1909-12-07

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.- Mr. McGiverin.
Bill (No. 59) respecting the Saint Maurice Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Mayrand.

Hon. G. P. GRAHAM.: I wish to make a slight correction in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) about a week ago. The question was as follows:
1.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals had a survey or investigation made into the feasibility and cost of constructing a channel from the Devil's Elbow on the Holland river to a point in the neighbourhood of the Bradford Railway station, in South Simcoe?
2.	If not, wjll the department have this done at an early date, and if done, is the report favourable, and what is the estimated
cost?
The answer is:
1.	Yes.
2.	The Bradford survey was begun on the west branch of the Holland river at the junction of the Newmarket canal, which


Mr. BEATTIE.: point is 4-9 miles from the mouth of the river, Cook's bay, and carried up the west branch of the river to a point about 3 miles above the Bradford and Holland Landing road.
The canal or channel leading to the proposed basin in front of the Grand Trunk station, Bradford, would leave the west branch at the Devil's Elbow, 7 miles from Cook's bay, and the Bradford basin would be at 8-2 miles, or in otheV words the canal would be 1 -2 miles long with a bottom width of 50 feet. The proposed Bradford basin is estimated for 200 feet width, inclosed with concrete dock walls. No work is required in the 2 1 miles of river between the junction of the Newmarket canal and the Devil's Elbow. The estimated cost of the work is $52,947.



QUESTION.


Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Has an application been made to the government by the Imperial Export Company for assistance in establishing a regular freight steamship service between Atlantic ports in Canada and Australia and New Zealand?
2.	Has the government received any communications from the trade agents in Australia and New Zealand favouring the establishment of such service?
3.	Has the Minister of Trade and Commerce received any communications from Canadian shippers or others requesting the establishment of such a service? If so, what communications and from ivhom?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes, but it is not thought advisable until the matter has been adjusted to bring down the information sought for.



NAVAL DEFENCE.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect the Navy Bill? We were promised some information on that point a week ago yesterday.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think we will be able to take up the Navy Bill immediately after the disposal of the Budget or about that time.


Mr. MONK.: I would ask the government to lay on the table of the House the correspondence, despatches, cables and communications between the imperial government and the government of Canada concerning naval defence, since the Imperial Defence Conference last July and up to the present date.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no objection.



CANADIANS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES

Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I wish to cal] the attention of the First Minister and of the government to a matter qf considerable importance, and one which we discussed last session. It is a question which is causing considerable feeling in southwestern Manitoba. I read from this morning's Ottawa 'Citizen'.
Stopped Pastor returning to Ireland from "Winnipeg via U.S.A.
1	(Special to the ' Citizen.')
Winnipeg, Dec. 6.-Rev. T. Davidson, famous pastor of Belfast, Ireland, who has been preaching special services here for several weeks left on Friday last for home via the United States. He was stopped at the boundary by immigration agents and compelled to return to Winnipeg to have papers filled out showing he was not an undesirable.
Such occurences are becoming so frequent that it is creating a strong feeling here. No one regrets it more than United States Consul General Jones, who is doing everything possible to create good feeling. He ascribes it all to ignorant and over zealous officials.
I did not suppose that I would be in order in discussing the question at this stage but it is certainly one which needs the serious consideration of the government. I refer to the manner in which the United States officials are dealing with people of almost all classes who are crossing over the boundary into the United States.


Hon. Mr. OLIVER.: We have no jurisdiction over the immigration officials of the United States. They exercise jurisdiction on their side of the line and we exercise jurisdiction on our side. I cannot give any answer to my hon. friend on this matter at all.


Mr. FOSTER.: It seems to me that the Minister of the Interior and the government cannot afford to treat such a matter in this fashion. The Prime Minister will remember that last year we had a discussion over some rather outrageous cases and I think the Prime Minister himself promised that the matter would he looked into. Perhaps he can tell us if anything has been done, and if so what? Such things as these referred to by the hon. member (Mr. Schaffner) are indignities and we have no spirit unless we resent them. We ought at least try to make fair inquiry and see whether the conditions cannot be ameliorated.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not trust my memory about what occurred last session and I thought the Minister of the Interior would know. My impression is that representations have been made on this subject, but I will look into the matter and give further information to my hon. friend. I thought we had some arrangement about it.



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 60) respecting the House of Commons.-Mr. Campbell.

Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved second reading of Bill (No. 17) to authorize the government of Canada to acquire by lease lines of railways connected with the government railways.	j


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


George Perry Graham: I explained this Bill on its introduction, and as the question of acquiring branch lines has been so thoroughly discussed in this House time and again, I think it hardly necessary to go into details. The Bill provides that the government shall have power to lease such line or lines as connect with the government railways and on the report of the board of management that such lines will be of benefit to the government railways. The Bill also provides that no line 'shall be taken over unless the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals reports that it is in good order and in safe condition for operating. That provision is to obviate the necessity for expending a large amount of money on the line after it has been taken over. If it should be thought desirable to take over any line of railway under this Act, the government will not take it over unless the owners put it in such condition that we can operate it without having to undertake an expenditure on capital account to put that line into proper condition. In other words, we do not propose to lease any lines that are not workable and not in good operating order. The third clause is a safeguard to parliament that no line shall be leased and no contract of lease entered into without first submitting it to parliament for approval.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Is the tendency of this proposal along the lines of increasing government ownership? Is the government fully committed to that principle now and do they intend to work it out to its full extent?


George Perry Graham: That question covers a very vast territory, and I could hardly be expected to give an answer to it. If advantage be taken of this Act to lease any line or lines that now connect with the railway, on the face of it it certainly widens the field of government ownership.


William Findlay Maclean: And therefore it shows that the stories as to the government giving up the control and administration of the Intercolonial, are pure'fiction?


Hon. J. HAGGAET.: I do not clearly understand the necessity for this Bill. The minister has not stated what lines he has at present in view that might be taken over, but I assume it is his intention to follow out the proposal made by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) who has advocated from year to year the acquisition of these different lines by the government. I do not clearly understand the necessity of it. Why do you want authority from parliament to make a lease of these lines and afterwards come to parliament to ratify it? Why cannot you make a lease without the authority of parliament at all, and then come to parliament to get the lease ratified? I think that would have been the best plan. An acquisition of a property would be more fully considered if the whole of the reasons were to be given by the minister for the acquisition of a particular line. The pros and cons might be fully discussed, instead of the government coming to parliament with a cut and dried lease entered into by the government with the approval of the commission. That, I think, would be the more parliamentary course, and the better course to pursue if the government had not authority to enter into a lease, because once having entered into a lease, we -would have no power of altering or amending it; the lease would come to us holus bolus, take it or leave it. According to the other plan, if the lease was entered into conditionally without the government being bound until parliament had given its approval, I think that would be a far better plan than the one proposed by the Minister of Eailways. But the Minister of Eailways surely has some object in view, he has surely considered the question whether there are any railways in the maritime provinces which would, if acquired by the government, benefit the operation of the Intercolonial. If that be his object, he should take the House into his confidence and state what line he has in view, what railways he thinks would be for the benefit of the Intercolonial if they were acquired by the government.


Mr. GEAHAM.: My hon. friend is in error in thinking that I have some particular line or lines in view. The introduction of this Bill is the result of consideration by the government after repeated discussions in this House, and after considering, not only a report made by commissioners appointed by the New Brunswick government, but a report made by a commission appointed by this government over a year ago. They reported on some twenty railways in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I am free to admit that I have not entered into the merits 'of any of these lines to ascertain which one or ones it would be Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
proper for us to acquire. Until this year we have not had the machinery for that purpose which we have now, a body thoroughly well qualified, as I think the present board is, to judge of the merits of any of these lines, and to judge whether they might be of benefit and of how much benefit to the government line. That is the point of view from which the question would be approached. The other point of view, of course, would be the benefit of transportation to the people. But the first object, from my standpoint, would be the benefit that the leasing of these lines would be to the government system itself. As I say, I have not gone into the merits of any of these roads to see which ones if any we should lease. My hon. friend will see that any lease we might make, or any negotiations we might enter upon for making a lease, would always be made on the distinct understanding that they would not be binding until parliament gave its approval.


Mr. CEOCKET.: Would that mean that the government railway would not operate the lines until parliament approved?


Duncan Graham: Certainly.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I can hardly see the purpose of the Bill.


