1909-03-05

OP THE DEBATES OP THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OP THE DOMINION OF CANADA FIRST SESSION-ELEVENTH PARLIAMENT 9 EDWARD VII., 1909 VOL. XC COMPRISING THE PERIOD' PROM THE FIFTH HAY OF MARCH TO THE FIFTH BAY OF APRIL, INCLUSIVE.


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons debates

[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 5, 1909. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER <Prime Minister) moved:
That from this date to the end of the session, on Wednesdays, government orders have precedence immediately after questions to he put by members.
Mr. MONK.: I suppose this will apply to Wednesday next and I thought I had understood from the right hon. the Prime Minister that the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper might be gone on with on Wednesday next, Monday being allotted to the motion of my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), I would ask that the order take effect only after next Wednesday.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: If the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is not reached on Monday next, it will no doubt be reached the following Monday and that ought to be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  A. H.@: I beg to move for the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries: that on Tuesday next the House go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution. I beg to inform the House that His Excellency the Governor General assents to the resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to enter into a contract or contracts for a term not exceeding ten years with any individual or company, for the performance of a steamship service between a port or ports in Canada and a French port or ports, on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council deems expedient, and to grant therefor a subsidy not exceeding two hundred thousand dollars a year, based upon a minimum service of fifteen round voyages a year, and a subsidy therefor not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, and so in proportion for a more frequent service.
Motion agreed to 64



JURISDICTION OVER THE FISHERIES.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, whether any and what progress has been made in the negotiations which at one time were being carried on between the government of Canada and the provincial governments with regard to the respective jurisdictions of this government and the provincial governments over the fisheries. The Prime Minister will recollect that we had an intimation from the government last session that a certain officer was named to us as having been commissioned for the purpose of visiting the various provinces and consulting with the Ministers so as to arrange, if possible, some effective plan by which the work would be carried on by the several provincial governments or the federal government without let or hindrance and without any doubt as to jurisdiction. I made inquiry early in the session in regard to it and did not receive much information. If the Prime Minister is not able to answer to-day would he be good enough to communicate with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and let me know as soon as possible?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid I cannot give as full information as the Minister would be able to give were he present. I understand that Mr. Bastedo was appointed last vear to confer with the provincial governments with, a view of obtaining, if possible, a basis for a settlement. Mr. Bastedo was engaged in that work when he was called upon to serve in the Trade and Commerce Department in connection with the annuities law. Some few weeks ago several of the provincial governments were represented in Ottawa on a matter which was not directly concerned with this question, but I understand that at the conference it was to some extent discussed. It is the intention of the minister to resume the discussion, but further than this I cannot say.


Robert Laird Borden: I notice that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has now entered the House; would he be good enough to look in ' Hansard ' at the question I have put to-day so that he may be able to answer it on Monday?



WATERWAYS TREATY.

Robert Laird Borden: Is there any information available as to when the waterways treaty will be laid upon the table of the House?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have just received a despatch on this subject which I will be glad to lay on the table 6f the House on Monday or Tuesday next.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 91) an Act to incorporate the Prudential Trust Company, Limited-Mr. Macdonell.
BiU (No. 92) an Act respecting patents of the Hart Otis Car Company, Limited-Mr. Geoffrion.

Mr.  A. H.@: CLARKE moved the adoption of the first report of the select standing committee on standing orders, as follows :
Your committee have considered that portion of the petition of the Kettle River Valley Railway Company which asks for an extension of time for the completion of their authorized lines of railway, reported by the examiner of petitions for private Bills as not being covered by the notice. Your committee, in view of the fact that proof having been received to the effect that the required notice is now being published and will have sufficiently matured before the Bill can be considered by the Railway Committee, they therefore recommend that the same be deemed sufficient.
All of which is rspectfully submitted.



A. H. CLARKE,

[Stage Direction]
Chairman.
He said:	I have been asked to move
this report in the absence of the chairman of the committee.
Robert Laird Borden: What precaution will be taken to assure the House or some committee that the required notice shall have been given at the time mentioned. This motion is based on the expectation that something will be done, but what guarantee is there that that particular thing will be done. Who will take cognizance of it to see that it is done before the Bill goes on?


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: I am scarcely able to answer the question. The chairman of the committee is not here and the report was placed in my hands as a matter of form.


Robert Laird Borden: If some assurance could be given for example, that the chair man of the Railway Committee would take cognizance of the matter and exact proof that the provisions of the rules had been complied with before the Bill came under the consideration of the committee it would be * Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
satisfactory, but in the absence of that assurance the motion does not seem to me to be satisfactory.


Wilfrid Laurier: The motion had better stand.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stands.



SUPPLY-FRENCH TRANSLATION OF LAWS.

['I agree with the hon. member for Saskatchewan. I think I am mistaken, I had reference to another Bill.\nBill reported, read the third time, and passed.']
Hon W.   S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of supply.


Mr. E. PAQUET (L'Islet).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to the French edition of our statutes. In perusing the series of volumes from 1867 to 1903 inclusively, that is up to the time of the retirement of the late Mr. Cour-solles, the then chief French translator, one cannot help noticing that the designations of railway companies and others, even of those outside of the province of Quebec are, except in a very few cases, given in French.
It will be noticed on the other hand, that in the French edition of the statutes for 1904 and the years following, the English designations are seldom translated. Moreover, in the French edition of statutes relading to the amalgamation of two companies of two lines of railway, the contract entered into by the two corporations, and included as a schedule to the Amalgamation Act used to be translated into French, so that we had a French edition that was complete, a homogeneous work. Why has this rational system which remained in force during so many years been abandoned?
Let me point out a few striking discrepancies. In the first place we have Bill (No. 8), session of 1908, the French version of which refers to ' The Tobique Manufacturing Company ; ' that company was incorporated in 1898, 61 Viet., chap. 116, under the name of ' La compagnie manufactur-iere de Tobique.' Here then is a company designated in the French edition of our statutes, at times under an English name, and at times under a French name.
In the second place we have Bill (No. 13) for 1908 the French copy of which relates to * The British Columbia Southern Railway Company ; ' while in the statute-book for 1899, the company is designated as ' La ccmpagnie du chemin de fer du Sud de la Colombie Britannique.' That is, we have the same discrepancy as in the previous instance.
In the third place, we have Bill (No. 15) for 1908, the French version of which refers to 'The Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company ; ' while in the statute-books, for 1886, chap. 15, 1888, chap. 89, in 1905, chap.
90 and 1906, chap. 92, the company is designated as: 'La compagnie du chemin de fer

d'Esquimalt a Nanaimo.' Even as far back as 1884 section 3, chap. 6, in the French edition of the statutes, the name of the company is given in French. So that in the statutes for five years we have the designation of a company given in French and then in 1908, after a lapse of 24 years from the date of the first mention of the name of the company in 1884, the English designation is substituted for the French in the French edition of the statutes.
Then again, let us take Bill (No. 16) for 1908, an Act concerning ' The South Ontario Pacific Company ; ' in the statutes for the four years, 1887, 1891, 1896 and 1906, the designation of the company is given in French in the French edition. Bill (No. 19) for 1908, an Act incorporating ' The Bank of Winnipeg ; ' in all acts previous to 1903 the designation of the bank was given in French in the French edition of the Act. Bill (No. 21) for 1908, an Act concerning ' The British Yukon Railway Company ; ' in the French edition of the statutes for 1897, incorporating the company, it is designated as ' La compagnie de mines, de commerce et de transport du Yukon britannique.' In the French edition of the statutes for 1900, 63-64 Viet., chap 53, the name is changed to that of ' Compagnie du chemin de fer du Yukon britannique.' The same designation is to be found in the French edition of the statutes for 1901.
Bill (No. 20) for 1908, the French version refers to ' The Belleville Prince Edward Bridge Company ; ' in the French edition of the statutes for 1899, chap. 95, the designation is given thus :	' La compagnie du
pont de Belleville-Prince-Edouard.' Bill (No. 24), the French version refers to ' The West Ontario Pacific Railway Company ; ' but in the French edition of the statutes for 1885 chap. 87, for 1886, chap. 70, for_1887, chap. 62, for 1906 chap. 178 the designation is in every case, ' La compagnie du chemin de fer du Pacific de l'Ouest d'Ontario.'
Here then are several companies whose designations are given in the French edition of the statutes, at times in English and at times in French. It will be found that in Bills (Nos 25, 28 and 30) introduced at this session and having contracts attached, no translation has been made of such contracts, the original English text having been merely inserted in the French edition, against all reason. The hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay has introduced a Bill (No. 42) incorporating ' The Canadian Liverpool and Western Railway Company.' It deals with the building of a railway in the province of Quebec; nevertheless, the designation in the French edition of the Bill is given in English.
What reason is there for such irrelevan-cies in the French edition of the statutes ? I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the fulfilment of your high duties, it would
64i
be proper on your part to take measures towards preventing the turning of the French edition of our laws into a perfect muddle.


Hon L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the matter brought up by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, is not one under the control of the government, the translation of the laws being effected by officers of the House appointed by the House, and therefore outside the control of the government. However, the House has a perfect right to discuss this question, and I am not objecting in any way to my hon. friend having thought fit to bring up the matter.
I understand that formerly not only the text of any act incorporating a company was translated into French, but the name of the company as well. For instance the English edition referred to the ' Bank of Montreal,' and the French edition to the ' banque de Montreal.' So that the same institution was known under two different names. The same rule applied in the case of the ' banque Nationale de Quebec,' which in the English version was designated as the ' National Bank of Quebec.'
At the time of Mr. Frechette's appointment as chief translator, he, I think, effected the change referred to by the hon. member, which consists in designating companies under the name given by the petitioners themselves in the petition addressed to parliament. I remember perfectly well that when the ' Banque Provinciale ' came up for incorporation, the designation that was given was purely and simply ' La Banque Provinciale.'
To my mind, a great deal may be said in support of the change effected by Mr. Frechette. I for one am not ready to say it was a mistake on his part. As the hon. member is aware, the designation of a company is in fact the name of a person in the moral sense, and that being the case, should a company be known under two different names ?


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) If the hon. member will allow me, I have shown a moment ago, that in the French edition, at times, English designations were translated and at others were not. What I am anxious to obtain is uniformity.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) The whole question comes to this : is it desirable, as my hon. friend seems _ to think, that the designations of companies be put in both languages, that is to say that they should appear in French in the French edition, and in English in the English edition ? There may be some well-founded objection to this practice. For instance a company might be sued before the courts under two different designations, although constituting a single person in the moral sense. Is it not better that each company should be

known under one designation only ? I never had occasion to discuss the matter with Mr. Frechette, but I think that is what he had in mind.
I have pointed out the case of the ' Banque Provinciate/ If my hon. friend will peruse the statute-books, he will find that in the English edition, that bank is designated as the ' Banque Provinciate.' However, my hon. friend has referred to a rather serious case, that of a company having obtained its charter under a name which has been translated in the French edition of the Act granting the charter, and which subsequently causes its charter to be amended, while its original designation is not translated in the French edition of the Amending Act, in such a way that the company, in so far as the French edition is concerned, appears to have a double designation. Mr. Frechette may come to the conclusion, after looking into this debate, that it would be better to retain the same designation throughout the French edition, as long as the company exists.
As to the general principle governing the translation of such designations, I am not of opinion as before stated, that Mr. Frechette is wrong.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the general principle laid down by the hon. minister is fraught with great danger. If I understood him aright, he contends that in the translation of our statutes, English designations of companies should not be translated for the French edition. And why ? Because petitions having for their object the incorporation of a company are, as a rule, written out in English, and accordingly the designation is given in that same language. He bases himself on a ruling made by the chief translator, Mr. Frechette, a good many years ago. Does the hon. minister know as a fact that such is the interpretation Mr. Frechette puts on his duties as translator ? It would be a matter of surprise to me. I have known Mr. Frechette for some time, and it does not seem likely to me that he would endorse such a proposal.
Whenever we adopt a Bill incorporating a bank or any other kind of company, that Bill is supposed to have been passed in French as well as in English. The firm which we are incorporating receives its designation in both languag vs. If we were to dispense with translating such designations, where would that lead us to ? If the principle laid down by the hon. minister were to prevail, as most petitions seeking incorporation are sent to parliament in one language only, all expressions of a sacra-mentl nature-if I may be allowed to use the expression-used in these petitions, might be considered untranslatable for legal purposes. That is a dangerous principle to lay down, and I doubt that a man of


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Frechette's ability has ever dreamt of establishing it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: (Translation.) To say the truth, I mentioned Mr. Frechette's name, for the reason that the member for L'lslet had stated that this change in the way of effecting the translation became noticeable only after Mr. Coursolles' retirement ; I inferred that the change had been effected by Mr. Frechette but I am not positive about it.


Eugène Paquet: (Translation.) It dates back to 1903, inclusive.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) That does not appear to me very likely, for the rule
has not always been adhered to, as stated by the member for L'lslet. If Mr. Frechette had laid down such a rule, I think he would have adhered invariably to it.
I insist that this is a dangerous principle, for if it were to prevail in the end, its effect would be to render illusory our right to have all legal enactments expressed in both languages.
As regards the work of translation, true the House has control over it to a certain extent ; but, as we are aware, the translators are paid by the government, and accordingly are under their control. To contend, as the hon. minister has done, that the government have nothing to do with the question because these officers are not under their control, does not seem to me to be a reasonable excuse.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I do not see any difficulty in a corporation having both a French and an English name. With regard to La Banque Provinciale having been incorporated originally under the French name, and having only the one name, I do not know that it is very material; but I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the fact that by an amendment to the Act incorporating La Banque Provinciale, passed if my memory serves me rightly, about three years ago, it was specially enacted that the bank should be known as La Banque Provinciale du Canada and not the Provincial Bank of Canada. So that in that particular instance at least, parliament seems to have considered that there was not any difficulty involved in the corporation having a name in each of the languages.



Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire of the Prime Minister whether it would not be advisable to make a reference of the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to the new committee which has been constituted. I observe that a portion of the report was referred to the committee upon the motion of the chairman on the 3rd inst., namely, that portion

relating to the lobster and the oyster fishery. It seems to me to be rather an unusual procedure. If the committee is to do any service, the whole report should be referred to the committee, in order that the members of the committee could take into consideration what inquiries they might desire to make or in what way they could be of assistance to the minister and the department. I would regard it as singularly inexpedient to require a motion every two or three days in this House that some portion of the report be picked out and referred to the committee. The committee was appointed for the purpose of dealing generally with the subject of the fisheries, and I would be inclined to think that the whole report of the department ought to be referred to it. I do not know how it is with the Committee on Agriculture. Is the report of the Minister of Agriculture referred to that committee?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think so.


Robert Laird Borden: The position is this: When a committee is constituted, that committee can only deal with matters referred to it by the House. In the case of the Public Accounts Committee there is a reference to it of the public accounts for the year; that is the basis of its jurisdiction. In the case of the Committee on Agriculture, I understood that there was a reference of the report of the Minister of Agriculture, and that that was the basis of its jurisdiction; if it is not, I do not see where it finds any basis at all. It cannot deal with matters that are not referred to It by the House. And so the Committee on Fisheries is but a name; it has no power whatever until something has been referred to it with respect to which it can take action. I would suggest to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the whole report of the department had better be referred to the committee. It seems to me that there should be consideration also as to whether all reports of any department relative to the mines and minerals, waterways and water-powers, should not be referred to the committees dealing with those subjects, in order that they may have some basis on which they can commence their work.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say that the reason why this particular part of the report has been referred to the committee is that the other day there was a meeting of the committee, at which the consensus of opinion was that we should inquire into the subject of lobsters and oysters; and in order that the committee might have some jurisdiction over the matter, it was decided to refer to the committee that part cf the report. With regard to the Committee on Agriculture, I fully agree with
the hon. leader of the opposition that the proceedings of that committee must have been more or less irregular, because the committees of the House have no power to deal with anything that has not been referred to them by the House. I think that point was dealt with by the Prime Minister when the motion of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, was discussed, and I think that principle is embodied in the resolution which is passed immediately after the committees are formed at the opening of the session.


Mr. SPROULE.: I think the hon. minister is astray, except in the case of the Public Accounts Committee.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the case of the Public Accounts Committee the report of the Auditor General is referred, and that is the matter for investigation by the committee. In the case of the Department of Agriculture, I do not know exactly what has been the practice in the past, but I am under the impression, having looked into the question when it was discussed some time ago, that no formal reference has been made to that committee. However, the practice of that committee for perhaps twenty years has been to take evidence from officers of the Department of Agriculture on the administration of the department. We have a Committee on Railways and Canals, but the report of the Department of Railways and Canals has never been referred to that committee.


Mr. FOSTER.: The House is constantly referring matters to the committees.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We refer Bills to them.


George Eulas Foster: Not to the Committee on Agriculture.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I think no Bill has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture.


George Eulas Foster: That is what puzzles me in the discussion. The Committee on Agriculture is at work. But what is its basis? Can it take up an astronomical question and pursue that? Is the basis to be found in resolutions, or in daily or occasional references from this House?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think that most of the procedure of the Committee of Agriculture is entirely irregular, because it is not upon any reference from this House. The House has never referred the report of the Department of Railways to Committee on Railways, nor has it referred the report of the Department of Finance to the Committee on Banking and Commerce.


George Eulas Foster: Then, why make the reference in this case?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We desire to have these 1 matters taken up by the Committee on Ma-

rine and Fisheries. We have some Bills now before the House dealing with the question of marine. It is natural to expect that these Bills will be referred to this committee. I repeat, the committees have no jurisdiction except upon matters formally referred to them by the House. That is the reason why we propose this resolution-because we wish to investigate in Committee on Marine and Fisheries the whole question of lobsters and oysters, and so we wish the House to refer to the committee that part of the report of the department relating to the subject, so that the committee may have authority to deal with the question.


Mr.   R.@: I,. BORDEN. What would be the
objection to referring the whole report?


Mr BRODEUR.: I do not see any objection, except that it might lead to deal-nig with all the matters mentioned in the report.


George Eulas Foster: 
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Perhaps I may be permitted to read the motion to which I have referred. It is the motion usually made immediately after the committees are formed:-
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, it was resolved, That the Select Standing Commit-Mr. BRODEUR.
tees of this House shall severally he empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon; with power to send for persons, papers and records, with the exception of the Committee on Debates and that on the Library of Parliament.
That is the source of the jurisdiction of the committee.


George Eulas Foster: That is in accordance with what I said in the first place, when I asked whether the whole report might not be referred to the committee. The committee will have control of it when it gets there, and. of course, they cannot investigate everything at once.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: They will have to take up one matter at a time. This motion is in accordance with the view expressed in the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: All I suggest is that, instead of making it necessary to come here fifteen or twenty times with applications, it might be more expedient to refer the whole report to the committee. Of course, the committee will not embark upon any investigation if it is not desirable to do so. As a matter of organization, it would seem advisable to refer the whole report. I think the minister should take the matter into his consideration.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not done in the case of the other committees. I do not say whether it would have been advisable to adopt that plan or not.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the Committee on Agriculture is concerned, I think that, if this practice is not followed, the committee has proceeded as though that had been the case. In order to keep matters strictly regular in the future, I think this reference will have to be made, for the Committee on Agriculture is appointed under the same procedure as the others, and no special reference is made to it. It is true that, as my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has pointed out, each committee has authority to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses on oath. But that power is only ancillary to the jurisdiction of the committee, and an inquiry must be founded upon a reference to the committee of some matter by this House. It may be that the long practice of the Committee on Agriculture will be considered as authority to the committee, for it has reported for many years upon matters that do not seem to have been strictly referred to. Therefore, it may be held that a practice has grown up which will justify the committee in continuing as in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

Carillon and Grenville canals-completing repairs to gap in Carillon dam, $40,000.
Mr. GRAHAM.: I move that that item be reduced by $25,000. The reason of that is that we are going through with the work more rapidly than we anticipated when this estimate was made. When this estimate was made I did not expect to be able to do as much work as we have done. I am asking in the supplementaries, a few days hence, for $25,000 for the year we are now in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Macadamizing public road along old canal, $7,500.
Mr. WRIGHT.: What is the length of that road?


George Perry Graham: Between a mile and a half and two miles. It runs parallel with the canal, and we are obliged to keep it up.
St. Anne's lock - renewing old wooden bridges over road slips, $2,500.


William Wright: Are you still making wooden bridges?


George Perry Graham: We are putting in steel bridges. The work is done by our own staff.
Cornwall canal-to repair washout, $55,000.


George Perry Graham: This is the unfortunate washout that occurred last season. The work altogether will cost $162,000, and this amount will finish it. We had some expensive temporary work. The work was let by contract, except the rush part we had in order to get ready for navigation in a few weeks. A good deal of it was done by our own engineers, and by day's work. But the permanent work is done by contract.
To repair north bank between locks 18 and 19, $5,000.


George Perry Graham: For a distance of some 3,000 feet the bank was not up to grade, was not properly protected, and the water is eating into the bank. We are trying to build the bank up by rip-rap; it is done by our own staff.
Galops canal - to build concrete superstructure and bridges for piers at upper entrance, $40,000.


George Perry Graham: I move that that item be reduced by $20,000. We will not be able to expend more than $20,000 this year, but it will eventually cost $40,000.


Mr. JOHN HAGGART.: What is the necessity for these bridges? How is it they were not in the original design of the canal?


George Perry Graham: In the olden time, the policy was to build wooden bridges and wooden piers. Now the piers at lock 27 are decaying, and we propose to renew the bridges with concrete. It is !a concrete superstructure.
Rideau canal-rebuilding bridge at locks- Jones' Falls and Washburn, $3,000; to rebuild long bridge at Kingston Mills, $7,500.


