociations was initiated by the officers of my department and I believe that sort of co-operation is one of the best means of handling our apple crop. These associations have done excellent work and have set a good model for the country at large.
Further amount required to pay for the construction of branch of the electric railway to the Central Experimental Farm, including cost of fence, $10,500.


John Barr: Is this road on the farm or to the farm?


Mr .FISHER.: The road is double-tracked, about a mile long within the farm and it is only the part within the farm that we had anything to do with.


John Barr: What is it used for?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Thousands and thousands of visitors come to the experimental farm every year, and before this arangement was made they had to drive in cabs, or walk about a mile and a half. As a Tesult of insistent demands from the public I made an arrangement with the electric railway company that if they would build to the boundary of the farm we would build the road within the farm.


William Wright: What is the total cost?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: $39,889. The estimate of cost was made and approved of by the chief engineer of the Railway Department who drew the plans. The electric railway company constructed it on that estimate.


William Wright: It seems to me that this is a very large amount for constructing a mile of railway and if there be such a large number of visitors to the farm the road ought to pay for itself. Should not the electric company have built this road themselves in view of the profits they would receive from it, or at least should they not have paid half the cost? Do they give a service in winter?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


William Wright: Do they give a five cent fare to the general public and the servants of the farm?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and they also carry the mails free to and from the farm. This has been under discussion for years; the service was very strongly demanded by the visitors to the farm and it was only when we agreed to this that the . railway would build to the farm, boundary. I venture to think that during the coming summer it

will repay for all the outlay and a good deal more.


Mr. BLAIN.: Who did the work?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was done by the Ottawa Electric Railway Company on the estimates and under the supervision of our own Railway Department.


John Albert Sexsmith: Does the government own the road?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Richard Blain: What proportion of this item will be expended on the fencing?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $600. We have to fence both sides of the track, because it runs through the field where the cattle are and through the orchard. The only part of the road we are paying for is that which runs through the farm.


John Barr: Does this complete the payment?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.
Quarantine - further amount required. $14,000.


John Barr: What was the total amount expended this year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The amount voted in the main estimates was $100,000 and we ask for this in addition. In the year before about $125,000 was spent.
Some resolutions reporteu.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Haughton Lennox: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We shall continue the work in Supply, and will be likely to take any of the items of the supplementary estimates for the current year. If we get into the main estimates, there are a few items of civil government to be dealt with, and after that the Public Works estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.40 p. m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 24, 1909.