Duncan Graham: My hon. friend will understand that the government could have gone ahead without a Bill. We could have entered into negotiations without parliament having first said: We are agreeable, and if you find a line that will be of benefit to the government road, you may enter upon negotiations. By the passage of this Bill parliament approves of the principle of leasing any line or lines if they are found to be of benefit to the government system, although the details of such lease must be approved by parliament before they can become effective. One of the safeguards we will have in considering questions of that kind is the fact that the government line will not consider any proposition unless the board of management first approves or recommends it; and secondly, the chief engineer of the department must approve the standard of the road before the government will enter into negotiations for its acquisition, it being understood that an arrangement would not come into force until parliament had given its approval.


Mr. SPEOULE.: I would expect that the government would not propose a Bill like this unless they were prepared to inform the House whether it is the fixed policy of the government to extend the principle of government ownership of railways. If that is not their policy, it does not seem to be the part of wisdom to proceed along this line without some definite object in

view. I would naturally expect that the Minister of Railways had gone into an inquiry, through this board or through his chief engineer, with regard to the situation of the Intercolonial railway and the conditions which make it a non-paying concern, and that the object of these leases was to make it a paying concern in the future.
I think also he ought to be able to tell the House whether it is the determination of the government to go on and extend government ownership, because there is a great deal of controversy going on over that matter, some being in favour of it and some against it. I think there is a motion on the Order Paner for passing the Intercolonial over to some other railway to run it. Now, that indicates that there are some persons, at least from the maritime provinces, who are opposed to this principle. I think the Minister of Railways ought to he able to furnish such data to the House as will justify us in saying now that we are giving you a free hand, you have something in view, you have looked carefully over the ground, there are many feeders to this railway that would be valuable if put in good condition, providing we can lease them at a reasonable figure. But I agree with the ex-Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that the government have such power already. Did they not do it with the Gibson railway, and with the Drummond County railway? Have they not done it several times during the last 14 or 15 years with reference to railways in the maritime provinces? Now, what different relation will the government be in with regard to this work after the Bill has been passed from what thev were in before? They could already make a lease subject to ratification bv parliament if they thought proper to do so. They will be able to do the same thing in future, so I cannot see what great benefit is going to be accomplished by this Bill. At any rate, if we pass the Bill it is assenting to the principle, and if that principle means the extension of government ownership of railways we ought to be given some better information than we possess at present. I am not opposing the Bill, but I think the Minister of Railways ought to be able to furnish the House with better data than he has, and a more elaborate scheme, and show us that he has carefully considered this subject, and that he thinks it will be wise for us to extend the principle.


George Perry Graham: I would be glad to give my hon. friend an outline of an elaborate scheme if I had one; but I frankly stated to the House what my view is, that it is proposed to obtain from parliament authority to have the Board of Management investigate any line that they think would be
beneficial to the government line of railways, and authority to lease any such line. As to the enlargement of government ownership, I am not prepared to announce any particular policy. The present policy of the government is public ownership of the Intercolonial railway; and so long as we own that line, which will probably be quite a while, I propose to make the best of it. But my hon. friend says there is a question on the Order Paper suggesting that the Intercolonial be leased. If the government were proposing to lease the _ government road, such a movement as this would neither help nor hinder the leasing of the government road. My own opinion is that if a company owned the Intercolonial, it would have had possession of some at least of these branch lines long before this. If it be true, .as has been argued time and again in this House, that the leasing of certain lines would not only improve the transportation facilities for the people, but also increase the usefulness of the government line, then parliament ought to be prepared to give us the power asked for in this Bill-to investigate and see if this -be true in any case, and, if so, to act accordingly.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister say that the government has not already the power to investigate a railway and enter into negotiations to lease without the passing of this Bill?


George Perry Graham: As I explained a few moments ago, the government can investigate this or any other question. But there is this difference, that with this measure on the statute book, parliament has approved of the principle of leasing any branch line which it may be found, after investigation, to be in the interest of the government railway to lease. We are starting on that investigation with the approval of parliament to the policy of leasing these lines if proper conditions do exist, the details to be submitted to parliament.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But the lease is not to become effective, I understood the minister to say, until it is submitted to parliament and is approved by parliament. If so, I cannot see the purpose of this Bill at all, unless as a meaningless sop offered to the member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson).