George Perry Graham: The two bridges at Jones' Falls and Washburn are rotten and unsafe. They are wooden bridges, and we are rebuilding with our own staff. The bridge at Kingston Mills is 220 feet long. It is proposed to do away with the old wooden superstructure and replace it with a steel span on concrete piers.
Trent canal-improvements, $50,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for dredging improvements. I have the details here, and I will read them to the committee, so that they may understand what we want to do:
Dredging Otonabee river below Peter-
"	borough	'	.. $ 3,000"	entrance	to	Bobcaygeon ..	2,500"	entrance	to	Fenelon Fallslock and Cameron lake.	3,000
Balsam lake-Lake Simcoe
division	 2,000
Lindsay river	 2,000
"	Lakefield	-	Peterborough
division		1,500
Cleaning drowned lands, lake Simcoe
-Balsam lake division..		 5,000
Rip-rapping Balsam lake division.. ..	2,500
Two new dump scows	 5,000
To complete new dredge	 5,000
New dams on Cull river, Burnt river
and Eel's creek	 6,500
Landing piers	 2,000
Duplicate lock gates	 10,000


John Graham Haggart: Why do you take this vote separate from the vote for the Trent canal?


George Perry Graham: These are repairs out of income, the others we were discussing come under capital account for building the Trent canal. These repairs we are doing by our regular staff on income.
Welland canal-chargeable to income-to renew entrance piers-Port Maitland, $65,000.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister explain this?


George Perry Graham: This item is required for the purpose of renewing the west pier at Port Maitland. Last year there was an appropriation for it, but by a mistake there was a supplementary vote for the work on the east pier amounting to $22,000 which was included in the main estimates. The work is under contract, the contract having been awarded to Mr. Hogan on September 29, 1908. There were seven tenders received. The amount expended up to_ January is $903.25. We are practically just starting the work.


George Eulas Foster: What will be the total cost of these piers?


Mr. GEAHAM.: The contract price is $60,600, approximately. It is done on schedule rates. It is expected that it will cost about $65,000.
. Mr. JOHN HAGGART. That will finish the whole work?
, Mr. GEAHAM. That is supposed to finish the whole entrance at Port Maitland.


Mr. WEIGHT.: I understand that the department have under consideration the digging of a new canal to parallel the Welland canal. Have the department come to any decision in regard to that? It seems to me that this is a lot of money to be put ting^ into the old canal. If we are going to dig a new canal I think as little as possible ought to be spent on the old canal.


Duncan Graham: This really has nothing to do with the question to which my hon. friend refers. This is in connection with the old feeder up at Port Maitland. We have always had charge of this work. We will have to do this whether we dig a new canal or not. It is really for the protection of the harbour. Similar work was done on the east side of the harbour. It has been reported for several years very strongly that in a heavy storm this work is necessary for the protection of the town.


John Graham Haggart: Why should the government do this work when it is not used for the canal? The new canal gets its water directly from Lake Erie and this feeder is of no use at all.


Duncan Graham: My hon. friend is right in a way. It may be that this is a work properly for the Department of Public Works but it has always been ours, the work must be done and there seems to be no other department to do it.


George Eulas Foster: It is really a harbour upon the canal?


Duncan Graham: It is on Lake Erie at the entrance of what is known as the old feeder near the mouth of the Grand river.


Aaron Abel Wright: If this is not now used as a feeder why do you need a dock or any improvement at its mouth? It does not seem to serve any useful purpose at all.


Duncan Graham: We have always had charge of that work.


Aaron Abel Wright: Where is the necessity fo>' the work?


Duncan Graham: It is strictly speaking a harbour work for Port Maitland. Personally, I think it should be carried on by the Department of Public Works, but it has been ours ever since it was the entrance to the old feeder and therefore we think that we must do it.


Aaron Abel Wright: Is Port Maitland a port of sufficient importance and possessing Mr. FOSTEE.
sufficient business to warrant the government spending this large amount of money? There is no business worth speaking about at Port Maitland.


Mr. LALOE.: This happens to be in my constituency and I know something about it. I can easily understand any one not familiar with the circumstances saying that it should be abandoned and that no more money should be spent upon it. The Welland canal formerly was fed from the Grand river and this was a most useful and necessary part of the canal system. There have been very large amounts of money spent on the Welland canal and on the feeder between Dunnville, Port Maitland and Port Colborne and it is pretty hard for the government to abandon that work although the value to the country is not now so great as it formerly was. But, if anything went wrong with the feeder of the canal from Lake Erie this old feeder could be used for a certain length of time. As to Port Maitland harbour, it is the best harbour on the whole of Lake Erie. It is the safest harbour of refuge for boats coming down the lake. In case of a storm they make into Port Maitland harbour and they go on up the river and into the Welland canal feeder which affords them safe refuge. The adoption of Port Maitland as the entrance of the Welland canal has been advocated in this House by several hon. members representing my part of the country and particularly by the late Senator Mc-Callum who was at one time a member of this House. There is not the slightest doubt that Port Maitland should be the entrance to the Welland canal and not Port Colborne. You can go on spending money on Port Colborne as long as you like. This and other governments have spent millions of dollars but you will never have a satisfactory harbour at Port Colborne. The harbour entrance to the Welland canal should be Port Maitland without the slightest doubt. You are talking about building a new canal; you can get a route by way of Port Maitland without encountering any rock whatever. You can go down eighty feet and you can build your canal with a much less expenditure of money than if you continue to spend millions of money, as you have been spending money every year, on the old Welland canal system. A proper survey for the new canal would begin with Port Maitland as the Lake Erie port and not Port Colborne.


Aaron Abel Wright: How far apart are Port Maitland and Port Colborne?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: They are about fifteen miles apart. To build the canal from Port Maitland would not lengthen it to any great extent. It would make it a little longer but there would be great compensating advantages. We can go on spending just as much money as we like and just as long as we

like, as has been done ever since the canal was first built on the present route from Port Colborne, but if we do we will never have a canal that can compete with the waterways through New York state to the sea-board. My hon. friend (Mr. Haggart) reminds me that even the imperial authorities have reported that Port Maitland and not Port Colborne is the proper port for Lake Erie.


George Perry Graham: I think that a few years ago the commissioners recommended Port Colborne, but however that may be I shall call the attention of the engineer in charge to what my hon. friend (Mr. Lalor) has said. When the time comes, as I think it will come, for enlarging the Welland canal or for building a new one, whoever is Minister of Railways then will want to have the fullest information as to the best possible route.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I appreciate the reply of the minister and all I ask is that the matter be looked into from the standpoint of what is best for the country. If that is done I have no doubt it will be the route accepted by the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a change should be made what will become of the heavy expenditures we have made for a number of years past in improving Port Colborne and building large elevators. It seems to me this question should have been considered years ago and that it is too late to talk about making a change now.


George Perry Graham: If we are going to undertake a very vast improvement, I suppose we may be like the railway people who, when they want to reduce grades and lessen curves, sometimes deem it wise to abandon the old route altogether notwithstanding that it may have cost millions. I do not say that the old route will be abandoned; all I say is that the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Lalor) make it necessary that the engineer should take the matter into consideration.


John Graham Haggart: There is no doubt a good deal in what has been said by my hon. friend (Mr. Lalor). The imperial authorities adopted Port Maitland as the depot for armed vessels on Lake Erie. Time and again it has been advocated in this House that Port Maitland would be more advantageous than Port Colborne. It is a natural harbour and there need be no money spent on it as is the case at Port Colborne. Of course when Port Colborne was adopted as the terminus of the Welland canal it was not contemplated that that canal would ever be deepened to the extent now contemplated. They find a great deal of difficulty on the Welland canal in getting over what is called the height of land section, which is liable to sink and which requires to be excavated
now and again. There is probably as great a depth there now as can be maintained.
If it becomes necessary to deepen the Welland canal to 214 feet it would be a question for the consideration of the government whether it would not be cheaper and better to adopt a new route.
Welland canal-heavy repairs, $10,000.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister carefully compared this estimate with the pronuncia-mento of the Liberal candidate in Welland who set out in his pre-election address jvhat he had done for the county of Welland, all that he had got, all that was promised, and all that he hoped to get. Has the minister carefully gone over that statement of the member for Welland and is he sure he has it all in this item?


George Perry Graham: I have not seen that compilation yet.


Mr LENNOX.: I can show it to you printed alongside of Mr. Germans photograph.	.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister wish me to read him that statement to refresh his memory?


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether it ought to be put on Hansard or not.


George Perry Graham: You can't put the photograph on Hansard.


George Eulas Foster: Probably the Prime Minister remembers it; I think he was there at the time.


Wilfrid Laurier: What was that?


George Eulas Foster: That was the celebrated statement of what had been got in the shape of money by the member for Welland; all that he had been promised, and all that he hoped in the course of five years if he were given the suffrages of the independent electors to get from the government. I think he read it at the same meeting that my right hon. friend made his statement to the people.


Wilfrid Laurier: My memory is not equal to all that.


George Eulas Foster: Very likely the Prime Minister revised and authorized it as he did the $347,000 extra to the Civil Servants in Ottawa 'for the benefit of himself and his junior colleague.


John Graham Haggart: We should have a statement from the government in reference to their policy on the transportation question re the Welland canal. The Prime Minister, speaking at Welland, is said to have favoured both the deepening of the Welland canal and the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. The Minister of Railways has ' said that he preferred deepening of the

Welland canal to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. Then we have the authoritative statement of the Minister of Railways through the report of his department that it is necessary to deepen the Welland canal. I would be glad to have an authoritative statement of the policy the government intend to pursue in this matter.


George Perry Graham: The foundations of the locks are leaking badly; we do this work with our own staff.
To build new steel gate-lifter, $12,000.


George Perry Graham: This new lifter is required to take the various gates out for repairs.


George Perry Graham: I made a statement on a similar request the other night, but I admit it was not very elaborate. I said then and I have said many times and I now repeat, that I believe Canada could compete for the carrying trade not only of our own products but of a portion of the products of the Cnited States from the west to the sea-board, if the Welland canal were deepened or a new Welland canal were constructed giving a depth of 22 feet, probably 25 teet. I have never expressed an opinion adverse to the Georgian Bay canal scheme, there are a great many conflicting opinions concerning it, but it strikes me, from the natural contour of the country, its geographical and physical conditions that the time will come when the great carrying trade of the west will have an artery of
Tn* etn7tnr0Ufh the, Georgian Bay canal, the Welland canal, of course, is of the cheaper _ construction and I have faith enough m Canada to believe that with the Welland canal enlarged or a new Welland canal, a great impetus will be given to our carrying trade; but that the trade of Canada will be sufficient in the years to come to require both the Georgian bay and the bt Lawrence routes. For the present the policy of the government, owing to temporary conditions which exist, is to undertake no works which would demand very large expenditures of money. When conditions change I will be prepared, if I occupy the position I do now, to take a more aggressive stand as to the water routes of Can ada.	-


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: Is it correct that the surveying party who have been examining the route for the Hudson Bay Railway have reported that the Nelson river could be made navigable up nearly to Winnipeg?


George Perry Graham: I laid the report referred to on the table yesterday. Its contents would imply that the navigation of the Nelson river is perhaps more practicable than I myself have hitherto thought it was, and suggestions are made which almost stagger one, for they would lead one to believe that large ocean vessels could be brought from the Hudson bay clear through to Winnipeg. It is a large proposition, but I believe the engineer in his progress report has in one paragraph intimated that this is the case.
ijs'ooo lenew foundations of junction locks,
Mr. ,T. G. HAGGART


George Eulas Foster: Where do you procure that?


George Perry Graham: This is a new work, we ask for tenders for it. I think Poison's got the contract for the last gate some years ago, but we ask Canadian builders for tenders and award the work to the lowest tenderer.
To renew three feeder bridges, $3,000.


George Perry Graham: That work will he done by our own staff; there are three old wooden swing bridges.
Before leaving this canal, I wish to furnish some information asked for the other night. The first question was with reference to the price paid by the Cataract Power Company to the government for their water-power. The information is as follows :
Per year.
First lease dated December 6, 1902,
for 700 cubic feet per second at $30
per cubic ft	$21,000
Supplemental agreement of March 31,
1906, provided for 300 cubic feet per second additional at $30	 9,000
Or in all per year, 1,000 cubic ft. per second	$30,000


John Graham Haggart: What is that per horse-power?


George Perry Graham: My deputy informs me that it is difficult to give this information on the basis of horse-power. The company have constructed a pond and do not use the flow of water steadily. It is easier to check it by the cubic foot than by the horsepower.


John Graham Haggart: With the cubic feet per second and the amount of fall the department should be able to calculate that in five minutes.


George Perry Graham: It will be about 30,000 horse-power, or about a dollar per horsepower.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the contract perpetual or what length of time has it to run, and rnust you absolutely supply the company with at least that amount of power?


George Perry Graham: The lease terminates in 1923. This is the surplus water of the canal. We make the navigation paramount, as in all these contracts. We can close down their supply at any time it is necessary in the interests of navigation


Mr JOHN HAGGART.: Is it true that the works of the Power Company cause such a current that it interferes seriously with the operation of the canal?


George Perry Graham: We are informed by the engineer-in-charge that that is not the case.


William Wright: When was this lease entered into?


George Perry Graham: In 1902.


John Graham Haggart: That is a renewal of the contract.


George Perry Graham: That is the time they gave me, the lease will expire in 1923.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was this contract let by tender or by private agreement?


George Perry Graham: I shall have to look up the files of the department to find that out. The last renewal was made seven years ago, but the first contract was made many years ago. The contracts are for twenty-one year terms, renewable, and at the end of each term the rates are subject to revision. My hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) asked for certain information in resard to the cost of electric power on the Welland canal. For light and power on the canal itself, the Lincoln Electric Light and Power Company, Limited, agrees to supply electric current for the needs of the canal, dated June 27, 1S03, to August 31, 1913, at $14 per horse-power per annum.
Cost of power for year 1906.. . $9,826 59 Cost of power for the year ending
December 31, 1907	 8,996 41
Cost of power for the year ending
December, 31, 1908	 8,713 20
During the year 1907 the current was used for lighting purposes only; during the year 1908, for light and operating gate mechanism. The reduction in cost is due to improvements made by the electrical engineer of the department installing a synchronous condenser.


George Eulas Foster: Has the department a record of all the water-powers it has leased, the dates of the contracts and the reasons for them?


George Perry Graham: I think I can find that for my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: To-day a great deal of interest is taken in the conservation of water-powers, and we have along our canals a large amount of surplus power. We have gone to all the initial expense of constructing canals and making the water-powers available, and the question that occurred to me was whether we were getting our fair share out of them or not. Here is a concrete instance where you are letting thirty thousand horse-power for a dollar per horse-power, while throughout the province of Ontario this water-power ultimately
sells for $25 or $30 per horse-power when converted. When you deduct the cost of the original plant for converting the powei and the cost of the up-keep, you have the whole margin over that between one dollar and $25 or $30 per horse-power, The people who have contracts of that kind must be making money hand' over fist. If they are, does the minister believe that the country is getting its fair share? From the canals you are getting nothing, while you have to bear the cost of capital repairs and current account repairs. Under these circumstances, what justification is there for allowing corporations or individuals to make such immense amounts of money out of tne people? In old times these things were winked at, they were not thought much of - but people are getting awake nowadays. Is the department getting awake? Is it attempting to establish a proper basis tor the revision when the time for revision comes? I think we ought to be alive to that sort of thing. If a man were a trustee of an estate, and were as much asleep as the department seems to be, he ought to be hauled over. It seems to me that the government is in that position with regard to the people's' franchises. It would be instructive if in the book of Railway and Canal statistics you made a tabulated statement of all the water-powers which are utilized and the rates which are paid lor them.


Mr GRAHAM.: 
Robert Laird Borden: Are these leases perpetually renewable?


George Perry Graham: Some of the old ones are, I think; but the general form is for twenty-one years, renewable for two other terms of twenty-one years each, subject at eacn renewal to a revision of the rental paid.


Robert Laird Borden: How is the revision accomplished?


George Perry Graham: By the Governor in Council Mv idea would be to have it done bv the Board of Railway Commissioners; 1 have not worked that out. But in new


Mr GRAHAM.: There are a variety of conditions.	y


Mr. CONMEE.: I think that the explanation of the management of these water-powers and the value that should accrue to the government for the use of them, has been hardly fully stated. The government leases the right to take the water from the canal channel. The parties who obtain the
iSas,e' n? stated by ^e hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), expend further moneys in making the development. But. that is not all the expenditure, in fact it is not half They must not only make he entrance channel, the tail-race, and all the developments necessary to put the wheels in motion, including the installation of machinery, plant, buildings and every thing necessary for such work, but they must find a market for the power To do this, they must either establish works in the immediate vicinity of the power, or convert the power into electrical energy and transmit it to points where it can be used for commercial purposes. All this expenditure will exceed considerably that of the actual water-power development, and I assume, would have to be considered in determining what the value of the rental will be.


George Eulas Foster: The establishment of power at a place draws manufactures, does it not r


James Conmee: That will depend on conditions. If there are transportation facilities, or if the point is one where raw materials can be advantageously assembled for manufacturing purposes, no doubt it has a tendency to draw manufactures. But this particular water-power is not so fortunately situated; a market has to be found thirty or forty miles distant from the point of development.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the government the power to fix the rate for the rental after twenty-one years ?


George Perry Graham: That is the usual lease- the terms to be fixed by agreement subject to the Governor in Council.	'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
George Perry Graham: I am informed that the Justice Department did make a report on that matter so far as the Trent navigation is concerned. So far as I know, no question has ever been raised by the provincial government. The principle is, I believe, that navigation and navigable streams come under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These streams are not
navigable.


George Perry Graham: The Trent, part river and part canal, is navigable. I understand that the Ontario government turned over to the Dominion government certain wharfs and other works and property that they had in connection with this system. This was done, I think, under order in council.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That may apply to the Tient, but certainly not to all the streams that are feeders of the canal. It would seem to me, in view of the policy of the provincial government in the power scheme, that it would be unwise to take any other of these streams under federal control, or to make unlimited grafts on the streams of the province to build up power in the canals and then sell that power to individuals.


George Perry Graham: I think that my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will find that the order m council included all the streams tributary to the system that would help in the development of navigation. The up-keep of these various works on the Trent canal was a source of expense to the provincial government. and I think they were not averse to getting rid of them. We have taken over these works and spent large sums of money

in dams and others constructions which expenditures would have had to be undertaken by the provincial government to develop the waterways. As to the question of the water-powers along the Trent, they are largely developed by the work done by the federal authority in the construction of these dams and creation of reservoirs. And the provincial government, whatever might otherwise be their claims in law, have handed over to us their rights in the present canal.


Mr. GEORGE GORDON.: What does the minister consider a ' navigable stream '?


George Perry Graham: That is a large question, and I would refer it to my hon. friend from the Sault, who is a legal man. It is a question that might be discussed in connection with certain treaties. I would not care to express an opinion.


George Gordon: The reason I ask is because at the present time, in the [DOT]constituency which I have the honour to represent, there is a very small stream known as the Veuve river, which is not navigable in the proper sense of the word, that is. no boats can go up there of any capacity at all. It is said to come within the meaning of the Act. Just now a party wants to build a small bridge over it; it seems he has got to get permission from the department to build that bridge.


George Perry Graham: Of course, if it be considered a navigable stream they could not construct a bridge over it except by consent and approval of the Department of Public Works. If it is navigable up to a certain distance, I suppose it is a navigable stream; but I would not like to express an opinion


George Gordon: It is navigable for canoes, or small boats drawing three or four feet of water.


James Conmee: Certain streams have been held by our courts to be navigable. For instance, the Winnipeg river is one, though it has a great many rapids and falls. But the river is navigable in certain sections. In an action that arose, the courts held that though certain portions of the river were composed of rapids and falls, it was nevertheless a navigable stream. A question arose in connection with the diversion of certain waters in the State of Minnesota. The waterway of Birch lake is entirely within the state of Minnesota, but the waters discharge into the Rainy river, which is a boundary stream. It was held by the Waterways Commission, both by the American and Canadian sections, and confirmed by the Secretary of War at Washington, who is charged with navigable waters in the United States, that their ruling was correct, that it was a navigable water, though navigable only for floating timber, ties or
logs. Certain portions of it, such as Maline lake, Basswood and Birch lakes, are swells of the river, so to speak, though the water channel is comparatively shallow outside the lakes. There were some tugs on these lakes. Any stream of that character, it would appear from these decisions, would be regarded, and perhaps properly, as a navigable water, although not entirely navigable in a state of nature.
Remuneration to A. Brunet, government director, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, $2,000.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to know what Mr. Brunet's duties are.


George Perry Graham: As I understand, he has to represent the government on this board


Mr FOSTER.: That is so many English words, but what does he do?


George Perry Graham: He has a place on the board, as any other man; he has a voice, and attends meetings. I asked him this year to make me a report concerning his work. He has given me such a report, and I will be glad to lay it on the table.


George Eulas Foster: How long has he been commissioner?


George Perry Graham: He was appointed in July, 1906.
Mr. FOSTER Has the government given him any instructions at all as to what he has to do? Is he a restraining force, and in what way? Does he follow his own sweet will and do as he likes, or has he any instructions given him by the government, or does he go whichever way the tide runs, or does he simply look after his salary? All these are pertinent inquiries when a man is getting $2,000 a year of the people's money. He may earn it, he may earn a good deal more; but we want to know what the man is doing.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will remember that last year when this item was up some questions were asked, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) made some extended remarks, very eulogistic, of Mr. Brunet. I had several conversations with him during the past year. I really had not met him last year, t discussed with him unofficially his duties on the board at various meetings, and asked him to give us a report as to his work on that board, and he did so. I have that report, and I will lay it on the table early next week.


John Graham Haggart: Is he still in the employ of the government?


George Perry Graham: Yes, in this capacity, a director of the Grand Trunk Pacific representing the government.


John Graham Haggart: When will it end?


George Perry Graham: I suppose the government will be represented by some person on that* board until the Grand Trunk Pacific is completed. I do not know whether his functions extend to the operation or not.


John Graham Haggart: This gentleman was on that board as director or commissioner. Is this the commissioner who resigned?


George Perry Graham: That is the same gentleman that resigned from the Transcontinental Commission. Section 43 of the National Transcontinental Act provides that during the term of said lease, and so long as the government remains liable for any nortion of the bonds issued, the government shall have the right to appoint one director, and shall pav him a salary not to exceed $2,000 per annum. That is the clause of the Act by which he was appointed.


George Eulas Foster: The Act is plain enough. It would seem as though the government felt that when it was guaranteeing the bonds it ought to have a man on the spot. I do not know why that should have been done because I think in the final analysis the whole thing comes before the Finance Minister, who has got to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for issuing bonds, and afterwards for payment over of the proceeds of those bonds. Has Mr. Brunet anything to do with that? Is he the government director who keeps the Finance Minister informed?


George Perry Graham: I think not. His report is made to the Department of Railways and Canals. The Auditing Department audits the entire expenditure of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


John Graham Haggart: We had a return brought down showing that the whole amount of the government guarantee for the construction of the work from Winnipeg to Edmonton had been paid out to the Grand Trunk Pacific although the road has not been accepted and passed by the government. I suppose Mr. Brunet is looking after that.


George Perry Graham: That matter will come up a little later in the discussion upon the Transcontinental Railway. I am not prepared to go into it just now. Our department audits all these accounts and I think that on our certificate the money is paid.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand it, Mr. Brunet has no instructions from the government or the Minister of Railways and Canals as to what particular stand he is to take or what particular function he is to perform on the board of directors. None such have been issued to him?


George Perry Graham: I understand not.


John Graham Haggart: 


George Eulas Foster: It would seem, as he had Seen appointed by the government and for prudential reasons, that there should be an rnderstanding as to what line he is to take on the board of directors. He would not seem to be of any use there at all, unless he were assigned to some particular oversight or duty. How often do these directors meet?


George Perry Graham: I think they meet on the second Tuesday in the month.


George Eulas Foster: Is Mr. Brunet's time all
devoted to that?


George Perry Graham: I think not.


John Graham Haggart: You have laid his report on the table, have you?


George Perry Graham: No, I will lay it on the table the first of the week.
Maintenance and operation of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, $107,000.


George Eulas Foster: How is that distributed?


George Perry Graham: Here are the items which are not covered by statute, the items covered by statute being the salaries:
Chief engineer, 2 assistants, electrician and clerk	$ 15,000
Traffic officer and staff	 16,000
Law clerk	 2,500
Registrar and accountant	 2,500
Inspectors and staff	 12,000
Assistant to secretary and staff.. ..	7,000
Private secretary to chief commissioner	 1,600
Stenographers	  3,400
Messengers	 2,500
Official reporting	 9,000
Official car	 3,000
Printing	 2,000
Stationery	 5,000
Board's and staff's travelling expenses	 12.000
Telephone company, telegrams, postage	 1,500
Outside service	 1,800
Contingencies	 10,200

Then there are authorized by statute salaries as follows:
Chief commissioner, Hon. J. P. Mabee. $10,000 Assistant chief commissioner, D'Arcy
Scott	 9,000
Commissioner, Hon. M. E. Bernier ..	8,000
Commissioner, James Mills	 8,000
Commissioner, S. McLean	 8,000
Commissioner (vacant)	 8,000
Secretary, A. D. Cartwright	 8,500

That makes $54,500, and the total vote is $55,000.


George Eulas Foster: How many commissioners are there now ?


George Perry Graham: Five and one vacancy.


Mr. MARSHALL.: How many inspectors?


George Perry Graham: I will get that for the hon. gentleman in a minute.


George Eulas Foster: Does this commission find plenty of work to do ?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: It is over burdened with work ?


George Perry Graham: I would not say that it is overburdened. I would like to say a word as to the selection of Mr. Justice Ma-bee as the head of the commission. I think the public will bear me out in saying that this is as happy a selection as has been made in several years.


George Eulas Foster: You do not limit that to the selections made by this government ?


George Perry Graham: I would like to extend to all governments the same courtesy. He is a man who is fitted for the position possibly better than any other who could have been chosen..


George Eulas Foster: Now, let us hear the minister's opinion of the next one ?


George Perry Graham: Of the whole board ?


George Eulas Foster: No, of the next one.


George Perry Graham: I am speaking of the chairman. I think they are all efficient. The board is doing excellent work. One portion is in the west and the other is in the city of Ottawa. The decisions during the past year have been democratic, to say the least, but they have been approved by the public very largely. I expect the chief commissioner here in a few days to discuss with him the filling of the vacancy.


George Eulas Foster: How long has that position been vacant ?


George Perry Graham: Since the death of Mr. Greenway.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the work of this commission is always ahead of it ?


George Perry Graham: Yes, the commissioners have all plenty to do, but the chief commissioner is a man who cleans up his work with a rapidity unknown to many people. He is an inveterate worker and he often decides cases that under other circumstances it might take months to dispose of. He decides them before the parties have left the room. I expect him in the city in a few days, and I want to consult him with regard to the new appointment to be made. If the vacancy is to be filled my own opinion is that it should be filled by a competent western roan who knows the conditions there, and, the chief commissioner, having been through the west and having dealt with many cases there, may possibly have
in his mind some one who will fit into the niche.


George Eulas Foster: I judge that the minister will depend mainly on the recommendation of the chief commissioner as to who shall fill the vacancy.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to nominate a man to the commission who would not be satisfactory to the chairman. I would feel that I ought to consult with him m a matter of that kind. He will have some information as to western conditions, and I will postpone making the appointment until I consult with him.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister ever thought of adopting the principle, which was adopted by the old Romans in filling a vacancy, of allowing the members of the commission at the time to select the man to fill a vacancy that happened by death or otherwise?


George Perry Graham: I am afraid that might perhaps be something like the system followed in selecting municipal councillors under which the man having the next highest vote may get the situation. We want some one who will be worthy of a seat on the board. My hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) asked me a question as to the number of inspectors. There is an inspector and three assistant inspectors of accidents and an inspector of equipment.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I am told that the commissioners are handicapped by having only one special car. The effect of what I am saying is to advise the government to provide such facilities as are necessary to the proper carrying on of the business of the board. I am told that when some of the commissioners were going through Ontario lately they were handicapped by not having a car in which to carry their equipment, their clerks, stenographers and so on, as the other branch of the board were out in the west and they had the only official car belonging by the commission to carry their equipment and staff. They have to have engineers, stenographers and other officials to help them, and one can readily understand that when they are travelling they can save a lot of time if they have their own car and are able to do work, which they cannot do if they have to travel in the ordinary trains and in the ordinary way. I think it would be a saving to the country if this official car were supplied, and it is perhaps right that I on this side of the House should say that it would be a reasonable expenditure in the interest of the speedy transaction of the public business. If they had this car they could carry their officials and have the work done while they were travelling which would be a very good thing for the country. Does the min-

ister contemplate making provision for a car for the other branch of the commission? The question as to whether another official car should be provided for them is worthy of consideration.


George Perry Graham: I was going to say I am surprised, but I shall not, because my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) has good sense, however, it amuses me a little to hear some person suggesting that we should have any more official cars.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But this is in the interest of the public service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have an army of them now.


George Perry Graham: I was criticised pretty strongly last year for giving the commission a car at all, but I may say that I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) that it would save a great deal of time and the commissioners would be able to do more work if they had a car on which the staff could be accommodated when travelling. However, it did not suggest itself to me and they themselves have not asked for it in their estimates this year. When the work increases it will be worthy of serious consideration that they should be fully equipped so that they can do their work with the least possible loss of time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have the chief commissioner presiding over a branch of the board which is in the west with an official car and we have a co-ordinate branch presided over by the assistant chief commissioner which has not an official car when it is travelling on the public business. It seems to me it is consistent that if you give a car to one branch of the commission you should give a car to the other. I think it is a reasonable proposition and that the furnishing of this facili-ity will enable the work to be done more expeditiously and the public served better.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose no haulage is charged for the Railway Commission car?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The railways have to haul it free.


George Eulas Foster: On what principle are the officials of the Railway Commission appointed?


George Perry Graham: The secretary is appointed by the Governor in Council direct, and the other officials upon the recommendation of the chairman-perhaps I should say on the recommendation of the board-approved by the Governor in Council.


George Eulas Foster: Is it on the request of the board that appointments are made?


George Perry Graham: Yes; they make a recommendation that such assistance is necessary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact their recommendation is carried out?


George Perry Graham: Yes, I think it has never been varied that I know of.


George Eulas Foster: With reference to the vacancy on the board; I have been informed that this is a hard work commission and that its work is ahead of it. There does not seem to have been any excuse given for so long delay in filling the vacancy on the board. If so many commissioners are necessary to do the work they should all be there. Why this interregnum; is there any trouble within the Cabinet itself?


George Perry Graham: If there were a man to be appointed from this vicinity I think I have my eyes on the one I want. We did not make the appointment right away after the death of Mr. Greenway, and some few months elapsed during which we were engaged in other matters and finding recently that the chief commissioner was going to the west himself I suggested we should not make any appointment until at least he would come back and' give us his views. As I have said, if the selection were to be made from Ontario where I know most of the men, I would not have hesitated so long, but I want to consult the chief commissioner before the appointment is made and that is my reason for waiting.
Inspection-Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, $28,000.


George Perry Graham: We guarantee a certain percentage of the cost of the mountain section and of the prairie section, and Mr. Collingwood Schreiber has a staff under him all the time inspecting this work.


John Graham Haggart: Have you a report from Mr. Schreiber?


George Perry Graham: His report was placed on the table. In a few days I will include his interim report in the statement I shall make to the House before we take up the large item for the Transcontinental railway.


John Graham Haggart: I would like to have that report before you make your statement.


George Perry Graham: I will get a copy.


George Eulas Foster: Months ago a statement was made that about 600 miles of the Grand Trunk Pacific west of Winnipeg had been finished and was in operation. Does that mean that the Grand Trunk Pacific is now in full possession of that 600 miles and is operating it?


George Perry Graham: I believe it is still running as a construction road; we have not taken it over yet.


George Eulas Foster: Is it being operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific or by the contractors?


George Perry Graham: I think probably there is an arrangement between the company and the contractors.


George Eulas Foster: What kind of a service is being given on it?


George Perry Graham: I am informed there has been a time table issued for this 660 miles but I have not seen it.


John Graham Haggart: How is it that you have paid the whole amount of the government guarantee if you have not taken over the road?


George Perry Graham: We have not done that.


John Graham Haggart: Your report placed on the table says so.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend will find that is an error.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has not that portion of the road been carrying grain during the winter? I saw a report that they were prepared to handle grain and freight.


George Perry Graham: They have been carrying grain as all these roads carry anything that is given them. They have also carried passengers. But they are not under our control or that of the Railway Commission. There is a little work, ballasting, etc., yet to be done before it is taken oyer. In the meantime they are accommodating the public by carrying freight and passengers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who authorized any tariff being put in operation?


George Perry Graham: I am told the Board of Railway Commissioners have given them permissive authority to run as they are now doing, and has approved of a certain tariff they are charging the people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have they been carrying much grain?


George Perry Graham: I am informed they have carried quite a large quantity, but I have only newspaper information, we have no report.


John Graham Haggart: The minister says the full amount has not been paid out on the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to Edmonton? Who pays them for what they do? There is an issue of a certified quantity of stock or securities to some one and the money received from that I think goes into the treasury, and is moneyed out in some way to the railway as they earn it. Is that done by the railway or the Finance Department?


George Perry Graham: On a certificate from my department the Finance Department releases a certain amount of money on this guarantee. I believe that about $10,000,000 has been released on the prairie section, the 660 miles.


John Graham Haggart: How much more is there still to release?


George Perry Graham: I cannot tell that offhand. That is more a question for the Finance Department than for mine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do the inspectors have to pass upon that portion of the road to be built by the government or only that portion to be built by the Grand Trunk Pacific themselves ?


George Perry Graham: That applies only to the western division, the Grand Trunk Pacific, to see that they live up to their contract with us because we guarantee a certain amount of bonds.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On the result of that inspection and the reports I presume you pay out your money?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
To provide for expenses, preparing plans for the reconstruction of the Quebec bridge, $150,000.


George Perry Graham: As the committee are aware we selected three of the most prominent engineers we could find in the world to take charge of this work. They were appointed by order in council and given authority not only 'to prepare adequate plans but to examine all former plans and to pronounce upon the possibility or advisability of using any material already prepared under former plans. After they make their own plans they are to be responsible for the construction of a bridge upon those plans that will stand up. Mr. H. E. Vautelet is chief engineer and chairman of the board. He receives $1,000 a month. I asked Sir Thomas Shaughnessy as to his ability and Sir Thomas told me that he believed Mr. Vautelet had the ability and if he were building the bridge he would feel safe in giving to Mr. Vaute let the entire work that we are giving to these three engineers, he had such confidence in his ability.


John Graham Haggart: Is he a Canadian?


George Perry Graham: I think that he was originally from France, but he is now a naturalized citizen of Canada. He was educated in France, and is a very prominent engineer. With the Canadian Pacific Railway he has done splendidly.


George Eulas Foster: Is all his time devoted to this work?


George Perry Graham: Yes, since he was engaged. Mr. Maurice Fitzmaurice, C.M.O., is the chief engineer of the London County Council. He is the English representative on this board. We pay him $1,000 a month.


George Eulas Foster: Does he devote all his time to this?


George Perry Graham: No, not all his time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
George Perry Graham: 
Edward Arthur Lancaster: 
George Perry Graham: 
George Perry Graham: 
George Eulas Foster: Is their responsibility measured by a guarantee company or not9


George Perry Graham: Their responsibility is not a financial one, of course, but a professional responsibility, and from what I hear, I think we have got three of the best men m the world.


George Eulas Foster: Then, the minister does not expect to have this matter in a position to be really considered by council for a year or two?


George Perry Graham: I am told that they hope to have the plans ready next autumn. For tne real construction work of the bridge there cannot be a vote asked for until next session The present vote is to cover all their other expenses.


Mr. SAM SHARPE.: Have any overtures been made by the Grand Trunk Pacifi" Company with regard to the building of this bridge	s


George Perry Graham: None whatever.


Mr. SAM HUGHES.: Have any been made to the company?


George Perry Graham: No.
n LANCASTER. Does not the minister think that he would get these plans at an earlier date if he paid these men a good honorarium or fee instead of by the month?


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister please give their salaries?


George Perry Graham: The staff is as follows:
Per
month.
Joseph Mayer, principal assistant.. . .$500 00 John D. Wilkins, asst, engineer,
draughting room	 333	S3


Geo.   F.@: Porter, chief	draughtsman.. .. 250	00
i ' * Glasco, asst, calculator and
draughtsman	jtjQ	qqHans Grether, calculator	
150	00


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: No. The terms have to be acceptable to them, or we could not get their services. In view of past experience I want to be careful to give the men whom we have practically selected their own way as far as the preparation of the plans is concerned. They are proceeding with all possible speed; I do not think they are wasting a moment. They are proceeding tc make their tests and experiments separately, and when they get together, they will compare them and decide on the plans, and I think the country may feel confident that it will be secure.


John Graham Haggart: Next year the rails will be laid on the Grand Trunk Pacific from

Levis to Moncton. How is the minister going to utilize that part of the railway in view of the fact that the bridge will not be completed for seven or eight years? Does he intend to use ferry boats?


Mr GRAHAM.: That matter has been taken up with the Grand Trunk Pacific Company within the last few weeks, and we are| considering what ought to be done. I am not prepared to give any further information at present.


Mr. CROSBY.: The people of the maritime provinces are much interested in this work, and I wish to ask the minister if it would not be possible to have these plans completed earlier.


George Perry Graham: I was told that they could not be hurried, and that it would not be safe to hurry them. I feel like keeping my hands off these men. I simply told them that I wanted the plans as soon as they could be given.


Samuel Hughes: Is there a Canadian
engineer in the lot ?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Vautelet is a Canadian.


Samuel Hughes: Is he an experienced engineer ?


George Perry Graham: I believe one of the best in the world, if not the best.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not understand how paying these gentlemen a large sum per month 'is going to hurry up these plans.
I cannot help thinking that if they were paid a certain sum for the plans, they would complete them more quickly, as they would have an incentive to hurry them up.


George Gordon: I believe that the way the minister has taken is the_ proper way. He wants the best men available, and in order to get them he must pay them as they wish to be paid. I believe that is the proper and businesslike way of dealing with them.


Samuel Hughes: Were any of these engineers pretty well paid?


George Perry Graham: The pay will not make a bad engineer a good one, if it is a question of pay.


Samuel Hughes: Were	not the last
engineers any good?


George Perry Graham: I am not saying anything about that. Our bridge is in the river; something was wrong, but I am not saying who was wrong. The main thing now is to get a bridge. After a great deal of care, I have got the three men who I believe are the most competent men in the world.


Samuel Hughes: Were	any of these
men on the Forth bridge?
651	~


George Perry Graham: Mr. Maurice Fitzmaur-ice was assistant on the Forth bridge.


George Eulas Foster: Has any investigation been made as to whether the material that lies in the river is utilizable in any way?


George Perry Graham: The engineers have decided that they cannot use any part of the material prepared for the former bridge.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any use that can
be made of it?


George Perry Graham: Nothing but scrap.


George Eulas Foster: Has there been any consideration of the idea of making a tubular construction through the water near tlu surface?


George Perry Graham: The water at that point is about two hundred feet deep. I saw something of that suggestion in the newspapers, but I would think it would be utterly impracticable. The engineers think so. [DOT] The current is very rapid there.
Miscellaneous works not provided for, $5,000.


George Perry Graham: This is a vote that is asked for every year. Sometimes some of the money is used, and sometimes none of it is used. For the current year, we did not use any of it.


George Eulas Foster: You never use it on works. Mr. GRAHAM. On faith, perhaps.


William Wright: Why is this money asked for when you have not spent that already voted ?


George Perry Graham: The vote lapses at the end of the year.


William Wright: Then, this should appear as a re-vote.


George Perry Graham: We could hardly enter it that way. Suppose that, after these estimates were made up, we used some of this year's appropriation. We cannot tell in advance how much of the money will be spent.
Arbitration and awards, $4,000.


George Perry Graham: This is to provide for law costs in connection with arbitrations. We have not spent any of this money for the current year.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the nature of these arbitrations ?


George Perry Graham: Well, we had an arbitration last year on the claim of a contractor, but, in that case, we made the contractor pay all the costs. In such cases we might have to pay an arbitrator.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: These are not land owners' arbitrations?


George Perry Graham: No.


George Eulas Foster: There was an arbitration between the government on behalf of the Intercolonial with the Grand Trunk in reference to matters in and around Montreal, and in connection with the lease made some years ago. Has that ever been finished ?


George Perry Graham: No.


George Eulas Foster: Why has this dragged along P You have arbitrators appointed, have you not ?


George Perry Graham: I imagine that, if the late Judge Killam had lived, he probably would^ have had the matter cleared up by this time. We shall have to appoint another arbitrator to take his place.


George Eulas Foster: Was there more than one arbitrator ?


George Perry Graham: One for each side, and a third.
Surveys and inspections-canals, $3,000.
" -railways, $28,000.


George Perry Graham: We are constantly making surveys along our canals in order to exactly locate our own properties, when we wish to make improvements and that sort of thing. The inspection of railways is largely m connection with lines to which we grant subsidies. Before the payment of the subsidy there must be a certificate that the line has been constructed according to the terms of the subsidy contract. Up to January 31, 1909, the expenditure under this head for the current year was $15,809.04.
Costs of litigation in connection with railways and canals, $6,000.


George Eulas Foster: How much of this vote has been spent for the current year ?


George Perry Graham: Up to January 31, last, $2,733.67.


George Eulas Foster: 
George Perry Graham: I am informed that that road was in litigation, that it owed us a certain ^ amount, and that we interposed- if that is the legal term-to protect our own interest.


George Eulas Foster: Did you get the money they owed ?
taken, the question is now before the Supreme Court.


George Eulas Foster: Is this Mr. Perron the
saine who was engaged in the Cassels' Commission ? And is J. L. and A. Geoffrion the name of the firm ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think so. There is only one lawyer of that name known to me.
To pay expenses in connection with cases belore the Railway Commission, $10,000.


George Eulas Foster: How does that come up ?


George Perry Graham: The case we had last year was this:	There was a provision in
the Lord's Day Act which implied that the Railway Department was interested to the extent that it ought to be represented in any case under that Act before the Railway Commission. That view was pressed very strongly on the department, and after consulting with the Department of Justice, it seemed to me that, to carry out the intentions of the Act, we would have to appear to see that the interest of the public at large was protected. We were not there to advocate the Lord's Day side of the question or to combat it, but as being interested in transportation, to see that the public interest was protected.


George Eulas Foster: Who was your representative ?	.


George Perry Graham: Mr. W. Buell, of Buell and Botsford. That cost some thing over $220.^ He was engaged some time before that in connection with the investigation of the express companies' charges, and that is how we came to engage him in this other work. In connection with the express case, he was paid $867.74 up to last December. That was all the expenditure we had out of this item last year.


George Eulas Foster: Why do you ask for so much ?


George Perry Graham: My deputy says that the opinion has been expressed in the House at times that we ought to be prepared to appear before the Railway Commission.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: On behalf of whom?