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Railways has perhaps properly described the effect of this Bill when he says that it gives the government a general authority to negotiate. He says, as I understand him, that general authority to negotiate ought to be granted by parliament, but in that case he should make it clear to us that there are some lines of railway in Quebec and in the maritime provinces which may usefully be acquired by * the Intercolonial railway, having regard to

the interests of the people in respect to transportation, and having regard to the interests of the Intercolonial railway as a going concern. I may say in passing that I rather object to the expression of government ownership. I would like the government to understand that they do not own the Intercolonial railway. They are for the time being, unfortunately for the people of this country, entrusted with its management and control; but the railway is owned by the people of Canada, and not by the government at all. I must confess that 1 would have expected the Minister of Railways and Canals, according to his own definition, to have given us a little more information than he has given us so far. He has not made it clear that, in his own opinion, there are any railways of that character. He has referred us to certain reports of certain gentlemen appointed by this government and certain other gentlemen appointed by the government of New Brunswick, who have arrived at certain conclusions. I am not very familiar with these reports, and the minister appears to be no more familiar. However, he has not stated to what extent he has acepted their conclusions, nor has he given us the name of any railway which he thinks it advisable for the government to acquire. More than that, he has not intimated to us the principle upon which the government or the Government Railway Management Board will proceed in dealing with this question. Although the minister very cleverly introduced into his speech words that are not in the Bill, I do not observe in the Bill itself any statement of policy upon which the Government Railway Management Board will proceed. I understand that they have full discretionary powers of management and control so far as the operation of the Intercolonial railway is concerned; but I do not understand what discretionary powers they are to have in regard to leasing branch lines. I do not understand what considerations they are to have regard to in coming to a conclusion. The Bill leaves us entirely ignorant on this point, and the minister also leaves us ignorant of that. If the minister asks us for this Bill as a general authority to negotiate, and that is all it can amount to, ought he not to give to the House some explanation of the principles upon which they will proceed to negotiate-what considerations they will have regard to and upon what lines they will proceed, in coming to a conclusion as to whether they shall recommend or not? I can understand that the Intercolonial railway might embark upon a policy of acquiring ultimately every one of these branch lines. That is perfectly intelligible whether we approve of it or not. I can understand that the policy might be very much more restricted than that-that it might relate only to such of these lines as would in the immediate fu-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
ture become financially profitable to the Intercolonial railway as a going concern. I can understand that lines would be acquired because they would give increased transportation facilities to the people, and although not immediately profitable, would become profitable within a reasonable period. There are other lines of policy that might be suggested. The minister does not commit himself to anything, and only asks for general power to negotiate. He does not give us the slightest idea of the lines on which the action of the government or the Railway Management Board is to be conducted. I am bound to say that I am in favour, so far as I am personally concerned, of coming to parliament first and stating what the government proposes to do and getting this general authority to negotiate. I think that, perhaps, on the whole-although there may be a difference of opinion-that is the wiser and fairer course to pursue. But I do not think it a very advantageous course to pursue unless we get from the minister some intimation of the lines upon which the general power to negotiate will be exercised and the policy which will influence the government in coming to a conclusion, one way or the other, with regard to any of these lines.


Mr. BLACK.: I would like very much to have a little more light on this question. When it comes to a vote, I propose to vote on this Bill. At the present juncture, I do not know whether I shall vote for it or against it. Unless I get a little more light on the subject, a little more information than I have now, I shall be strongly inclined to vote against it. I think that the minister must surely have had in mind, when he prepared that Bill, some branch railways or some number of branch railways that he was going to acquire. For myself,
I would like to have some definite information what branches are to be taken in. Is it for a few branches in New Brunswick that are not paying a dividend and never will pay a dividend, under present management? Is it for some branches in the province of Quebec that are in trouble? Is it for certain branches in Nova Scotia that are not paying dividends? I remember that, last autumn, a commission was appointed to examine and report on the subject of branch railways. And I was astonished to learn afterwards that the most prosperous branch, the branch that runs through the best part of the maritime provinces, the Dominion Atlantic railway, had not been examined or reported on at all. This road, as many hon. members know, runs through the richest part of the maritime provinces


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


Judson Burpee Black: Perhaps the hon. member for Pictou ','Ir. Macdonald) does not know,