George Perry Graham: On behalf of the public.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It would be well if the shippers by these express companies knew that, because they aTe employing counsel, in these cases.


George Perry Graham: A portion of it, not all.


George Eulas Foster: Are you still carrying on
the litigation ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think it is still before the court. I know of a bank which was interested in the suit, and, unless I am mis-Mr. GRAHAM.


George Perry Graham: We do not take the part of any particular man, we do not go there ns an applicant.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does this man appear in the interest of the shippers? We see that the questions that arise before the commission are generally questions of
2057 MARCH 5, 1909 2058	
shippers against railways. If this gentleman was appearing in the interest of the shippers and arguing against the railways, I would not object, but if he is not appearing in that capacity, I think it is a waste of public money. The shippers have always to employ counsel to contend with the most eminent counsel the railways can procure, and to argue before the commissioners for the rights of the shippers. If this is going to develop into the government paying for counsel in the interest of the shippers as against the railways, of the people as distinguished from the corporations, then I would be in favour of ft. But I am pointing out that the public does not so understand it. It seems as if the people were paying out of their own pockets to the shippers to get protection before the commission, and at the same time paying some other counsel to go there _ who may not be directly looking after their interest. Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE. Why not provide counsel as part of the machinery of the commission on behalf of the public, something in the nature of a Crown Attorney to look after the public interest? As I understand the purpose of the Railway Commission, it is to protect the interests and adjust the grievances of the public as between the railways on the one hand, and individuals, municipalities and the public generally on the other. Now, why not make trained counsel part of the machinery of the Railway Commission, and pay him a substantial salary, to take up the people's end of the disputes? It would save expense to the country, because the commission would not have to lose so much time in listening to inexperienced solicitors, the cases would be better presented by trained council on behalf of the public. I think this item should not be allowed to go through until the minister has considered that question. Mr. GRAHAM. We have never gone so far as to employ counsel for diversified individual interests. The government cannot take the position of appearing before the commission by counsel as against the railway companies. Mr. LANCASTER. Then why should this man appear at all? Mr. GRAHAM. This man appeared, not for the Lord's Day Alliance or against the Lord's Day Alliance. This is our own Act. Mr. LANCASTER. The hon. gentleman said that the same gentleman, before that, had been employed in regard to express rates. I cannot understand why, if he was not there in the interest of the people against the railways. Mr. GRAHAM. He was there assisting the commission in investigating the conditions and the rates of the express com-	panies. He was not there as soliictor before the Board of Railway Commissioners, combatting the express companies. Mr. LANCASTER. But he was appointed and paid by the government. Was he not doing that in the interest of the people? Mr. GRAHAM. My hon. friend does not draw the distinction. As to the matter which the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) has mentioned, I have discussed with the chairman of the commission the advisability of having standing counsel. But we have already given protection to the people by appointing as chairman of the board an ex-judge, and his assistant is a lawyer as well. For my part, I want to keep this board from becoming a real court; I want to keep it as a body before whom I may go myself without any lawyer, and say to the chairman, This is my case, I want a judgment upon it. If we were to engage counsel to appear against the counsel of the railways, then we* would simply have to sit back and listen to them as we do in any court. At six o'clock, committee took recess. After Recess. House resumed at eight o'clock. CANADIAN, LIVERPOOL AND WESTERN RAILWAY. House in committee on Bill (No. 44) to incorporate the Canadian, Liverpool and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Girard. On section 2: Mr. S. SHARPE. Mr. Chairman, as a young member I listened with a great deal of interest to the discussion on this Bill when it was before the Railway Committee and also to the discussions that have taken place in this House. It involves important interests and very contentious matters. The interests of the province as distinguished from the interests, powers and rights of the Dominion are certainly very important. My short experience in this House has shown me that promoters of Bills frequently insert two objects; one is an important object, it is the main object and it is properly within the purview of the province and then, they insert a minor or subsidiary object that is properly within the jurisdiction of the Dominion. The whole purpose and intent of doing that is to oust the jurisdiction of the various provinces. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson), when this Bill was being discussed in the Railway Committee, stated that one reason why he wanted the charter granted by this_ parliament was because the rates of this company could be regulated by the Railway Commission, practically ignoring the fact that the provinces have the right to regu-

late a railway company having a provincial charter and practically ignoring the fact that most of the provinces have machinery for the regulation of railway companies incorporated by themselves. I do not know if the province of Quebec has a railway commission, but it has a tribunal that regulates railway companies analogous to the commission appointed by the Dominion government. Consequently, the reason which was given by the hon. member for Westmoreland, why a Dominion charter should be granted to this company, was certainly not a strong one, because, if it were only to give the Railway Commission of the Dominion jurisdiction to regulate its rates, that is not a sufficient reason why it should come to this House for its charter.
The question of provincial rights has been raised many times during this session. The absurd lengths to which this House has gone in declaring railways to be for the general advantage of Canada is instanced by the fact that in the county of Ontario it has declared an electric railway, only two miles in length, running from Oshawa to the lake shore, to connect the town with the steam railway company's road, to be for the general advantage of Canada. That shows to us the absurd lengths to which this House has gone in declaring railways that are purely provincial to be for the general advantage of Canada.
I think it is only right that great deference should he paid to the representations made by the representatives of the province of Quebec. Before the Railway Committee a representative from the province of Quebec appeared and made strong representations that the Dominion should not grant this charter. I think this House should pay great deference to those representations and as a young member of the House I was struck very much by the spectacle of most of the hon. gentlemen representing Quebec constituencies ignoring the representations of the Quebec representative and voting in favour of granting the charter. My own opinion is that when a province protests great deference should be paid to that protest and when there is a contention between the Dominion and the province with reference to their respective jurisdictions, that a reference should be made of the Bill to the law department of the government for an opinion. I think that what the House should do with a contentious Bill of this nature is to refer it to the law department in order to get an opinion as to whether the province has sufficient powers to grant this company a charter. Wherever a company can have its rights and privileges granted by a provincial charter we should not en- i croach upon the jurisdiction of the pro- -vinces and grant Dominion charters. One ;


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 1 argument alone is sufficient 'to show' the t wisdom of adopting that course and that 7 is that the provincial control is closer, 3 more intense, and would tend to a eessa-t tion of the friction that exists between i the province and the Dominion. Under 1 these circumstances, while I am not
-	speaking as to the merits of the Bill 3 or as to whether it should receive 3 a provincial or Dominion charter, I
-	say that where there is contention, and i there certainly is contention in reference . to this Bill, it should be referred to the
law department for an opinion as to whether the power of the province is sufficient to grant a charter adequate to the purposes of this company. If the province has sufficient power to grant all necessary rights and privileges to this company then the law department's opinion should prevail and we should refuse to grant that charter and let them go to the province and get the rights that they desire.


Mr. E. ROY.: I will not dispute the reasons that have been given by the hon. member, but when we look at the constitution I think there is no question but that we have jurisdiction to deal with this Bill. I am for provincial rights, but when I look at section 91 of the British North America Act I see that the powers of this parliament ' extend to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated.' When we come to section 92 we see that it says:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:
Then follows the enumeration. By paragraph 10 we see that there is included in this list,
Local works and undertakings, other than such as are of the following classes,-
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
Those are excepted. Then we come to paragraph (c):
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
That is to say that the parliament of Canada has the right to declare immediately that the works to be undertaken under this Bill are for the general advantage of Canada. Therefore, I think we have the jurisdiction. Whether the work to be done under this Bill is for the general advantage of Canada is another question. The argument has been presented before the

Railway Committee that clause 10, to give to the company the right to construct, acquire and navigate steam and other vessels, decks, wharfs, &c., is for the general advantage of Canada. We must not lose sight of the fact that the St. Lawrence river runs through the province of Quebec and that there are many good harbours on that river awaiting development to become the seaports of the future. Every hon. gentleman who has looked at the map in the railway committee room knows that this railway starts at a point on the Grand Trunk Pacific and goes to a point near Tadousac, which, without the least doubt will sooner or later become a winter seaport. It is therefore undoubtedly for the general advantage of Canada to have these seaports on the St. Lawrence developed into oceangoing ports whence the products of Canada may be sent to the markets of Europe. It is quite plain that the intention of this company is to develop seaports on the St. Lawrence, and as the parliament of Canada has power under section 92 of the British North America Act to declare such a work for the general advantage of Canada I do not see how it becomes necessary to refer this Bill to the Department of Justice to know whether or not we have such jurisdiction.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It was not my contention that this Bill should be referred to the law department to ascertain whether this parliament had power to grant the necessary incorporation, but on the contrary to ascertain whether the province has that power, and if it properly comes within the purview of the province this charter should not be granted here.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: It is my opinion that the province of Quebec has jurisdiction in the matter. I do not approve of the Bill as it is drafted at present, but I do certainly say that this parliament has jurisdiction also.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There is no doubt about that.


Joseph Alfred Ernest Roy: And the province of Quebec also has jurisdiction.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then let them get a charter from the province.


Mr. GIRARD.: With the consent of the committee I will ask that the Quebec and Montmorency Railway which runs from Quebec to Ste. Anne de Baupre be added to this clause. I received a petition to that effect to-day.


George Perry Graham: That gives power to amalgamate with the Quebec and Montmorency railway?


Joseph Girard: Yes.


George Perry Graham: There is no objection to that.


Mr. LENNOX.: It seems to me that is rather an important amendment to offer here without consideration.


Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I move in amendment to add the following clause :
14. The company will be obliged to print its bills of lading in the two languages, English and French.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The amendment has reference to the printing of the Bills of lading and time tables in the two languages. I am afraid the importance of the amendment would make it impossible to deal with it without notice.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The amendment is in order,
is it not ?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Amendments of importance on the third reading of a private Bill must have notice.


Joseph Girard: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I
have no objection to the amendment if the. House wishes to adopt it. I must say that this is already done on all railways, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern, the Lake St. John Railway and others.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: (Translation.) Then, let us have it on the statute.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The amendment does not affect the substance of the Bill, the route, the capital or anything of that kind. What is the rule of the House relating to it ?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Rule 111 :
No important amendment may be proposed to any private Bill in the Committee of the Whole House or at the third reading of the Bill unless one day's notice of the same has been given.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would submit that this is not an amendment such as is contemplated by the rule you have just quoted. It does not alter in any respect the powers of the company or the route or any of the essentials of the law incorporating the company. It merely places on the company the obligation to conform to the needs of the company, inasmuch as the road is intended to be operated entirely in a district where they do not understand the English language.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would not the
company do that any way ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand the promoter has no objection to the amendment. If in your judgment you consider it of sufficient importance to require notice I would ask to have the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Joseph Girard: (Translation.) I have no objection to the amendment and the Min-

ister of Eailways says that he does not object either, provided it is not contrary to the rules of the House.


Haughton Lennox: I would support the suggestion that the committee rise and report progress. A good many members would regard it as an important amendment and it could stand as a notice of motion.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the amendment proposed is of so much importance that I would not be justified in accepting it without notice. It will not interfere with the progress of the Bill to have it stand over.
Progress reported.


TORONTO, NIAGARA AND WESTERN RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 42) respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
On section 1,
Haughton Lennox: I wish for a minute or two to urge again the unwisdom of this kind of legislation. This is one of several Bills we have had before us this session with respect to companies which have allowed the time fixed in their Bills for the expenditure of a certain proportion of their capital to elapse. These companies have come here and have secured better terms than they got on the last renewal. I do not think this point was brought to the attention of the Railway Committee when the Bill was before them. We renewed this charter in 1906 and it is to be noted that when we renewed it the last time we inserted the ordinary clause that the company should within two years after renewal expend fifteen per cent of the capital stock and complete the undertaking within five years after the date of the renewal. If the minister will really consider this matter he will see that we are going very far wrong in these renewals. When we passed this Act on July 13, 1906, we provided that the company should within two years after the passing of the Act commence the construction of the railways it had been authorized to construct and expend fifteen per cent of the amount of the capital stock thereon, and should within three years thereafter, complete the undertaking. They have not done anything. Our condition two years ago was fifteen per cent or you cannot have a renewal. Nothing has been done since and they come to us and to-day, and without any explanaion or any reason, we reverse the policy of two years ago and say that they can go on and construct without any condition as to the fifteen per cent. That is the first point I want to impress on the minister. They are given five years for


Joseph Girard: completion, and in that five years were not required to turn a sod. Two years ago we said that fifteen per cent had to be expended within two years; they have done nothing since; and now they come and ask us to relieve them from that obligation. The objections I have to this Bill are twofold. The first is that we impose no necessity on this company to do anything whatever for five years.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The railway must be completed within five years.


Haughton Lennox: But we do not know whether they will complete it or not. We make no provision for beginning the work, and whereas under the terms of two years ago they would have to expend 85 per cent within the next three years, we say by this Bill that they need not do a tap for five years. I submit that the only sound principle on which we can go in renewing these charters is this, that whenever a company calls for a renewal, we will give it five years within which to complete the work, and will require it within the first two of those years to expend at least 15 per cent. We would be renewing the charter on as good terms as we gave it before. We say, we want you to do as well within the two years from the renewal as you were to do within two years from the incorporation; therefore you must spend 15 per cent of the capital within two years of the renewal, and must complete the railway within five years. I argued this point in the Railway Committee, but was not then fortified with the Act. When I look at the Act, it appears to me that it would be an absolute absurdity to renew this charter upon the terms set forth in this Bill. Consider how inconsistent we would be in other respects. Turn to the next Bill on the Order Paper, Bill (No. 47). In that we have not the 15 per cent clause, but we have the other about commencing within two years and completing in five. In the next Bill after that we have the same thing. What I submit is that in every instance in which a company comes to us for a renewal of its charter, we should say: Dating from the time of the renewal you must expend 15 per cent of your capital within the next two years and complete the railway within five years. If the answer is, we have already expended 15 per cent,
I say that is no answer at all; it does not matter what you have expended; you may have expended 40 per cent, but if you want five years from this time for the work, you must expend at the same rate as you were required to do from the first incorporation.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I agree entirely with the hon. member who has just taken his seat. What I would prefer would be the insertion of a clause in the general Railway Act that would cover all cases of renewal, whether 15 per cent had been expended or not. If the company has not

expended 15 per cent, there is no reason why, if it gets another extension of time, it should not expend another 15 per cent within two years. Until the general Act is amended in this direction, I think that a clause to this effect should be put in all these Acts.


George Perry Graham: It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule, particularly in a country where we are so anxious to get railway construction. In some instances it is perfectly proper to impose cast-iron conditions, but cases have arisen in the Railway Committee in thirty minutes in which conditions had to be put in one Bill and not in another, owing to the differences in the conditions of construction.
I am surprised at what I find in this Bill.
I understood in the committee, and the Bill was allowed to go through on the assurance, that they had expended 15 per cent since the last extension of the charter. But I find that this Act was passed in 1906, changing the name of this road, extending the time, and containing the two years and 15 per cent clause, and since that Act was passed no circumstance could have arisen to justify us in relieving the company of the conditions imposed by that Act. The only reason the 15 per cent clause was left out of this Act was that the committee understood that since the last extension the company had expended 15 per cent, and the same condition would not be imposed in the renewal; but they would be required to complete in the five years. I agree with the hon. member from South Simcoe that in this Bill we ought to insert the two years and 15 per cent clause.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I have no information whether any money has been expended on this road since the time of the last renewal in 1906. I have no information that no money has been expended. For anything I know, there may have been considerable. We had the assurance in the Railway Committee that about $250,000, if I remember rightly, had been expended, and we were told where this money was spent. A portion of the road has been constructed at Mimico, abutments for a bridge over Twelve Mile creek at Bronte have been built, and I think other works have been constructed. At any rate, we had the assurance that, so far as the 15 per cent was concerned, that had been expended on the road. I do not think the promoter of the Bill made the statement that this work had been done since the last renewal was given.


Mr GRAHAM.: I do not know that he did.


David Henderson: If a blunder has been made, I think it was made when the last renewal was given. There was no reason then for putting in the provision respecting 15 per cent, because that had been
spent. All that they should have asked for and obtained was the extension for five years to build the road. It seems to me it was an oversight to put in the regular clause instead of a special clause. The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) smiles, but I know that in the Railway Committee it is not unusual for the chairman to say:	' Shall we insert the usual
clause?' and it is immediately agreed to, the committee losing sight of the fact, perhaps, that the case is a special one and the usual clause is not called for. The blunder, if there was one, is unfortunate, because it may have an undesirable effect on this charter. This is an important road, commencing at Toronto, passing through York, Peel and Halton counties, and so on around to Niagara. I am disposed to regard the legislation of three years ago as something done in error, and the 15 per cent as an expenditure made prior to that time. [DOT] All we have to do now is to extend the time for the completion of the road. Parliament has the power to do that-it has the power to do almost anything in these matters. I admit that there is a point in what is said by the hon. member for South Simcoe, if he is right in his allegation that no money has been spent since the last renewal was obtained. On that point I am not informed.
I realize that there is a difficulty, but I hope the Minister of Railways will find a way out of it. If necessary I would ask that the Bill be not disposed of now, unless he sees fit to allow the clause to go through as passed in the Railway Committee. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) asks: What is the objection? It is that nothing has been done since the last renewal was granted. Certainly I have no evidence-I do not say that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has no evidence-that such is the case. 1 think that, in the absence of evidence, we must presume that the Railway Committee understood that the necessary 15 per cent had been expended since the last renewal, though I do not know that as a matter of fact.


Haughton Lennox: I will say for the benefit of my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) that I do not profess to have evidence on the matter; I only argue on the facts as they appear in the documents before us. I suppose the hon. gentleman knows much more about the facts than I do. I understood the hon. member to say that he knew there was a very considerable expenditure at one time.


David Henderson: I am simply following the statement made in the Railway Committee by the solicitor representing the promoter, who mentioned the work that had been done near Mimico, and especially the abutments built at the village of Bronte. There was also the right of way that had

been secured all through. My recollection is that it was said that $250,000 had been spent-an hon. member near me says $280,000. I do not see that any harm will be done to any body by this extension, while we may do harm by any action of ours that will cause the charter to lapse. The country wants the road built. I believe we should take the risk and put the Bill through in the ordinary way.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.


WINNIPEG AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 29) respecting the Winnipeg and Northwestern Railway Company.
On section 1,
Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I would ask you to let that Bill stand over, as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) wishes to speak upon it. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 43) respecting the Hudson Bay and Pacific Railway Company.
On the preamble,
Mr. HERRON.: There appears to be no definite route selected or laid out for the road proposed from British Columbia to the Hudson bay. I think we should have some assurance from the Minister of Railways that, before he will accept the plans of this railway chartered for construction purposes, the people in the different localities should be heard. The charter probably extends for a thousand miles, and we cannot tell what part of the country it is going to traverse.


Mr. CASH.: I think the hon. gentleman has got this road mixed up with another. This road has been laid out, and extends from Grand Rapids almost in a direct line to Prince Albert, and from Prince Albert almost in a direct line to Calgary.


John Herron: I agree with the hon. member for Saskatchewan. I think I am mistaken, I had reference to another Bill.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 36) respecting the Southern Central Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Wilbert McIntyre.
Bill (No. 47) respecting the Guelph and Goderich Railway Company.-Mr. Lewis.
Mr. HENDE\SON.
Bill (No. 53) respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Donnelly.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
To pay expenses in connection with cases before the Railway Commission, $10,000.
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Before six o'clock I was suggesting to the minister that he should appoint permanent counsel as part of the machinery of the Railway Commission. We all admit that the Railway Commission is performing a great work. We are told that the Railway Commission is composed of capable men; yet, the interests of the general public are not safeguarded as well as they would be if there were a regular counsel connected with the machinery of the board. The minister stated that he wanted to make it a layman's court, but any person who has been present at the sittings of the Railway Commission knows that it cannot possibly be a layman's court because the railway companies have skilled lawyers there. A timid layman would not go in there to present his own case and even if he did it could not be presented with the ability with which it should be presented in order to ensure success. I am speaking on behalf of the poor men, of the agriculturists, the shippers, the manufacturers, the men who are not accustomed to present their cases before the courts. You cannot get away from the fact that this is a court and that a layman cannot present his case against the skilled counsel who are there on behalf of the railway companies. There are thousands of dollars paid out every year by the public to counsel to attend before the Railway Commission and present their cases. That is a big expense that the individual has to bear. If the minister would appoint counsel to take up that work, become a part of the machinery of the board and present the cases of the public before the Railway Commission he would adopt a measure that would meet with general acceptance and one by which the country in the long run could be benefited. The time of the board would be economized and they would be able to dispose of ten cases where they can now dispose of but one. The evidence would be sent to counsel in advance and he would have the case prepared. A layman cannot prepare his case. Any person who has seen the Railway Commission at work must commend the minister for the appointment of the gentlemen who compose this board because they have been exceptionally good appointments. Generally they discard all the formality and procedure of a court but even the Chairman of the Railway Commission cannot possibly protect the interests of a poor layman because he has not studied the case. He
*2069

knows nothing about it until it is presented by the applicant who seeks to redress a grievance. I have given this matter some attention and I purpose bringing it up in another way, but it was interjected into the discussion by my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) and I thought it might very well be taken up in connection with the item which was up for discussion this afternoon. Even though the layman employs a skilful lawyer he cannot possibly contend with the lawyers who make a specialty of railway cases. It would be in the interests of the country generally and of applicants particularly to have a counsel appointed as part of the machinery of the Railway Commission to appear on behalf of the agriculturist, the shipper, the manufacturer, paid out of the funds of the country and to be known as the public council. Not only could he appear on behalf of shippers, manufacturers, and agriculturists, but he could also re* present the municipalities. A lot of the rural municipalties have no solicitors. The large cities have their counsel and solicitors and they are protected. The appointment of a public prosecutor would not preclude the right of a man to employ his own counsel if he saw fit. He could still have his own council to assist the public counsel, but I think it would not only be in the interests of the country but in the interests of the commission to have a public counsel who would be skilled and learned in the work of the court and who would protect the interests of the public generally. I therefore make an appeal to the minister to consider that question and I think he would earn the gratitude of the people from the Atlantic to the Pacific if he would agree to the appointment of a public counsel.