but I know that this road runs through the richest part of the maritime provinces; that we send over that road between half a million and a million barrels of apples alone every year; that the country through which it runs is handicapped by that railway, a country that would be alive with manufactures if we had a railway that was assisting manufacturing development, in stead of taking out of the manufacturers all they can. This is a railway which is managed from London, and anything in Canada managed from London has hardly ever been prosperous so far as Canadians are concerned. I say I was astounded to learn that this road had never been examined or reported on by the commissioners. And when I inquired the reason, I found that there had been a difference between the management of that road and the commission in regard to the cost of running over the road. I believe-of course, I am not speaking positively, but the information came to me from a very good source-the management wanted $30 a day for taking the commissioners over the road, and the commissioners, in an economical frame of mind, refused to give it, and made no report on the road. I should like to know, before I vote, if it is contemplated to take over the Dominion Atlantic as one of the branches of the Intercolonial. It can be bought, and it is not in bankruptcy. All that any one has to do is to look at the report sent to the government every year, and he will find it to be a good paying road. A part of it is leased from the Intercolonial railway. This private company actually leases part of its road from the Intercolonial. And it is one of the best paying pieces of road in Canada. I would like to know if the government intend to withdraw that lease. It was a foolish lease in the beginning, it has been a foolish lease so far as as the people of Nova Scotia are concerned ever since, and it will continue to be a foolish lease until the end. I repeat that I should like very much to have a little more information before deciding whether I shall oppose this Bill or support it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How would it do to use this power as a means to extend the Intercolonial westward to Georgian bay?


Mr. TALBOT.: I have opposed any further purchase, lease or administration of any railway in addition to what the government possesses. And I oppose it now. And I am prepared to say that, unless things happen that should change my mind-and they will have to be very real and important things, I shall oppose it for many years to come.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The Bill before us is, to my mind, an extraordinary one; it is
something new, I think, in the way of railway legislation. The powers asked for by the government are very unusual, and they are asked upon a basis of very little information as to how the Bill will actually be carried into effect. I understand that the Bill will authorize the government to lease certain railways-we do not know what railways, nor do we know whether they are rich corporations or poor ones. They may be corporations whose bonds are not worth ten cents on the dollar; but the moment the government gets this power to lease these roads, no doubt the bonds will go up very quickly. To my mind, there is an open door there for a good speculation on the part of some one down in New Brunswick or Quebec. I should like more information before we are called upon to vote on the question. I do not wish to oppose anything that is in the interests of the Intercolonial railway or will promote the interests of the maritime provinces or Quebec in relation to their railway systems. But it does seem to me that there is something about this Bill that is rather dark. Under it, the Minister of Railways is to be authorized to lease certain roads in whole or in part, in fact, any line or lines connected with the government railway. And he is authorized to do this upon the recommendation of the Government Railways Managing Board. In effect, the Minister of Railways is authorized to do this on his own recommendation, because, practically, the Minister of Railways and the Managing Board of the Intercolonial are one and the same power-I do not think they are very far apart yet. I confess that the legislation is of a character new to me; it seems to me to give the Minister of Railways extraordinary powers. Now, if the recommendations of the government Railways Managing Board would go so far as to tell before the purchase is gone into who the owners of the railway are, and what is the value of the road, whether it is a bankrupt road or one paying dividends, and so on, I could see my way more clearly to giving the minister this power. But, if the Bill passes, he is to get this power without our having any information as to the value of the road or roads to be leased. That, to my mind, is a very strong objection, and I think the minister ought to see his way to remedying that defect. I assume that the minister will not press this to a conclusion at once, but that he will give members a further opportunity of looking into the matter and by all means that he will be able to place before the House, before the Bill passes its second reading, definite information with regard to the names of the railways he proposes to purchase, their value, the value of their securities and the holders of these securities, practically a statement of the persons who are to be benefited by this leasing or

purchase. It looks to me like a dark horse. I think we are taking a great deal for granted if we confer on the minister a power like this on the limited information he has given.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: I am afraid the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) is unduly suspicious. It never occurred to me that there was anything very dark or dangerous about the Bill; it seemed one of the most moderate and reasonable Bills ever submitted to parliament and I should be surprised if, after a fair consideration of the Bill, there is any serious opposition to it. The adoption of this Bill simply asserts a principle which has frequently found expression in the debates of this House and which every . man in any way acquainted with railway matters will readily approve. That principle is that where there are branch lines connected with a large and important system it would undoubtedly be in the interest of economy and efficiency that these branch lines should be consolidated with the general system if such a consolidation can be brought about on fair and reasonable terms. It needs no argument to say that a short branch line of railway may be economically a failure, its expensive management may be so great that it cannot pay even its working expenses. Take that same branch line and consolidate it with a large system and instead of a burden it might become a useful feeder to the larger system. Any hon. gentleman who has the slightest knowledge of railways will at once agree to this general principle. It is well known that along the line of the Intercolonial railway there are a number of branches worked more or less inefficiently-I will not say more or less efficiently, some of them are not worked efficiently, and it is believed that if these branches were consolidated with the Intercolonial railway better results could be obtained. I do not agree with the hon. gentlemen opposite that it is essential to specify what branches are in contemplation. For myself I have no idea of a single branch which will be leased under this Bill, while I have no doubt that some branches will be acquired by way of lease. The criticism of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) rather goes to the fact that the minister will have to come back to parliament for approval. That goes to show that the Minister of Railways has not been taking to himself some unwarranted power but has been unduly modest. He does not ask authority to enter into any binding arrangement with anybody but he does ask the House to accept the principle involved in this Bill that the consolidation of branch lines with the Intercolonial railway is a desirable thing if it can be brought about on fair and reasonable terms. Any branch of the Intercolonial railway may properly be brought within the operation of this Bill.
Mr. HENDERSON