David Marshall: I cannot agree with my hon. friend (Mr. S. Sharpe) who has just taken his seat. I think we would have too much machinery attached at the court. The practical man, the man who understands his business, is the man to meet the commission. I have had. some little experience as a manufacturer in meeting with this commission. While I do not profess to know every thing, still I think that I put my case quite as well as a lawyer for the reason that I was familiar with it. I think that applies also to the farmer. It strikes me that there is no person who can put his case as well as the practical man. I have met the commission at different times. We have not got all we asked, but we have had no trouble in putting our cases in such a way as to make the commission understand it. I think we haVe all the machinery we want and that the practical man is in a better position to put his case than the man who is not acquainted with business.


John Allister Currie: I heartily endorse the remarks of my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) and I do so as a business man. I think that instead of putting more counsel on that commission there ought to be an amendment to the Act precluding counsel from appearing at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That would keep the railway specialists out.


John Allister Currie: Yes. The Manufacturers Association have matters to submit to the Railway Commission as they have matters to submit to other courts. They did not select counsel at $10,000 a year to do their business for them. They took a man out of the Customs Department, one of the ablest men possibly in the service, and he knows every thing practically about their business. The great struggle in the Railway Commission ha3 been to prevent it from becoming a court of record hedged in with so many rules of evidence that the ordinary individual cannot get his evidence in sideways. It should be open like a coroner's court and the less red tape there is in connection with it the better. It is said that the public do not get a fair show unless they are represented by counsel. From what I can understand the man who has the least to say, who is the most ignorant and the least qualified to present his case, has his case taken in hand by the chairman and as a general rule he gets what he wants much easier than if he were armed with a $10,000 counsel.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And much cheaper.


John Allister Currie: Yes, and much cheaper. Small shippers, lumbermen, merchants and manufacturers cannot afford to go to great expense or to pay large counsel fees. All they want is a plain, ordinary everyday layman's court where they can go in, tell their tale of woe, and be sure that there is no rule or technicality in connection with the court that is going to bowl them out and prevent them from stating their case whether it is in accordance with the rules of evidence or not. The Minister of Railways and Canals should very seriously consider whether any person should be allowed to be represented by counsel before the Railway Commission. *


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think that my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has the right idea, but he is in error in supposing that that is the idea that is being carried out. Personally, I think this should be absolutely the layman's court, but the difficulty is that the railways-and I do not see that you can prevent them- employ the ablest, most expert railway lawyers, and any man, lawyer or layman, who goes there is up against the most astute and able counsel who are ready to resort to every technicality of the four

hundred sections of the Bailway Act against him. If we could so arrange it that it would be nothing but a layman's court that would be the ideal condition. Although that is the ideal condition that is not the condition to-day, for no man can get his case properly presented unless he employs a lawyer who understands the Railway Act. I do not think that ought to be so. I suppose any party to a case can be deprived of the right to engage counsel, and as the railways will certainly employ skilled advocates the difficulty is that the other party must have counsel to contend against them:-
Contribution of the government railways to the faculty of McGill University towards the foundation of a school of railway engineering and transportation in general in connection with the faculty of applied science, $2,500.


John Allister Currie: Is the minister not afraid he is breaking his heart in giving such a huge contribution to a small organization like McGill University?


George Perry Graham: The Canadian Pacific Railway gives $3,000, the Grand Trunk $3,000, the Canadian Northern $2,000, and we give $2,500.


John Allister Currie: Do they not test your oils and materials free of charge?


George Perry Graham: We pay extra for that.


Samuel Hughes: Is the college course a training in the running of trains and the handling of engines and so on?


George Perry Graham: It is a course of general instruction in railway matters.


Samuel Hughes: The building of roads and the operating of trains?


George Perry Graham: It deals with the general theory of railroading.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is McGill the only university which gives this course?


George Perry Graham: I understand so.


Mr. DANIEL.: I suppose the students have to pay their regular fees?
Canal staff and repairs, $1,081,254.


George Perry Graham: I have a lengthy detailed statement, but perhaps it will be sufficient to give the totals for the various
canalg.
Lachine	$143,760
Soulanges	 78,975
Beauharnois	
Cornwall	 125,000
Williamsburg	 51,000
Welland	 220,000
Sault Ste.	Marie	 44,057
Trent	 80,000
Rideau	 123,700
Carillon and Grenville	 36,607
Ste. Anne	 5,985
Chambly	 51,300
St. Ours	 5,845
Murray	 9,000


Edward Arthur Lancaster: St. Peter's	 $ 4,700
Dredge vessels-Lachine	 8,000
"	Rideau	 10,500
Miscellaneous	 11,000
General	 15,000
Quebec canals, salaries	 20,625
Trent canal, salaries, grant.. 4,700
We have $31,000 for operating the canals on Sunday. Last year when the break in the Cornwall canal was repaired the canals were open on Sunday and we had to pay the men extra for that.


Samuel Hughes: Is it allowable to go through the locks on Sundays if the boat owner mans the lock himself?


George Perry Graham: No.


Samuel Hughes: Why not ?


George Perry Graham: They cannot run through the canals on Sundays without first getting permission from the department, and in cases of emergency it has been found necessary to give that permission.


Samuel Hughes: It is all right for the government boats to run through on Sundays?


George Perry Graham: It is all wrong if they do not get permission.


Samuel Hughes: They do it though.


George Perry Graham: In one case in a thousand.


John Allister Currie: Without being in any way irreligiously inclined, I should think it is a serious thing to stop the canal traffic of the country on Sundays. The American canals, our competitors, are open on Sundays, and it is only a matter of a few years when they will have a better canal system than we have. The present system simply cuts off one-seventh of our traffic, and that is a serious matter. Considering the time that is taken to lock a ship through on Sunday and the conditions under which it is done I do not think any law of the Bible would be broken. All the lock-tender has to do is to touch a button and the machinery does the rest. I certainly would not advocate anything that would be irreligious, but it is pure hypo erisy to let street cars run on Sundays and close down the canals.


Mr. HARTY.: And allow railways to run.


John Allister Currie: It simply adds one-seventh to the equipment of those engaged in the transportation business. No one can pretend for one minute that the canal gates are open by any servile labour, for the man has simply to sit in his chair and touch a button and if he likes he can read his Bible all the time he is doing it.


George Perry Graham: It is a matter about which there is a divergence of opinion, and it is the law and not a regulation of the

department. In the autumn, when the season is drawing to a close and the produce of the country has to be forwarded to its destination, we give some leniency in allowing the canals to open on Sunday.


Samuel Hughes: How does the Railway Department control that?


George Perry Graham: They ask for permission and we give it.


Samuel Hughes: If that is so why can't you give permission all the year round.


George Perry Graham: The law is that there shall not be any traffic on the canals on Sunday as a general thing, but in an extreme emergency, such as the break in the Cornwall canal last year, we allowed the canals to be open on Sunday in order to get the traffic through.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And you allow it for three weeks in the autumn?


George Perry Graham: When the Cornwall canal was broken last year there was great congestion of traffic, and as soon as the repairs were finished we allowed the canals to be opened to get rid of the congestion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You allow the Welland canal to be open on Sunday from October to the end of navigation, and if you can do it then why can't you do it from April to October? If it is right in October, why should it not be right from April to October?


John Allister Currie: Under the present regulations for closing the canals on Sunday it simply means that the sailors never get on shore for a minute on Sunday. They lead up and on Saturday night, a few minutes before 12 o'clock they get ready and clear and the men have to work all day Sunday on the lakes. If that law was not on the statute-book the vessel owners would endeavour to h'vo the men on shore on Sunday and the men would have a chance to go to church. I do not believe in such a distortion of the law by reason of the agitation of people who do not understand the facts. There is not one sailor in a thousand wh,o has a chance to put his foot on shore on Sunday. There is a Sabbath law providing that a boat shall not start out on Sunday.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the intention of the minister to have the Sabbath Observance Act amended?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: So that he will not have to break it every fall.


Mr. MILLER.: He does not have to break it every fall because the Sabbath law has a provision for that fall traffic.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would ask the assistant Minister of Railway if that law does not permit him to do it at any time in the year.


Henry Horton Miller: I would tell the would-be Minister of Railways and Canals that it applies every fall.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is there a limitation in the statute to the fall?


Henry Horton Miller: The Act makes a special provision for the fall when the grain is coming down.
Trent canal construction, $1,000,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The correspondence relating to this matter has just been brought down and we are not prepared to discuss it.	,


Mr. I. A. CURRIE.: It would take a good sized man to carry the correspondence which came down yesterday, let alone read it and it would be an advantage to have it stand over.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to be unreasonable as I realize that hon. gentlemen are reasonable in dealing with _ my estimates. This is the third time the item has been called, and I would be glad to know when they would be ready to discuss it; if they would be ready the next day we go into Supply, I would ask to have it stand again.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish in any way to dictate to the minister but I would be glad to have the discussion postponed until Thursday.


George Perry Graham: I wish to have it borne in mind that the part of my supply that has gone through is a very small part of what has to go through for my department, but I am anxious to meet hon. gentlemen half way and we will allow it to stand.


Samuel Hughes: In the meantime I would ask the minister to consider, since he is going on with the branch canals, an extension of the canal from Balsam lake to the lakes in Haliburton county by the construction of two or three dams. The matter is most important. For one-fifth of the expenditure the minister is wasting on the Newmarket ditch he would open up fifty miles of country with twenty times the population that would be served by the Newmarket ditch.


Haughton Lennox: I wish to remind the minister that the people in the neighbourhood of Barrie and between there and Col-iingwood are depending upon coming to interview the minister before he determines upon the question whether he * shall connect with the Georgian bay by the Severn river or by a direct canal from the head of ICempenfeldt bay through to the Georgian bay. That is whether the canal will follow the earlier survey or the recent survey. I have had some correspondence with the department in reference to it.


George Perry Graham: The arrangement made with the hon. gentleman has not been forgotten. Before anything is done, and as soon as we have the plans completed so that we are in a position to discuss it thoroughly, we will notify him in order that he may bring his deputation down.


John Allister Currie: When the discussion opened I asked the minister if a report had been made of the survey on the Nottawasaga and Barrie route. He stated that the survey had been made but that the notes had not been extended and that a full report had not been made. It is nearly two months since that question was asked, and if there are any data available I would like to have a chance to examine them before the deputation comes down.


George Perry Graham: What we have is not intelligible without the plan to follow it along. It will take some weeks to complete the plan and my hon. friend will be advised when the plan is completed.


John Allister Currie: Would it be possible to see the diary and field books of the engineer?


George Perry Graham: 
Mr. PUGSLEY.: I promised to give some particulars with regard to the rent of the Canadian building. It was stated that the building was assessed at a certain figure, and that the amount of the rental paid was a very large return upon its value.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister allow me to mention that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), who brought up that question the other night, is not here to-night. I do not like to ask the minister to let it stand, but I know that the hon. member for Peel would be glad if he would do so.


William Pugsley: I am quite willing under the circumstances to let it stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Public buildings, British Columbia - renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $8,000.


William Pugsley: This is the usual vote.


Mr. BURRELL.: In connection with the grant for public buildings in British Columbia, I would like to quote from Hansard, at page 1407, where the minister gave a list of those works for which tenders had been asked and which it was not proposed to proceed with this year. They were in the whole of Canada eleven in number, and were all wharfs, with the exception of one public building, that of Vernon in the province of British Columbia. On page 1347 of ' Hansard,' I find that the minister said : Mr. LENNOX.
I decided to recommend to my colleagues in the first place to drop those public works for which tenders had not been called irrespective of their necessity. That rule was followed possibly with one or two exceptions. Then that left to be considered all those works in regard to which we had called for tenders. We went through the list again, applied the pruning knife and considered as to whether or not there might not be a few of these which we might drop. We also considered as to whether they were really of such urgent public necessity that they could not stand over for another year.
So that in that pruning process the public building of Vernon in British Columbia is the only one in the whole of Canada which has been placed in that position; and I assume, from the statement of the minister that he felt a solemn obligation-I think that was his phrase-in regard to fulfilling these contracts later on, that he will have no objection to assuring me that this building will be proceeded with next year.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that when the appropriation for thu Vernon building was put in the estimates.
it was put there in good faith, because I and my colleagues were satisfied that it would very soon be required to be constructed in the public interest. But we thought that it might be allowed to stand over for another year, along with a number of other public works. I think I gave a list of eight or ten works in the various portions of the Dominion which, although tenders had been called for them, we arrived at a decision to postpone. I may say to my hon. friend that the land has already been purchased for the building at Vernon, and that just as soon as we are able to take up the other works for which appropriations were made last session, the building at Vernon will be proceeded with.


Martin Burrell: I would like to run over a few things in connection with this matter of public buildings. In the various discussions which have taken place the minister [DOT]has laid down certain principles as those which have guided him in the construction of public buildings throughout Canada. On page 1333 of Hansard, he said:
No rule has been laid down as to the exact number of people required in a place in order to justify the erection therein of a public building. Population does not always govern. Something may depend upon the trade that is done in a place, upon the customs receipts, upon the post office building, upon the possibility or otherwise of renting suitable buildings.
Then, on page 1347, in answer to a question as to what principle guided him in this matter, the minister said: 'the public necessities.' I think all of us are perfectly willing to grant that these are the two principles that should guide any government in

the construction of public buildings. I propose to give, as a basis for comparison, a couple of references in the east and two or three in the west. I have a definite object in quoting these figures, and I do it on the principle laid down by the minister. In the province of Quebec, at Knowlton, we have an estimated population of 800; a postal revenue of $2,156.83; money orders issued, $5,857.93; money orders paid, $6,427.27; postal notes paid, $1,026.81. Knowlton is not a customs port so there is no way of judging what the trade is in that respect. Yet this place has been given a post office costing $26,806, according to the statement of the minister.
Another case is that of Shelburne, N. S., which may be regarded as typical. The following are the figures in relation to this place:	Shelburne has a population of 1,-
500; its postal revenue is $1,969.78; money orders issued, $29,439.81; money orders paid, $19,768.63; postal notes, $671.21. Shelburne is a port of entry, with three subports. The total duty collected was $1,471,67, or, in Shelburne itself, $1,245.61. The exnorts for the year ending March 31, 1908, were $33,177. Shelburne has a post office building which, according to the minister's estimate, cost, with the site $35,158.77.
These are two examples from the eastern part of Canada. Now, take two cities in my own constituency. The first of these is the city of Vernon, for which the figures are as follows:
Vernon, B.C.
Population	 3,500
Postal revenue	$ 8,222 96
Money orders issued	
67,543	41Money orders paid	
32,941	50Postal notes	
5,813	46
Vernon is an outport of the port of Rev-elstoke, and the actual duty collected at Vernon was $35,879.23. We have not only no post office building, but we have very poor postal accommodation for this growing community. My second example is the city of Grand Forks, in which I live. The following are the figures for Grand Forks :
Population	 2,500
Postal revenue	$ 4,695 32
Money orders issued	 89,802 84
Money orders paid	 21,802 54
Postal notes paid	 1,495 39
Grand Forks is a port of entry with eight sub-ports. The total duty collected was $51,794.61; the amount collected in Grand Forks City, $25,712.42. The total exports from this place amount to $2,981,688, a bigger export than that of any port in Nova Scotia, except Halifax, and bigger than any port in New Brunswick except St. John. Yet, so far, we have no post office building, though we have a site which, I have to tell the minister-he probably knows it already-was purchased six days before my election. Let me give a few figures concerning also the city of Greenwood, which is in my constituency, and in which my late opponent resides :
Greenwood, B.C.
Population	 2,000
Postal revenue	$ 4,254 48
Customs duty collected in Greenwood	 25,162 31
Customs duty collected in Greenwood and sub-ports	 45,454 69
Several sites have been looked at for a public building, but none has been purchased.
I wish to briefly contrast these cases, for the whole country, apart from politics is interested in this matter. The Department of Public Works, as we know, is the great spending department of our government, and I think there should be some basis of comparison to show how the money should be expended. Let me give the figures to show the' comparison between Shelburne and Grand Forks:
Grand
Shelburne. Forks.
Population	 1,500 a 2,500
Postal revenue	$ 1,969 b$ 4,695
Money order business.. .. 48,879 b 113,100 Customs duties collected..	1,471 c 51,794
Exports	 33,177 d 2,981,688
a Nearly twice, b More than twice, c 35 times as much, d 90 times as much.
Yet we find that Shelburne has a post office costing $35,000, and the Grand Forks post office is carried on in a rented building.
Now, let me take the case of Vernon. I speak of this because it is one of those for which the tenders were called as late as October 20, to be opened as late as November 20-that is, eight days after my own election. If the money stringency, or decrease in the revenue, have anything to do with it, it must have been known some time before that. Let me compare the case of Vernon with that of Knowlton:
Knowlton. Vernon.
Population	 800	3,500
Total postal revenue .. .. $ 2,156 a $ 8,222 Total money order business. 13,312 b 106,298
Customs revenue	
c	35,879Public building	
26,866	d
a 4 times as much, b 8 times as much. Not a custom port, d Pruned out of existence.
Now, a word or two about these figures which I have brought forward for purposes of illustration. I trust I may be allowed to emphasize this contrast before the Minister of Public Works, because it is I who am called upon to explain to my constituency the tremendous disparity in the distribution of the public moneys of this country, and, in spite of the assistance the minister has given, and the explanations he has made, I am afraid I have not been helped very much toward the explanations

I shall be called upon to make. The people in the west will want to know what principle is followed in these matters. The minister has told us that he has drawn the line sharply between those for which tenders had been called and those for which tenders had not been called. But, in the case of Vernon, he departed from that position. In my humble opinion-and I suppose I should speak with some diffidence as a new member- this part of our public affairs seems to be in great confusion. I must say I sympathize with the Minister of Public Works. It seems to me that, in a case of post office construction the Postmaster General should accept the responsibility, and the Minister of Public Works should not be constantly badgered and criticised and asked for information which he is not always in a position to give. The same is true in relation to the Minister of Militia. A short time ago a question came up concerning the construction of a public building, which, in the ordinary course of procedure was referred to the Minister of Public Works. But that hon. gentleman was not able to answer many of the questions, because the matter related to the Militia Department. It seems to me that, while the book-keeping could be arranged between the departments, the responsible minister of the department for which the building is to be constructed should answer the objections and meet the criticism arising in connection with the matter. The minister, when he was meeting the objections raised about enormous sums being expended in small constituencies, made the remark that sometimes a member representing that constituency would come up and urge very vigorously that this public work should be given, and so he got it.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend pardon me? I think he is mistaken. When I used that expression it was in reference to some of the plans being prepared at an earlier stage than others, and sometimes the minister urged that those plans should be prepared somewhat more speedily.


Martin Burrell: I am glad to accept the minister's assurance. At all events, we know as a matter of fact that these things are very often done under our present political system. We know that the urgency of a member who has the ear of the government bears direct results by the construction of certain works in his constituency that he would not get otherwise. I submit that that principle is fundamentally vicious. If other things are equal, or nearly so, we can understand that under our present political system a government is naturally inclined to favour its political friends, I presume all governments would do that. But the indiscriminate-because there is no other word to be used-the indiscriminate Mr. BURRELL.	t
expenditure for public buildings in small towns simply amounts to a waste of money, it is certainly a subversion of the public interest, it is a deplorable extravagance and absolutely destructive of good government. I think I appreciate as well as any one else the position of the minister, that is, I appreciate the fact that we have a stringency in our finances at the present time. I am aware that in the whole of the debate that took place a week or two ago there was a lot of thrust and parry, and sometimes the minister came out on top, and sometimes he came out second best. But what the people of this country want, I think, is that their legitimate needs should be attended to, whether in respect of the Post Office Department or of any other department, They want the legitimate needs of the country attended to. They want post offices where they are necessary, and then they chiefly want better mail facilities all over the scattered portions of the country, where, although the people are isolated, _ they are engaged in adding to the prosperity of the country. In my own riding there are districts where the people actually only get a mail four times a year, and they are pleading hard with the government to get at least a monthly mail. I think when these things can be said, when these things exist, there should be a recognition of legitimate needs before there is such a tremendous expenditure of money; in places where the needs are very much less. Now take the case of my own town. I am making no clamour for a post office, because I am willing to admit this, that if the country is in straightened financial circumstances, the fact should be recognized, and I think Canadians as a whole are willing to recognize it. They may disagree as to the causes thereof, but they are willing to recognize the fact, and at all events are not disposed to urge upon the government the expenditure of money unnecessarily, we ought all to agree with that. But we do feel this, and feel it very strongly, I know the people feel it throughout my own constituency, they will feel a just resentment when they find that these large sums of money are spent in small places absolutely without necessity, and they have the mortification of seeing their own crying needs utterly neglected. I want to give an illustration. How can I explain to my constituents that their legitimate needs are turned down when I have at the same time to tell them that the government has spent $7,000 on each one of a number of houses at Kingston for drill instructors and gunners, while the servants are getting about $460 a year; and when I find that a million dollars is being expended on a canal which, if I am to believe some of my hon. friends, has not sufficient water to operate it. We had a little while ago a resolution proposed by the hon. member for Lincoln
(Mr. Lancaster) for the abolition of that ancient body, the Senate, and in the course of his address I noticed he said that the Senate cost this country $318,000 a year Now whether we would be justified in ab dishing the Senate or not, how can we satisfy the people who are crying out for a recognition of their just needs, when we have to point out to them that the senators are taken care of to the tune of $6,000 worth of rubber tiling, for their chamber and are robed in purple and fine linen, while at the same time places which afford very considerable revenues to the government are not given the consideration which they deserve.
I would like to suggest to the minister that if this sort of thing goes on to any great extent, and much longer, the people will be disposed to agree with that biting cynicism of Max Nordau, when writing of the nonsuccess of democracy, particularly in the larger sense of that word when he said:
The cabinet not only rules the country but the parliament as well. Instead of their following a policy prescribed to them, they dictate the policy of parliament and nation. They manage all the powers and resources of the nation according to their own discretion, bestow favours and presents, support innumerable hangers on in luxury at the expense of the community, and never hear a word of reproof if they but remember to send to the majority in parliament occasional tit-bits from the royal feast spread for them by the state.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I may say that it would be a horrible thing if it had to be said in our country that that language was absolutely true. That it is partly true, we have got to admit, right in this country of ours, of which we are all so proud. I want to say to the Minister of Public Works and to other ministers who are here, that they will get a generous recognition of any efforts they may put torth to try ana wipe out this system, and make at least some attempt, before they spread out this tremendous distribution of money in needless ways, to attend to the legitimate needs of the country, whether it be a post omce or anything else.
Prince Rupert quarantine station, $25,000.


Mr. BARNARD.: I would like some explanation of this item.


William Pugsley: It is well known that a good many people are now going to Prince Rupert, and in the coming summer a large number, probably many thousands, will be going to that city. We have felt that it would be very desirable, in fact absolutely essential to the public health, to have a quarantine station established there. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture made a very strong appeal to me to have an amount for that purpose put in the estimates.


Samuel Hughes: Will tenders be called for?


William Pugsley: Tenders will be called for just as soon as possible, and it is hoped that a suitable building will be erected for the purpose of taking care of sick persons who may go there during the coming season.


Samuel Hughes: Will Canadians have a chance to work on that building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Barnard: Have the government
provided for any other expenditures in connection with the city of Prince Rupert?
PUGSLEY. No.
Any post office or pub-
Mr
Mr. BARNARD, lie building?


William Pugsley: Mr. BARNARD.
No.
And the adjoining prop-
Has it occurred to the minister that there will possibly be something a good deal more necessary than a quarantine station?


William Pugsley: A quarantine station is essential to the public health.
Vancouver public buildings, $60,000.


William Pugsley: That is to complete the public building at Vancouver.


Samuel Hughes: What building is that?


William Pugsley: The new post office- a very fine building.


Samuel Hughes: From whom was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: It was purchased from Mr. Robertson.
Mr. HUGHES, erty?


William Pugsley: We purchased that for an examining warehouse.


Samuel Hughes: From whom was that purchased and at what price?


William Pugsley: From Mr. Robertson also, I think, at about $80,000.


Samuel Hughes: Are you sure?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Victoria immigration building, $43,000.


William Pugsley: That is to finish the
building.


George Henry Barnard: Could the minister tell us what the immigration into Victoria was last year?


William Pugsley: No, .1 have not the
figures. That would be in the Interior Department.


Mr BARNARD.: Could the minister give us an idea of what this building is intended for?


Mr. BARR.: I thought the Orientals were all shut out?


William Pugsley: There are always some coming, and in the future there will be some coming, but there are a good many ipeople coming from the coast cities. The information we had before this building was undertaken was that there was a necessity in Victoria for an immigration building.


George Henry Barnard: Who made the request for this building?


William Pugsley: The Department of Immigration.
Mj\ BARNARD. Cannot the minister state what the necessity is in view of the fact that the government tells us that Oriental immigration is shut off?


William Pugsley: As I have said, there are a good many in addition to oriental immigration, which has undoubtedly fallen now to small proportions, but which was larger when this building was undertaken.
I here is a very considerable immigration from United States ports.


George Henry Barnard: Can the minister give us any idea as to the number of those during the past year?


William Pugsley: I am sorry to say I
cannot, because this is not a new work It was undertaken and a vote was given last parliament for it.


George Henry Barnard: Could the minister tell us what volume of immigration this building is to cover?


William Pugsley: The most I can do is to give my hon friend the size of the building. It has a frontage of 98 feet on Ontario street by a depth of 35 feet, and it extends along Dallas street 91 feet with a depth of 45 feet. It is a two-story building with basement, and there are in the building a waiting room, large dining room, detention room, two rooms for guards, two rooms for medical officers, two rooms for United States officers, two rooms for clerks and also some other rooms such as closets, lava-tori.es, ,&c- There are a surgery and six hospital wards in the building.


Samuel Hughes: Where were the plans drawn?


George Henry Barnard: 


Mr PUGSLEY.: They were prepared by the department.


Samuel Hughes: As skilfully as the plans for the extension of this building?


William Pugsley: I presume so.


Samuel Hughes: They could not be any
worse.


George Henry Barnard: I must confess to a certain amount of ignorance as to what a build-mg of that kind is designed to cover, and, if possible, I should like to know where my non. friend expects his immigrants from who are to use this building apart from Asiatic immigration, and what number of immigrants he is erecting the building to accommodate?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must "iat it would be quite impossible to tejl how many immigrants are coming to Victoria. One week there may be 500 and another week there may be 50.


George Henry Barnard: That, of course, is not an answer to the question I asked. I assume that the Department of Public Works, ,en they authorized the expenditure for this building, had in view some certain capacity, or a building that would accommodate a certain volume of immigration during the year, and that is what I would like the hon. minister to let us know.


John Herron: I understood my hon friend the Minister of the Interior a year ago to say that there were no immigrants coming from that direction except Asiatics.


William Pugsley: Mv information is that in addition to the immigrants coming in from Asiatic countries there is a considerable number coming in from United States ports. There are daily steamers arriving from Seattle, Tacoma, and other United States Sound ports. With regard to the accommodation, as far as the hospital part is concerned, there is provision for 134 beds in the various wards.


George Henry Barnard: 
William Pugsley: I suppose so.


George Henry Barnard: This question cut a very considerable figure in the discussion which preceded the election in October last. While the Minister of Public Works tells the House that this building was asked for by the Immigration Department, and while in this House last year the asking for this building was repudiated by the then member for Victoria (Mr. Tem-pleman) I might tell the House that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Templeman) publish-

ed a very fine campaign pamphlet which contained numerous beautifully etched illustrations of the different works he had obtained for the constituency, and "amongst these illustrations was one of the immigration building which, during the campaign, was described as the Japanese Hotel. It is true that in the pamphlet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Templeman) did not say he asked for the building, but the inference was that he regarded it as one of his achievements for the constituency, and we are told that it contained all modern comforts and separate apartments for Chinese, Japanese and Hindus. Whether or not that statement so put in print assisted the hon. gentleman (Mr. Temple-man) in the campaign or not is open to question. But the fact that he made that statement and the fact that in the report of the Minister of the Interior I find that out of a total of 6,024 immigrants who came to the province of British Columbia in the year 1908, there were only 190 who were not Chinese, Japanese, or Hindus, point to the further fact that when the government authorized the expense on this building it had in mind that it was for the accommodation of the Asiatic immigrants. The Minister of Public Works tells us that he has beds for 124 people in the hospital, and that he can accommodate a large number in addition, but, considering that the immigration to British Columbia via Victoria other than Oriental immigration is so small, how in the name of common sense could the government have decided to erect such a large building? I may say that the people of Victoria, whom I represent, do not want and never did want this immigration building and it certainly is not necessary unless the government are preparing to take care of Oriental immigration, which it is needless for me to say the people of British Columbia are utterly and absolutely opposed to. Like my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell) I realize the responsibilities of government; I realize that the finances of the country are depleted and that we who criticise the government for its extravagance have no right to ask for extraordinary expenditure, but I do say that we are bound to criticise them for the useless expense of $93,000 on this immigration building, when, if it were applied to improving the harbour of Victoria the money would have been beneficial to that city and to the country at large.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the cost of this building?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost is $85,000.


Mr. PRICE.: If this building were erected for the accommodation of Chinese, Japanese, and Hindu immigrants I could quite understand it, but if it is simply for the 661
accommodation of white immigrants, who are so few in British Columbia, how can the government excuse such a waste of money? For instance, in the hospital of this institution there are 134 beds, while only 193 white immigrants landed in Victoria last year. How can the government justify the erection of such a building under the circumstances?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it a brick building?


George Henry Barnard: I can assure the House it is a .very fine building on a very fine site.
Mr. PUGSLEY I do not think I can say more than I have said.


William Price: I am not at all satisfied with that answer. We have a right to know why this building was put up and why this large expense was incurred.


William Pugsley: I have already said it was at the request of the Minister of the Interior.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister did not know how many immigrants came to British Columbia last year and now that he has been told what is he going to say about it?


William Pugsley: It was represented by the Department of the Interior that in a port like Victoria, to which a large number of people were coming from Asiatic countries, as well as from United States Pacific ports, it was desirable to have a suitable immigration building. An important port like Victoria would not be equipped as it should be unless it had a building where immigrants could be properly taken care of, and where those who might be considered undesirable could be humanely treated pending deportation. The money was voted bv parliament, the contract was let, and this vote was to pay the contractor the balance due him. There is always a likelihood of a very large number of immigrants arriving in a great seaport like Victoria.


George Henry Barnard: I understood the minister to describe Victoria as a great seaport.


William Pugsley: A very important seaport.


George Henry Barnard: I shall have something to say on that question later on.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to hear you.


William Price: It would appear from the explanation given by the Minister of Public Works that there can be no doubt that this building was erected because the gov-eminent expected a larsre immigration of Japanese, Chinese and Hindus.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: We should have some statement of the policy of the government

with respect to the immigrants who were expected to use this immigration building, but who owing to the efforts of those of us in British Columbia who would not stand this class of immigration have been prevented from entering the province for the time being. Since the government are determined to go ahead with this building the only inference is that they have some idea of putting it at some time to the use for which it was originally intended. If the government still have in mind to bring into British Columbia Oriental immigration on such a scale that they need at Victoria a building of this kind, I think it is the duty of the minister to ascertain from his colleagues if the information is not in the possession of his department and let us know what we have to expect in that respect. While I agree with all the minister has said as to the importance of Victoria as a seaport and as to the large number of persons who travel to it from Seattle, Tacoma, San Francisco, and other points in the United States, it must be remembered that these persons are not of the class commonly known as immigrants, that they are not the class of people who would use an immigrant shed, and that the class of travel to Victoria, other than Oriental immigration, consists of the highest type of passengers who under no circumstances whatever would be likely to require accommodation in an immigration building except half dozens at a time, in cases of exceptional poverty or misfortune which the government could attend to without this building. So far as sickness is concerned, the immigration building is not needed to take care of the sick pasengers who come on plague boats because this building will be within sight of the William Head quarantine station which is only three quarters of an hour's sail from it. Is there any probability that in the near future the Oriental immigration, now suspended, is likely to be renewed?


William Pugsley: The government has no reason to 'suppose that the arrangement which I am happy to say was arrived at between the representative of this government and the imperial government of Japan will be departed from. The expectation is that the restriction of immigration will continue as at present, and that comparatively few Orientals will arrive in future. So far as this government can secure the carrying out in the future of the agreement which is now being rigidly adhered to, it will be done.


Samuel Hughes: Then we are to understand from the minister that the plan was this: The gentleman who has made such a success of the North Atlantic Trading Company in bringing European immigrants to Canada, at so much a head, was translated Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
to the shores of Asia and the plan was that he was to send in these Oriental immigrants, Japanese, and Chinese, in large numbers, and it was then decided to construct this public building. Then the action of the people of British Columbia caused a change in the programme, but the building had gone on so far that the government decided to continue it to completion and have it ready so that in a year or two, when Japan chooses to send in her emigrants the building will be ready for use.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend did not assume that I said anything of the kind.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the minister give a comparative statement showing the cost of the immigration buildings at Victoria, Halifax, Quebec, and St. John, especially with regard to the number of hospital beds in each building. At the Atlantic ports thousands of immigrants come in every year and one would naturally expect that as much accommodation will be required at these ports as at Victoria. The buildings in St. John, Quebec, and Halifax are of wood, while the Victoria building is evidently of a much superior class.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to obtain that information and present it on a subsequent occasion. The building in St. John is quite a fine building and cost quite a sum of money. Plans have been prepared for the erection of an immigration building at Quebec which will be much more costly than the one proposed at Victoria.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister is not referring to the Martello hotel building?


William Pugsley: That is a detention hospital.


George Henry Barnard: I understand the minister to say that one reason for the erection of this building was that many immigrants were detained in Victoria. How many immigrants were detained in Victoria during the current year?


William Pugsley: My statement was that undesirable immigrants might be detained under the law, and deported. In the meantime it is proper that they should be cared for. Although an immigration building or the hospital part of it might not be constantly required, a time might come when the hospital accommodation particularly might be required. I do not think any one would say that in a seaport of the importance of Victoria an immigration building is not desirable. It may be that when the requisition was made by the Department of the Interior a large number of Asiatic immigrants were coming in and that the plans were prepared more liberally than they would be to-day with the restricted immi-

gration. I was not minister when the building was undertaken, and I do not know the arguments which were urged by the minister for its construction, but, as I said, the Department of the Interior was of the opinion that Victoria should have a suitable immigration building. I am not prepared to say how many were deported, that will be in the report of the Interior Department.


George Henry Barnard: I do not know that the conditions may not have changed in the last year since the preparation of the last published report. I observe that as a rule ministers are careful, in asking for appropriations, to point to statistics to show the necessity of the appropriation asked, and we must give the minister credit in this case for basing his request upon the actual needs of the immigration as revealed in the statistics for that port. I find in the report of the Immigration Department that the total number of immigrants detained in 1898 was 79. With only 79 detained in the course of a whole year, surely it is unreasonable to erect a hospital with a capacity for 134 beds, just as it is unreasonable, if you cut out the question of Oriental immigration, to say that you require a $95,000 building for the purpose of putting up 190 immigrants during the year. I would like to ask the minister when the construction of this building was first requisitioned for and when it was first authorized.


William Pugsley: The order in council for its erection was passed on the 19th of February, 1907. At that time the acting Minister of Public Works was authorized to purchase the land. The contract for the erection of the building was entered into on the 23rd of January, 1908.


George Henry Barnard: Can the minister give me the date when the treaty with Japan was entered into?


William Pugsley: I cannot give the exact date.


George Henry Barnard: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could give that information.


Mr. FISHER.: I think that was in 1905.


George Henry Barnard: Can the minister tell us the date when the Minister of Labour departed on his visit to Japan?


Mr. FIELDING.: In the latter part of 1907.


George Henry Barnard: I do not like to make insinuations, but it would almost appear that the building was authorized to be constructed and was requisitioned for shortly after the treaty was made with Japan, and that it was done in expectation of a large influx of Japanese immigration as a consequence of that treaty.


Adam Brown Crosby: In view of the fact which has been brought out to-night, and the fact that we have not money sufficient to construct the buildings which are necessary, it would seem strange that we should continue to construct this building.


William Pugsley: It is to pay the contractor to finish the work.


Adam Brown Crosby: In view of the fact that less than 200 white immigrants came into that port last year, and in view of the fact that no Oriental immigration is anticipated in the opinion of the Minister of Public Works, should the money be spent in that direction?


William Pugsley: In my opinion we should vote the money to pay the contractor the balance.


Adam Brown Crosby: In view of all that has been brought out to-night, will the minister say that we should continue to spend that money on that building?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Williams Head quarantine station-improvements and repairs to buildings, and fittings, furniture, &c., $5,000.


James Davis Taylor: As this is the last item under this appropriation, I would like to ask the minister whether he has received any communication from Chilliwack in respect to a public building there.


William Pugsley: I have had several communications, and quite lately I received a telegram from certain residents of Chilliwack.


James Davis Taylor: Might I ask the minister if any results have followed from that telegram?


William Pugsley: Not as yet.


James Davis Taylor: Because I have had urgent requests from Chilliwack to press upon the government the desirability, I might almost say the necessity, of proceeding with a public building at that point. I might remind the minister again that so late as October last the Minister of inland Revenue who, I am sorry to say, is not present to-night, because he could bear me out in what I say, and would add his protestations to mine, since as an hon. gentleman he would no doubt want to see his promise carried out-promised the people of Chilliwack that they would have this building, and was in so generous a mood that he intimated to them that since the site just then chosen for this building was not the most suitable, he might have a drill hall put up on the lot and erect a post office on another site. I may say that there was $5,000 voted last session towards this building, of which only $3,000 has been expended on the purchase of the site, that

the accommodation of the post office there is entirely inadequate, and that the public interests are suffering because the postmaster has not room for the disposition of his mail; and I would like to suggest, if we must wait another year for the vote for the building and still another year for its erection, whether it would not he advisable to build a temporary addition to the present post office, so that during the two years that we shall have to wait for the public building, the public will have accommodation for the post office; that is, if it is possible to use the money already voted to relieve the necessities of the case.


William Pugsley: The claims of Chilliwack were earnestly pressed upon me by the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Taylor) predecessor. I do not think the hon. gentleman can press them more strongly. And I was impressed with those claims, and steps were taken in the direction-


Samuel Hughes: How?


William Pugsley: By the purchase of a site. I trust we may be able to arrange to go on with the building. As to making an addition to the present building, if the accommodation is not sufficient and the Postmaster General requests it, it might be possible to make an arrangement to have an addition made to the building by the owner and an additional rent paid that would compensate them. But, as the building is a rented one, my department could hardly undertake to make additions.


James Davis Taylor: The building is owned by the postmaster. There is a vacant lot at the side of the post office. It would be perfectly feasible to make an addition to the building at no great cost. In the thirty-seven years we have been in confederation the revenues of this government from Chilliwack have been very large. It is not fair to a city of such importance that after thirty-seven years there should be no public building when the government is able to lavish such large appropriations in public buildings elsewhere.


Samuel Hughes: I notice there is $28,000 for 1908-9 and $5,000 for 1909-10. Was that $28,000 expended?


William Pugsley: Tt will be by the end of the present fiscal year.


Samuel Hughes: And is the same true of the $150,000 for the public building in Vancouver?


William Pugsley: Yes, the amount is to finish it up.
Public Works-chargeable to capital-harbours and rivers-Port Arthur and Port William-harbour and river improvements, $600,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue these works. The work at Port Arthur consists of the extension of a scheme of breakwaters, essential for the protection of shipping in the harbour, and also a good deal of dredging.


Samuel Hughes: Is there any room for dredging there after all that has been done?


William Pugsley: The demand is coming from the people of Port Arthur and Fort William, as well as from Winnipeg and the west, for the deepening of these harbours to 25 feet. It was originally supposed that 22 feet would be sufficient.


Samuel Hughes: What is being done to the old breakwater?


William Pugsley: It remains and we are
building the new work outside so as to [DOT] give more room in the harbour. Later on part of the old breakwater will be torn away with the same view of affording more room. In Fort William the work is being done on a large scale. The Mission river is being deepened and widened and a turning basin is being made covering about thirty acres. This work is being done in connection with the terminus of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I am glad to say that that company is laying out its terminals on a very comprehensive scale, involving an expenditure of several millions of dollars. They are building an elevator qf very large capacity, and their plans involve providing storage capacity for over 20,000,000 bushels. The contract for dredging is let, providing for a depth of 25 feet.


Samuel Hughes: What is the depth of the Sault canal?


William Pugsley: Only 21 feet.


Samuel Hughes: What is the depth of the American canal at the Sault?


William Pugsley: The new canal, it is contemplated, will have a depth of 24 feet. But the report that comes to us from the railway companies and the boards of trade of the west is that the vessels upon the lakes are constantly growing larger and that if we are to hold the trade for these ports of Fort William and Port Arthur we must afford a depth of 25 feet.


Samuel Hughes: It would be better to provide the waterway to the eastward first; would it not?


William Pugsley: Not necessarily. Vessels in these harbours may not load entirely at one dock. Consequently, at some times the stern may be deeper in the water than it will be when the cargo is complete and the vessel on a level. With a depth of 22 feet these vessels are likely to ground. These are the reports that come to us, and I think they can be relied upon.


James Davis Taylor: 


Samuel Hughes: Official reports or verbal statements?


William Pugsley: The resident engineer has so reported and I have been informed to the same effect by a number of people. The policy of the department is to dredge the harbours on the eastern shore of Georgian bay, Victoria harbour and Tiffin to the same depth.


Samuel Hughes: How about Key harbour?


William Pugsley: We are giving attention to it, and, if dredged, no doubt it will be dredged to 25 feet.


Samuel Hughes: And Midland the same?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What price is being paid for dredging at Port Arthur?


William Pugsley: Different prices. In the Kaministiquia and Mission rivers, under the present contract, the price is nine cents per cubic yard, that is to a depth of 22 feet. For a depth of 25 feet no doubt it will be something more.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What does the minister think of that in contrast with 50 cents a yard at Indian Point to his friend John E. Moore?


William Pugsley: Both may be quite reasonable; it depends on the conditions.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: I would call attention to the fact that no provision is made in these estimates for the dredging of the Napanee river, concerning which I had an interview with the minister. A petition has been sent to the Governor General. There is a great need of a little money being spent at this point. No dredging has been done there since 1893, and several shallows have formed by the deposit of sand, preventing any but the smallest craft coming in-craft drawing no more than six or seven feet. As every one knows, and as the minister has just said, every year vessels on the lakes are growing larger. It is most difficult to get crafts'to come into this harbour and carry anything like a heavy burden in the way of coal.
Now I am informed by the coal merchants of our town that unless there is some dredging done there to take out the shoals, the chances are that the people, not only in the town, but in the vicinity, will have to pay from 50 cents to $1 a ton more for their coal. That is most unfair to the people of that locality, inasmuch as we have had no public money spent, so far as I know, in that riding since 1893. This is a matter of urgent necessity. The council of the town of Napanee has passed a very strong resolution asking that this work be done, which resolution I have left with the deputy minister of the Public Works Department. I hope that the minister will
give me some assurance to-night that this matter will get his careful consideration, and that we may havei good reason to expect that during the coming season this dredging will be done. It will not be an extensive job, perhaps $3,000 or $4,000. As a matter of fact, to make a really good job would require considerably more money. But if these shoals were taken out we might be able to get along for a few years until the government feel richer. I believe this year they intend to practise rigid economy, and I endorse that principle, because we all know that the revenues have fallen off to a great extent. But works that are of actual and absolute necessity like these I think should be attended to, more especially when they only require a small outlay. I would strongly urge the minister to take this matter into his serious consideration, and if possible have that dredging done this year.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that I think there is no more important work in the interests of the country than dredging, and I am inclined to think that will be the opinion of every member of this committee. With regard to dredging the Napanee river, I have looked into it, and I am impressed with the public necessity of dredging out the river for five or six miles between a certain mill and the mouth of the river. If I can find it at all possible to arrange for a dredge early in the coming year, this very necessary work will be proceeded with.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In regard to this dredging at Port Arthur, can the minister say how far the material that is taken out has to be carried before it is dumped?


William Pugsley: About three miles.
Quebeo harbour-deep water wharf at L6vis. $400,000.


William Price: I would like to ask the minister if this deep water wharf at Levis is to be built on what is known as the Carrier Laine property, and if so, what is the
price?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Price: Does this $400,000 include the price of the Carrier Lain6 property, and if so, what is the price?


William Pugsley: It includes about all of it except $50,000. There was $50,000 voted last year, which was paid on account, and the balance will be taken out of this $400,000.


William Price: What is the deep water
wharf to cost?


William Pugsley: I have not the plan sufficiently prepared to tell with accuracy. Something will depend on how far out we go, and what depth of water we get. My

own view would be that we should go out far enough to get a depth of 32 feet at low tide. That is what we should aim to get at all our ocean ports. Every year steamers of greater tonnage are arriving. I believe the time will come before long when we will have steamers crossing the Atlantic 1,000 feet in length; within ten years that may take place. Some of that size are already planned.


William Price: What price was paid to the Bank of Montreal-as I believe the Bank of Montreal bought the property from Carrier, Laine & Company.


William Pugsley: The Carrier Laine property was expropriated, and we expect to pay $380,000 for it.


William Price: I find in a Quebec paper that some one has sent me, a report that a syndicate has leased a part of this property, or the old shops that were there, and it mentions that the syndicate was composed the Hon. S. N. Parent, Sir Charles Ross
M.	P. Davis and others. May I ask if that is the case.


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: Not to finish it, but to continue it during the present year The work is a very large one, if the whole plan is carried out to completion.
Mr PRICE There is a great deal of complaint m Quebec because we have not got the proper harbour improvements. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works when the government proposes to do more harbour improvements in Que-bee. I do not know whether the minister is aware that, owing to lack of harbour facilities, no heavy pieces of iron can be landed at our wharf because there is no derrick sufficiently strong. Besides that, the wharf accommodation is altogether too Jimited. Up to the end of last year only two steamers could land their passengers at the same time. Several times this year, when two steamers desired to land their passengers, one had to anchor out in the stream and wait till the other one alongside the wharf was able to get away. I would like to know if the extension that will be carried out this year will give us room for three steamers to lie alongside each other at the same time.


William Pugsley: We recognize the fact that the accommodation for ocean steamers at Quebec is limited, and that is why this extensive work is being undertaken. My h'on. friend asks when more accommodation will be given. We expect it will be given Mr. PUGSLEY.
during the coming season, and that is what the appropriation of $280,000 is for. As the hon. gentleman is aware, there has already been constructed a concrete pier extending for a considerable distance into the St. Lawrence. Now we are building another pier around on the Charles river and dredging out a channel there-it is the return to the wharf. That will give considerable accommodation. The assistant deputy minister tells me that by July there will be accommodation there for three large ocean steamers at this new pier.


William Price: I understand that the Grand Trunk Pacific will be finished within the next two or three years and if it carries the amount of grain that it is supposed to carry to Quebec I do not see that we have proper accommodation there to handle that trade. It will be necessary to continue the harbour improvements. I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works if the government will continue the policy of improving the harbour from Quebec up to Sillery and also what the policy is with regard to the terminal facilities; that is the railway line from the present site of the bridge to Quebec itself.


William Pugsley: The question which my hon. friend is now asking is one which appertains to the Minister of Railways and Canals.


William Price: Will the minister answer the first part?


William Pugsley: The whole of it belongs to the Department of Railways and Canals for the reason that the terminals of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway at Quebec will be a part of the Transcontinental Railway system. Therefore, it would not appertain to the Department of Public Works.


William Price: How about the docks ?


William Pugsley: They would form part of the Transcontinental Railway system.
I think that is the expectation; I am not prepared to say positively.


William Price: That must be an enormous work.


William Pugsley: It will be a very large work. I may say to my hon. friend that the question of terminal facilities at Quebec has not been lost sight of by the government. We recognize that terminal facilities must be provided at the ocean ports and that it is desirable, if possible, to have them ready by the time the Transcontinental Railway is finished. The matter of terminals at Quebec is receiving, at the present time, very careful consideration, but just what will be done I am not prepared^ to say. If my hon. friend will repeat his question when the estimate respecting the Transcontinental Railway is under discussion I have no doubt my hon.

friend the Minister of Railways and Canals will be prepared to give him a satisfactory answer.


William Price: In case the Minister of Railways and Canals finds that it does not come under the Transcontinental Railway,
I suppose I will have an opportunity of asking the Minister of Public Works a question?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Red river improvements-St. Andrew's rapids, $600,000.


William Pugsley: This amount is to continue the work of building the locks on the Red river. St. Andrew's Rapids on the Red river are about thirty miles north of Winnipeg. The expectation is that this will give lake navigation from this very extensive lake which is 300 miles in length, right to the city of Winnipeg. It is expected that $600,000 will be expended during the present year on locks and gates and that this will complete the work.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Would the minister inform me whether that includes the bridge or not?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to know whether there has been any arrangement made for the completion of the connection between the bridge and the highways? There are very important settlements on both sides of the river and I have a communication from the municipality of St. Andrew's calling my attention to the fact that the present contract does not provide for connection with the highways on both sides of the river. Consequently, the bridge would be useless as far as traffic is concerned. This is a very important matter to these people. During the late campaign a great deal was made of the fact all along the river that the government had provided the people there with a bridge that will cost $600,000 and which will be used for traffic purposes. The municipalities inform me that it has come out lately that the present contract does not provide for approaches to the bridge. Does the minister intend to carry out the wishes of the people in that respect?


William Pugsley: In connection with the lock it will be necessary to have a service bridge. But, for the accommodation of the municipality the department decided to widen that bridge so that it could be used as a public highway. The view is held in the department that as the bridge is being provided for the accommodation of the municipality by way of widening our service bridge the very least we could ask the municipality to do would be to provide the approaches. There is no bridge at the present time, and there was no bridge
there before this work was undertaken. It seems to me that if the government is willing to allow the people to use the bridge in connection with the lock and is going to the expense of widening it, the municipality, at the very least, ought to be prepared to bear the expense of the necessary approaches to the bridge. I have never been asked to provide the approaches, but I would suppose that the view which I now present is one which would commend itself to my hon. friend and to the people of the municipality and that they would not hesitate, where they are saving the cost of the building of a bridge which is ordinarily borne by the municipalities in Manitoba as well as in Ontario, although it is different in the province of New Brunswick where the provincial government builds all the bridges without any expense to the municipalities, to provide the approaches. My hon. friend says that the Liberal candidate promised that the government would build the approaches. I am not aware that any such promise has been made. There is in my department no record that any such promise was given to anybody.


George Henry Bradbury: I am to understand then that the late candidate had no authority for promising that the bridge would be completed at both ends?


Samuel Hughes: What candidate?


George Henry Bradbury: Mr. S. J. Jackson, my opponent.


William Pugsley: I am not aware that he made any such promise.


George Henry Bradbury: That promise was made by my opponent and during the campaign that was held out as an inducement all along the river why the electors should vote for Mr. Jackson. It was stated that the government had generously voted $600,000 to give them a bridge. There is a large settlement on the east side of the river.


William Pugsley: $600,000 is not simply for the bridge; it is to complete the lock and dam.


George Henry Bradbury: I think that the fact that they built the bridge increased the cost to $600,000 and it was represented that they would provide approaches for the accommodation of the people of St. Andrew's. This matter has been before the people for the last two years, the people expect that bridge and if the minister takes the position that they are not going to build it I want to know it.


George Henry Barnard: May I ask the minister what this work is and what is contemplated as a result of it?


William Pugsley: This work consists of the building of a lock with a movable dam

and all the necessary appliances. It is to overcome the St. Andrew's rapids, to give them navigation between Lake Winnipeg and the city of Winnipeg and is expected that it will enable vessels to navigate from Lake Winnipeg right up to the city of Winnipeg.


George Henry Barnard: Are there any towns or cities of importance on Lake Winnipeg?


William Pugsley: There are some settlements but the information which is in the department is that Lake Winnipeg has, upon its shores, enormous quantities of wood which is useful for firewood, that there are minerals, that there are vast deposits of building stone and that Lake Winnipeg is teeming with fish. The business that is done there is enormous.


George Henry Bradbury: It was teeming with fish at one time.


William Pugsley: I am informed that there are large quantities there yet. There are also valuable deposits of minerals and of building stone on Lake Winnipeg.


George Henry Barnard: Am I right in assuming from the minister's statement that this expenditure is intended to open up an undeveloped trade?


William Pugsley: It would be to a large extent that.


George Henry Barnard: Can the minister tell us the number and tonnage of vessels plying on Lake Winnipeg?	'


William Pugsley: I have not that information with me. This is a matter that has been going on for a number of years. It is a matter of history that it was shown clearly to the government on behalf of the city of Winnipeg that the result of building this lock would given to the people firewood at a dollar per cord less than to-day, and as coal is very costly in Winnipeg they burn a good deal of wood for fuel. The timber on the shores of Lake Winnipeg suitable for fuel is almost illimitable so that to a city of 100,000 people this is a very important thing. I am sure that my hon. friend who represents that district will be able to testify to the great benefit that will result from the building of this lock.


George Henry Barnard: The statement of the minister reminds me of a railway we have running into the city of Victoria which was subsidized by the city and the provincial government to the extent of $300,000. It runs two trains a day, the principal freight being cordwood and the express train on that line is known as the * cordwood, limited.' It would almost appear that this expenditure of $600,000 is going to be for another cordwood, limited.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: The fuel question in Winnipeg is too important to be laughed at.


George Henry Barnard: I find that there is no appropriation in the estimates this year for harbour improvements in Victoria, British Columbia. I did notice in the estimates that there was an appropriation of $150,000 for 'Victoria Harbour,' and in the innocency of my guileless youth, and being a new member of parliament and being unaccustomed to the wiles of political life, I jumped to the conclusion that the government was going to continue the appropriation for the harbour of Victoria, British Columbia, last year when a sum of $60,000 for harbour improvements was voted. Not taking everything quite as a matter of course I made it my business to make inquiries from the Department of Public Works. I had representations from the city of Victoria asking me to see that if there was such an appropriation a certain portion of the money should be expended in a new rock drii-ling plant. I went to the department of Public Works and finding the deputy minister engaged I saw the assistant deputy minister, and we turned up this particular item in the estimates and I told him what constituency I represented, and through a misunderstanding, altogether bona fide both on his part and mine, I came away with the idea that the appropriation was for the city of Victoria, British Columbia.


William Pugsley: And when you saw it three times as much as last year you were pleased?


George Henry Barnard: Exactly.


William Pugsley: You thought your own city was the only city of that name in Canada?


George Henry Barnard: I did not at first suspect it was for Victoria Harbour on the Georgian bay which I understand is a new port that is being opened. I would submit that it would be advisable in the interests both of Victoria, British Columbia, and also of a port called Victoria harbour in the county of Kings, New Brunswick, that this particular port in Ontario should take some other name so as to avoid confusion. The assistant deputy minister treated me with every courtesy and without any intention of misleading me he suggested that if the Harbour Association of Victoria, British Columbia, considered that a new dredging plant was necessary the best way to accomplish that would be to address a letter to the Minister of Public Works asking him to have the matter referred to the resident engineer for a report. I accordingly did so, and notwitstanding being a guileless politician and still having a shred of doubt in my mind I wrote to the Minister of Public Works and stated in the letter that I ob-
MAPHTT fi 1<V)9
served that in the estimates there was an appropriation for Victoria of $150,000 for harbour improvements. I received a reply from the minister in which he clearly showed that he had no misrepresentation as to what particular city I was referring to because he wrote as follows:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 16th inst. having reference to the need of a new dredging plant in the harbour of Victoria, British Columbia, and will give your representations careful consideration.
On receipt of that letter all my doubts were set at rest. In the city of Victoria, British Columbia we have an association composed of the most prominent merchants of all shades of political opinion who are interested in the development of the harbour, called the Inner Harbour Association, and I informed the secretary of that association that there was an appropriation of $150,000 for Victoria Harbour. I have since, of course, explained how the error arose. Now,
I wish to say a few words with regard to the justice of an appropriation for the harbour of Victoria, British Columbia. In the first place I may say that the secretary of this harbour association is a gentleman who up to the present time has worked for the improvement of that harbour practically without any remuneration whatever. Some years ago, he, at the request of the Department of Public Works furnished that department with a complete set of his plans as to the full development of that harbour, but unfortunately those plans were destroyed in the fire which burned the western block. However from time to time appropriations were made, very small appropriations it is true, in connection with the dredging work-in the city of Victoria, but last year-I would not like to insinuate that the proximity of the election had anything to do with it-the city of Victoria was voted an appropriation of $60,000 for the dredging of its harbour. That was the first time in the history of that port, I think I am safe in saying, that it had received more than $10,000. That appropriation has not all been spent, $30,000 out of the $60,000 still remains unspent. The people of Victoria were allowed to suppose, I do not say it was distinctly stated but at any rate the people of Victoria had come to the conclusion that the scheme of development that had been outlined by the gentleman I mentioned and to whom the city of Victoria is so greatly indebted owing to his efforts on her behalf, had been adopted, and that the government were commencing on a scheme whereby they would, by the appropriation of a certain amount each year, in time complete the work in connection with that harbour. However, I find that this year there is no special appropriation for the city of Victoria.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is quite in error as to that.


George Henry Barnard: I would like the hon. gentleman to correct me if I am wrong.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will find in the dredging vote an item for dredging for British Columbia, out of which the work will be carried on.


George Henry Barnard: I said that there was no special vote.


William Pugsley: And there being no special vote we can use the general vote.


George Henry Barnard: There is a general vote for British Columbia. There is also a deputation from Vancouver asking for a very considerable appropriation in connection with dredging of the Narrows at the entrance to that harbour. Then a large amount of money is required for dredging in the Fraser river. A government dredge is coming from Germany and the impression is that the appropriation of $125,000 will not be sufficient to keep the government dredges in operation during the year, because in that province we are so favoured by climatic conditions that work can be continued for twelve months. In addition to that there is a large amount of work to be done in the Arrow lakes, at least the government have a dredge there, and I assume that they would not have^ it there unless it was necessary. The Minister of Pub-lie Works says there is an appropriation of $125,000 for general dredging in British Columbia. I am very glad to see that, but as compared with other provinces, particularly with the minister's province of New Brunswick, that the appropriation is insignificant. I notice that the minister s appropriation for dredging in St. John is $475,000, that is a special vote for St. John.


An hon. MEMBER.: And that is not enough.


George Henry Barnard: Possibly it is not enough, but if we are in times of financial stringency, as the Minister of Public Works tells us, then it is only fair that everybody should get a fair share, and the minister himself has stated to me this afternoon that he considers Victoria a most important port.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


George Henry Barnard: I wish to quote a few figures to show the importance of Victoria in comparison, not with St. John alone, but with the other great ports of Canada. In the summary of the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, m the statement showing the number of tonnage of sea-going vessels, both steam and sail, entered and cleared from the following principal ports during the year, 1906-7 and 1908, it is stated that the sea-going tonnage of the various ports for 1908 was as follows:

Port. Victoria		Sea-going tonnage.
Montreal	 Halifax		
Vancouver.. .. St. John.. ..	
^uebec	 1*788*872	
Thus Victoria has a tonnage 7,000 tons greater than that of Montreal and 800,000 tons greater than that of St. John. '


William Pugsley: 
George Henry Bradbury: I am a little surprised at the remarks of my hon. friend from Victoria regarding the improvements at St. Andrew s rapids. I concur in what the minister says about the necessity of that work. It is of great necessity and is going to accomplish great good, not only for the city of Winnipeg, but for the town of Selkirk and the lake trade. I commend the expense, but I plead with the minister to complete the bridge. That bridge is in a locality where the municipalities are very poor and are absolutely unable to complete it. If the government does not complete it, it will lie there, and the money the government has expended on it will be wasted. I have been advised that it will take $75,000 to put in these two approaches. That is a sum away beyond the ability of these municipalities to contribute. During the campaign all the people along that river were led to believe that they were going to get that bridge, and I would ask the minister to try to arrange to complete it.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to give him a hint that may be useful? In the province of New Brunswick the provincial government has built scores of steel bridges without calling on the federal government to contribute a cent. In Manitoba the provincial govern-

ment, I understand, does not aid the municipalities very much. Here is a case in which the federal government is widening this service bridge at some considerable expense to aid the municipalities, and it is not at all impossible, I suppose, if the attention of the provincial government of Manitoba were called to that fact, that it might be willing to co-operate with the federal government in the building of the bridge. I might also point to the fact that the government of Quebec and the government of New Brunswick are joining with this government in building a bridge across the Restigouche river at Metapedia, and that the Quebec government is also joining us in building a bridge across the Ottawa River at Chapeau. It is true, these are interprovincial bridges; but there is all the more reason why the government of Manitoba should contribute to this bridge which is wholly within the province of Manitoba. I do not say that there has been any determination arrived at by this government with regard to the approaches. The matter has not come before me in a formal way. When the hon. gentleman mentioned it I was rather surprised that the municipalities should expect us to build the approaches. At all events, the matter will be considered, but at the present moment I am not able to hold out very strong expectations to my hon. friend on that subject.


Samuel Hughes: Are. there not large areas of splendid land to the east of Lake Winnipeg ?


William Pugsley: I understand that there are valuable forests and therefore the soil must be good. Just a word with regard to the complaint which my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Barnard) has set up on behalf of that city. If my hon. friend had lcoked into what we are doing for British Columbia, I do not think that he would feel that he had ground for making that complaint. I recognize as strongly as he can the importance of the ports of Vancouver and Victoria and their claims upon the public treasury. At the last session of parliament, at the instance of the Hon. Mr. Templeman, who was then as now the representative oi that province in the government, provision was made for improving the harbour. Considerable dredging work was done and at this very moment we have actively at work in the harbour of Victoria the dredge 'Mudlark' and the very powerful dredge recently constructed by the government, and a considerable part, if not all, of the appropriation which was made last session, will be expended before the close of the present fiscal year in doing the very work which my hon. friend thinks ought to be done in the harbour of Victoria.


George Henry Barnard: The information I have received from the department was that
only one half of the sum voted last year had been expended, and that the balance would lapse.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend was no doubt informed that that was the expense up to the 31st of December last. Since that time both dredges have been kept at work and will continue to work, and the appropriation will be used to pay for the work done to the end of the present month.


George Henry Barnard: Will that exhaust the appropriation for last year?


William Pugsley: Probably not entirely. If my hon. friend will turn to the item for dredging, he will find that we have put in $125,000 for dredging in British Columbia. With the new dredge brought from Germany, we shall have four at work in that province, the ' Fruhling,' the ' King Edward,' the 'Ajax' and the 'Mudlark.' These are all very important harbours. My hon. friend must not forget that the purchasing of these dredges by the government involves a very large expense. Of course, the operating expenses day by day will be very much less than the contract dredging in the eastern waters of Canada. You must not forget that we have brought from Germany-and I am glad to know that she has arrived safely in British Columbia after a voyage of 15,000 miles-a dredge which will be the best in Canada, with a capacity of 1,000 cubic yards per hour.


Samuel Hughes: Of what nature?


William Pugsley: A suction dredge.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What did she cost?


William Pugsley: The price was $250,000, delivered in British Columbia. We do not pay a dollar until she is delivered and tested and found perfect. I think it is a splendid investement for Canada and will be of special advantage to British Columbia. We have also the ' Ajax,' which was built in Toronto. In these we have two of the finest dredges that the government has yet obtained, and both will operate in British Columbia.


Samuel Hughes: Is the ' Ajax ' a suction dredge?


William Pugsley: No, a dipper dredge.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the cost?


William Pugsley: About $125,000.	She
has an eight-yard dipper, but, of course, her capacity is much less than the other.


Samuel Hughes: How deep will the 'Ajax' dredge?


William Pugsley: I think 35 or 40 feet. We shall continue dredging Victoria harbour. My attention has been called by a gentleman from Victoria, as well as by the Minister of Inland Revenue to the ne-

cessity of doing rock blasting. Certain blasting was done last year, and by means of the ' Ajax/ we have carried away the material so blasted. We propose to improve the entrance to a depth sufficient to accommodate the steamers that come in to the inner harbour. So far as Vancouver is concerned, the government is pleased, as I am sure the members of this House are, to know that Vancouver is growing with amazing rapidity. I was glad to learn from the Vancouver delegation who waited upon me that in False creek alone, during the last year, there entered 600,000 tons of merchandise. This indicates marvellous progress. Vancouver is evidently destined to be one of the largest cities in' Canada, equalling before many years, in all human probability, the city of Montreal. We feel it our duty to make the harbour of Vancouver safe. Until recently it was regarded as safe- a splendid harbour. But ships are growing larger, the number of vessels entering Burrard inlet and going through the narrows is increasing, and the traffic is becoming congested and therefore dangerous. I have ordered a complete survey of the narrows, of Parthia shoal and another shoal there in order to learn what is necessary for the improvement of the harbour. When that survey is made we hope there will be little delay in the dredging to widen the narrows and remove the shoals and make Vancouver perfectly safe for the largest steamships. We must accommodate the traffic in False creek, and I have given directions that, as early as possible-and I trust the delay will not be very great- one of the dredges we have now in British Columbia waters should be put to work to deepen the entrance to False creek and make perfectly safe that part of the harbour of Vancouver. We expect to keep our dredges going during the present season, and the interest of Vancouver and Victoria will be well looked after. The necessity for these works has been strongly pressed upon us by my hon. colleague the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Temple-man, and attention will be given to his representations. We have another great work in British Columbia, the improvement of the Fraser river. It was especially for this that the ' Fruhling ' dredge has been purchased . At New Westminster there are very large lumber mills, and up the Fraser river are vast areas of splendid forest growth. The quantity of timber coming down the Fraser is enormous, but it is but little compared with what will come down in the almost immediate future. We plan to make the- Fraser river from New Westminster to the sea a ship channel for the very largest ocean steamers which come to British Columbia. We shall proceed with these works as rapidly as finances will permit-of course we must have regard to the revenue. But Mr. PUGSLEY.
hon. members who represent British Columbia and the people of that province can rely upon the government as being alive to the necessity of improving the Fraser and the harbours of Victoria and Vancouver as well as Nanaimo and other harbours along the coast.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not think the minister (Mr. Pugsley) has any intention of giving a false impression, but he expressed regret that the Manitoba government is doing so little for the municipalities. I wish to tell him that the Manitoba government is doing all it can for the municipalities. And the fact that this government has seen fit to send into that country a large settlement along Lake Winnipeg, placing the people on land utterly unfit for them to live on, has entailed a large expenditure upon the Manitoba government. Last year the government spent $10,000 or $15,000 in grading the land west of Lake Winnipeg. I have always found the Manitoba government willing to do anything that could help the people. The revenue of the province is not large, and if this government would give the province of Manitoba what belongs to it I do not think there would be any trouble. I do not feel that I have any case to go to the provincial government with for they could not afford at the present time the expenditures necessary to make the approaches at the ends of the bridge. I would urge this government to take up this matter and implement the pledges made during last election by the candidate.


James Davis Taylor: What will be the total cost of this bridge?


William Pugsley: I have not the cost of the bridge separate from that of the rest of the work. For the electrical machinery, the bridge and other steel work, machine shops, repair shops and movable dam, the total cost was something like $540,000. That was the contract price.


Mr. ROCHE.: How much was the cost of this work at the St. Andrew's rapids increased by reason of the changes in the specifications? I understand there was a change of contractors, and a change in the specifications. Can the minister say why the original contractor was released, the amount of money he received, and the increased cost by reason of the change in specifications?


William Pugsley: That took place some four years ago or more. I think I gave that information last session, and the hon. gentleman will find it in 'Hansard', I think the contract was given to Kelly Bros., they were unable to carry on the work, and it was decided to make some changes. My information is that after the contract was let to Kelly Bros., in July, 1900, in

view of the slow progress made, also of the abnormally high prices specified, and the chief engineer being unwilling to apply to additional works those schedule prices, authority was granted to the Minister of Public Works to proceed no further with the construction as originally designed, but to close the contract, return the security deposited by the contractors, and pay for the work done. They made a claim for $246,000 for work done, which was cut down considerably. I think there was an arbitration, and an award was made to the contractors for $137,911.


George Henry Bradbury: What was the entire cost of the improvements at the Rapids?


William Pugsley: They will cost probably a million and a quarter dollars before they are entirely completed.
St. John harbour improvements, $475,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the minister state how he proposes to expend this money?


William Pugsley: The amount will be expended in building the wharf extension on the western side of the harbour, also in dredging work.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will any of this be expended in Courtenay bay?


William Pugsley: I am not sure as to that, that will depend upon certain action which might be taken by the Grand Trunk Pacific in fixing their terminals in the maritime provinces, and the exact location of their terminal at St. John. The Grand Trunk Pacific have told me that Courtenay bay is the only place where they can establish a terminal at St. John.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What will the minister do with these contracts which he has already let, or said he let last fall, for dredging in Courtenay bay?


William Pugsley: The minister did not state he had let any contracts for dredging in Courtenay bay. The hon. gentleman is drawing upon his imagination.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I will quote from the minister himself. On the 21st of October last there is a report in the ' Daily Telegraph ' of a speech he made at Little River, in the
course of which he said:
As a result of the operations carried on-
He is refering to borings and other things done at Courtenay bay.
-it will be possible to dredge out a channel 800 feet wide so that large steamers can dock there and carry away the produce that will be brought there by the Transcontinental Railway. This is one of the most splendid discoveries ever made in the city of St. John. It is better than a diamond mine, because a diamond mine gives out in time, but this will be more valuable to the city from year to year, and will provide work for hundreds
of people. I have asked for tenders for carrying on this great work, and it will be commenced shortly.
Further on he says:
In view of that vote

He is referring to the vote that was given here twelve months ago.
-I am authorized by law to call for tenders and to let the contract and ask parliament for appropriations.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said I had stated that I had let contracts for the work. The hon. gentleman has not shown it yet.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This is in the hon. gentleman's own paper, called the ' County News,' and in it is published a plan of Courtenay bay, the works which are said to have been planned, the projected new wharfs, and dredging to the west side of Courtenay bay, as prepared by his own engineer, Louis Coste, of the Public Works Department, and it says:
This is the plan of the harbour works proposed by the Department of Publio Works at Ottawa. A contract for dredging ten million cubic yards of material in the harbour of St. John has just been awarded by Hon. William Pugsley, and work will be commenced at once.


William Pugsley: Whose statement is that?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I presume the minister is responsible. It is spread out in his own paper. Not content with the five daily papers which were supporting him in St. John he had to go to work and issue another. I think it was issued weekly. But here is the statement, and it is in thick, heavily leaded lettering. That was spread abroad through the constituency. I think it was never denied by the Minister of Public Works. He took every advantage of it.


William Pugsley: The minister stated exactly what had taken place.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that statement I Tead just now a true statement or not?


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman will ask me what took place I will be very glad to inform him.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I will read it again to the hon. gentleman and ask him if it is true:
This is the plan of the harbour works proposed by the Department of Publio Works at Ottawa. A contract for dredging 10,000,000 cubic yards of material in the harbour of St. John has just been awarded by the Hon. William Pugsley and work will be commenced at once.
I will ask the minister if that is a true statement?

2H2


William Pugsley: When the hon. gentleman is through I will make a statement.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I will allow the minister to interrupt me to the extent of saying whether that is a true statement.


William Pugsley: I stated in St. John exactly what was the case. My hon. friend will remember that he was very sceptical about the possibility of dredging Courtenay bay?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Never.


William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman informed the electors that it would take fifty years to do it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: No.


William Pugsley: Does not the hon. gentleman remember that I was calling attention to the fact that he was counting time at the rate of progress in the old days of Conservative rule when 100 years was about equal to ten years at the present time, and when 50 years was about equal to five years of progress under the present administration. For the information of my hon. friend,
. who has apparently been misinformed, very grievously, I would say that what I told the electors was that at the last session of parliament there was a vote for harbour improvements at St. John, and that Courtenay bay, being part of the harbour of St. John, it gave me authority for calling for tenders for dredging at Courtenay bay as well as on the western side of the harbour. I stated that I had called for tenders for dredging.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And had you called for tenders?


William Pugsley: I had. I stated that I had received tenders for the work and I also stated that I had recommended to my colleagues the acceptance of the lowest tenders and that the matter was then before council.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister stated just now that I had made quite a number of statements during the election in regard to the great length of time that it would take to dredge Courtenay bay. I am quite aware that the minister made these statements and that his press repeated them, and I am also aware that I never made the statements. That is one of the many statements made in the interest of and possibly by my hon. friend that were not accompanied with that amount of virile veracity which we expect to find in a minister of the Crown.


William Pugsley: What particular description of veracity is virile veracity?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Except possibly during election time. We always allow a little leeway at that time. I have no doubt that if I could get through this speech I would find the statement that tenders had been Mr. DANIEL.	, i /
accepted for this work. At all events they are in the minister's own paper, the ' County News.'


William Pugsley: That is not the minister's own paper.


John Waterhouse Daniel: We are doing a lot of work on the Mission river, we are spending millions on dredging and we intend asking the government to carry out this work here.
That is the Courtenay Bay work. Perhaps the minister will tell us if he has asked the government to do that and whether it is the intention of the government, through the department of Public Works, to go on with this Courtenay Bay work and carry it to completion.


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad. I have myself represented to my colleagues in the government the desirability of going on with this work subject to the proviso that an arrangement is come to with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the use of Courtenay Bay for their terminals. Of course, without a perfect understanding with regard to that, I could not expect my colleagues to go on with that work, but I may say for the information of my hon. friend, and I am sure that he will be gratified to learn it, that the Grand Trunk Pacific have assured me that they regard Courtenay bay as being well adapted for terminal facilities.


Samuel Hughes: In writing? -	[DOT]


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When did the minister get that assurance?	,


William Pugsley: Last fall. They were extremely gratified to find that the result of the borings which were instituted by my department jointly with the city of St. John and the provincial government showed that Courtenay bay. which most people supposed rested upon solid rock, simply consisted of a great deposit of silt and sand, so that we could get by easy dredging a depth of 32 feet of water at low tide. They were extremely gratified to find that that was the case, and they have given to me the assurance that they regard Courtenay bay as most eminently suitable for laying out their terminals on a broad and comprehensive scale. My hon. friend can well understand that a matter of this great importance will take time to mature. All I can say is that the matter is before council, but what conclusion council will arrive at I am unable to say.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That' is the stand that I rather took during the election and that is the stand which the minister rather poked fun at me for taking. It was not a question of wait then; he said that it was absolutely necessary to do the work at once, that it

would not do to wait till the Grand Trunk Pacific was right at hand in coming to St. John. Am I correct in understanding that the minister gives the information to us tonight that he does not propose to go on with the Courtenay bay work this summer ?


William Pugsley: Not immediately-no.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand the minister to state that he had asked for tenders for the dredging in Courtenay bay ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And that none of the tenders had been accepted. Would the minister explain why the tenders were not accepted?


William Pugsley: The tenders were not accepted as far as the Courtenay bay is concerned. They were accepted as to the other part of the harbour. They were not accepted as far as Courtenay bay is concerned because the government are not prepared at this moment to proceed with the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But notwithstanding that the minister felt justified in asking for tenders for that work while the election was going on?


William Pugsley: Yes, at the time he did.


Oswald Smith Crocket: For a work that the government now admit they are not justified in proceeding with. I would like to know what the tenders amounted to.


William Pugsley: The lowest tender for dredging in Courtenay bay and also for a part of the western side of the harbour was 35 cents per cubic yard, and if the dredging in Courtenay bay were done by hydraulic dredge and the materials were deposited behind the revetment wall it would be 25 cents per cubic yard; for a portion of the dredging in the western side of the harbour at the bar the price is 50 cents per cubic yard and 35 cents for the other portion. The whole dredging work has been fixed at 39J cents per cubic yard. The next tender was the same, 39i cents, so that so far as Courtenay bay is concerned and so far as a portion of the western side is concerned the tender was somewhat higher. The next tender was some 74 cents or 75 cents per cubic yard.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the value of the tender moneyed out on the quantity of dredging in Courtenay bay?


William Pugsley: It would be $2,000,000 by hydraulic wrork at 25 cents. If it were by the ordinary dredging it would be more.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Do I understand the minister to state that he asked for tenders for $2,000,000 worth of work which the government now says they are not justified in proceeding with?


William Pugsley: I used no such expression as not justified ; I said the government did not intend to proceed immediately with that work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understood the minister to state that the government now felt they were not justified in proceeding with a work of that magnitude.


William Pugsley: I don't think I used such an expression.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Well the fact is that the government is not proceeding with it; notwithstanding that the minister called for tenders for work that will involve an expense of $2,000,000 on the basis of the lowest tenders. Had he the authority of an order in council to do that or did he do that upon his own responsibility as minister?


William Pugsley: On his own responsibility and under the authority of the Appropriation Act of last session.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When were these tenders asked for?


William Pugsley: It was some time last September.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that the nearest the minister can go to it? I would like to know the exact date.


William Pugsley: I will get it for you later.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Assuming that this work was to cost $2,000,000 was it intended that it should be done within this year or would it cover a number of years?


William Pugsley: That work would be extended over some six or seven years.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Then it ought to be good for another election.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister must be mistaken with regard to that because last year he stated that the Grand Trunk Pacific trains would be in St. John in September, 1912, and he was urging this work along so that there might be accommodation for the grain when the Grand Trunk Pacific trains arrive there. In view of that must we not look askance at some of the promises which the minister may make before the next election comes round?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman does not realize that a great deal of accommodation can be given before the scheme is finally completed, just the same as on the west side.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can the minister say what was the latest date for the reception of these tenders


William Pugsley: It was some time in October.


Samuel Hughes: Before the 26th?


William Pugsley: Yea.


Mr. RHODES.: Were these tenders accompanied by a certified cheque?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I suppose the cheque was returned?


William Pugsley: No, because the contract was let for a part of the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister the advertisement there?


William Pugsley: I have not.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is paid to the dredging company for the work they are doing now below the Beacon bar?


William Pugsley: 391 cents per cubic yard; it is the lowest that work has ever been done for in the port of St. John.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I believe it is. Have you inspectors on that dredging?


William Pugsley: Yes, not only the resident engineer, but inspectors as well.
. Mr. DANIEL. Who compose this dredging company?


William Pugsley: I do not know; Mr. Moore is the president of it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that 'Mr. John E. Moore?'


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that the man that was associated with the minister in the purchase of the ' Telegraph ' newspaper?


William Pugsley: That's a poser.


Oswald Smith Crocket: You have no answer to give to that?
Tiffin harbour-improvements, $125,000.


William Wright: How much has been spent at Tiffin to date and what is the total cost of the dredging there?


William Pugsley: We had last year an appropriation of $125,000 and we expended up to the 1st of December $119,080.


William Wright: What will be the total
cost of the dredging there?


William Pugsley: It is pretty difficult to say what the total will be, but it will probably run up in the vicinity of half a million dollars when completed. We intend if possible by the 1st of October next to have the dredging done so that the lake steamers can go right up to the Grand Trunk Pacific elevator. There will be other work to do for a number of years afterwards. The Grand Trunk Pacific is laying out its terminals there and they propose accommodating about 10,000,000 bushels of grain.


Samuel Hughes: 


William Wright: I want to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that while the Trent valley canal is not being carried out by his department, yet I presume that the work at the west end lying almost at this place which is necessary to accommodate the large vessels which will come there will be undertaken by the Public Works Department. Is he making any provision to be ready for that when the work is completed? Large vessels will have to come there to the mouth of that canal. Is the minister making any provision in order to be ready for them when the canal is completed?


William Pugsley: The matter has been under consideration.


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Railways assured me to-day that the point at which the canal shall enter the Georgian bay has not yet been determined. Surveys were made by both the Severn and Nottawasaga rivers and the minister has undertaken to notify me before any decision is come to in order that I may have a deputation wait on him.


William Pugsley: Notwithstanding that it may be wise for us to think the matter over.


Haughton Lennox: I hope the minister is not taking it over in any very definite way until we know which is to be the outlet.


William Pugsley: It has been suggested jo exec U93JBJ gq pjnoM. sjuoq jeueo aqj jcqj in the two harbours of Midland and Tiffin.


Haughton Lennox: That would be on the assumption, which I hope is not justified yet, that the Severn route is adopted.


Samuel Hughes: The elevator at Tiffin is being built not by the government, but by the Grand Trunk Railway. They are doubling their track from Midland and Tiffin to meet the main line. This elevator is not for canal barges, but for the purposes of the Grand Trunk Railway, and the government are doing this work at Victoria harbour where the Canadian Pacific Railway are putting in their works and at Tiffin to meet the wishes of the railway company by giving good accommodation for vessels.


William Pugsley: That is right.


George Henry Bradbury: Has the minister any complaint from the settlers around Lac du Bonnet in reference to a bridge built by the city of Winnipeg which is said to be much too low so that at high water there is only about three feet between the water and the bridge.


William Pugsley: A report has been asked for by the resident engineer.

Victoria harbour improvements, $150,000.


George Henry Barnard: Can the government make some change in the name of that harbour?


William Pugsley: Victoria harbour has been selected by the Canadian Pacific RaiL way and I do not know whether there would be any objection to changing the name or not. The matter may be worth considering.


Samuel Hughes: It is an old Ontario post office.


George Henry Barnard: Would the minister give some assurance that he will endeavour to use his influence with the Canadian Pacific Railway or the post office authorities to have some change made, as it will lead to confusion.


William Pugsley: It is said that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet.


George Henry Barnard: Then why not Victoria harbour.


William Pugsley: Possibly; I will think it ever.


Haughton Lennox: Would the_ minister think of changing the name of Victoria, B.C.?


George Henry Barnard: If my hon. friend wishes to discuss that I am prepared to go on. Victoria is the capital of British Columbia; it is the oldest city there.


William Pugsley: I would not seek to disturb the name of Victoria, British Columbia.


Samuel Hughes: The town of Victoria Harbour is a very old one and I doubt if they would consent to have it changed.


William Wright: It is where Champlain landed when he went up there 300 years ago. It is possibly one of the oldest places in Canada, much older than Victoria, British Columbia. How much has been spent in Victoria Harbour and what does the minister estimate the total cost to be?


William Pugsley: We estimate the total cost at between $300,000 and $400,000.


Samuel Hughes: You will spend a million there.


William Pugsley: Possibly so, but not immediately. Let us proceed with the Nova Scotia items.


Samuel Hughes: A number of Nova Scotia members understood that these items would not be reached to-night and I ask the minister to adjourn the committee.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Nova Scotia items are very small, only about $270,000. We have passed about $2,500,000 in the last 15 or 20 minutes, and some of the Nova Scotia members like myself would like to finish this to-night.
67 i


Samuel Hughes: I would ask the minister to reconsider his decision and not go on with these items to-night.
Harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia, $279,310.


Samuel Hughes: I would again ask the Minister of Public Works to adjourn. I think we have done very well to-day.


William Pugsley: We might as well go on for an hour.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to suggest that we have done enough work for tonight. I do not think it is fair that we should be asked to vote large sums of money, or anything, at this time of night. We are here to do business in a businesslike way.


William Pugsley: There is not a single new item in this book.


Samuel Hughes: If we {iad dreamed that the minister was going on and was not going to conclude with the items we have just passed, a number of them would have been criticised very much more closely.


William Pugsley: I am sure that I gave no such information.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon minister has intimated that because there are no new items in the estimates for Nova Scotia, they should go through quickly. With deference I would say that to my mind at least that is one reason why it will take some time to get these items through. So far as the county of Cumberland is concerned, there are two items which look very lonely-one for $2,000 and one for $1,000; whereas in the estimates of last year there were seventeen items for that county, aggregating $40,000, and it will be my duty to inquire why and wherefore the difference between the items of this year and those of last year.


William Pugsley: I shall be happy to give all the information to-night.


William Price: This is very unfair. We have done our best to pass the estimates to-day, and I think it is very unfair to ask us to go on at this hour of the night.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member for Lunenburg has stated that within a few minutes we have passed upwards of $2,000,000. The minister says that there was no understanding that we should rise when these items were through. Although there was no actual understanding, the idea was, I believe, in the minds of all of us, that the minister would act reasonably with u3 if we acted fairly with him. It is now twenty minutes to one o'clock, and it has recently been impressed upon the minds of all of us that we have been sitting altogether too late. There is not only the item to be considered, but members who j would like to take part in the discussion

^ iese items are absent, and therefore I think the minister should not insist on our going on^ at this time. We have done a good day's work, we have been reasonable in passing as many items as we have done, and I hope the minister will agree to let the committee rise.


William Pugsley: I have nothing to complain of in regard to my hon. friends on the other side. I told some gentlemen that the estimates for Nova Scotia would be up to-night.


Samuel Hughes: Suppose we pass the first, the second and the fourth items, and then adjourn.


William Pugsley: Very well.
Some resolutions reported.
gard it as wholly satisfactory. It is merely a statement of the clerk's view as to the observance of the usual practice, which I do not think is sufficient. The chairman of the Railway Committee should inform the House that when this matter comes before that committee, he will see that the notice is in order. That is all we require.


Mr. McCRANEY.: I may say that since receiving that memorandum from the clerk of the Committee on Standing Orders, I saw Mr. Hartney, and he tells me that he takes note of all matters that come before the Standing Orders Committee, which have to receive special attention, and he satisfies himself that all the requirements have been complied with before they are taken up by the Railway Committee.


Hon W.   S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Fi nance) moved the adjournment of the House.


Samuel Hughes: Any government business on Monday?


William Stevens Fielding: Monday is a private members' day


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. (Saturday).
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 8, 1909.