Robert Laird Borden: My criticism was confined to the absence of any statement by the minister as to the principle upon which the government intended to proceed. What will be the government's policy after getting this power to negotiate? I approve of their coming here to get the power to negotiate as I have said, but I think we are entitled to some statement of what the policy of the government will be.


William Stevens Fielding: It is certainly desirable that there should be as clear an understanding as possible, but my hon. friend will agree that inasmuch as we must come back to parliament for approval, even although the government should be unwise enough not to negotiate in the right direction, the rights of parliament are fully protected. The Bill sets forth, in the first place, that the road must be in good and safe condition. There is a very important assertion of principle. If you take a dilapidated road and acquire it by lease, although on the surface it may seem to be a good arrangement, you may have to spend a large amount in putting it in order. Therefore the Minister of Railways has wisely determined that he will not consider the acquisition of any branch line unless it is in a safe condition.


William Findlay Maclean: Railway managers often take over a road just because it is in a poor condition and put it in good order.


William Stevens Fielding: No doubt there might be cases where the Minister of Railways would say to the parties: Your road is not in a condition to enable me to negotiate for it; put it in a substantial position so that we will not have to spend a large amount of money on it and we will deal with you. There are a number of railways that might be acquired, notably in New Brunswick. There are very few in Nova Scotia that wouid be willing to be called branch lines. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) has spoken of the Dominion Atlantic. I am afraid the Dominion Atlantic would be offended if it were called a branch line.


Judson Burpee Black: I do not mind offending them, they have offended us often enough.


William Stevens Fielding: People are often very glad to get railway accommodation and when they get it are sometimes too ready to find fault with the railway company. However that may be, I think the House ought to adopt the principle of this Bill. It is a principle of what might be called the economy of railway management.


Robert Laird Borden: The Dominion Atlantic could come under this.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Mr. LENNOX.: It is not confined to branch lines, it is any line connecting. It might be a railway 1,000 miles in length.


William Stevens Fielding: It might be, but we have not any railways of that length down there.


Haughton Lennox: It might be anywhere, it might be the Canadian Northern.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think there is any danger of a branch of 1,000 miles in length being brought under this Bill and anyhow, as we must come back to parliament for ratification of any agreement made, my hon. friend will see that the public interests are adequately protected. This Bill simply authorizes the Minister of Railways to enter upon the consideration of a policy that has again and again found advocates on both sides of this House. True the minister could have gone ahead made his negotiations and then come back to parliament, but he has thought it best to pursue the policy, which I am glad to say has won the approval of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), of coming here and asking a general declaration in favour of the principle. I would take it for granted that the managing board would have to satisfy the Minister of Railways that the road will either from the beginning or at a very early stage pay its own working expenses and a sufficient sum to protect the government against loss. That leads me to repeat the observation I ventured to make that it is quite possible a branch railway which is losing money as a branch line might even make a little when consolidated with the general system. I think the Bill is reasonable, I think the criticism of the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. John Haggart) that we do not need to come to parliament as we have the power to negotiate without coming to parliament, while true is not important; in fact I think it is much wiser that the minister should come here and ask parliament to give general approval to the principle laid down and then I think it is not too much to ask the House to believe that the Minister of Railways and the managing board will not recommend the acquisition, even by way of lease, of any railway which would not be a helper to the Intercolonial railway. But if the Minister of Railways should be so unwise as to do that and if his colleagues in the government should be so unwise as to encourage him to do it, you still have the safeguard of this House of Commons and this parliament, because no lease that the minister might propose could be of any binding effect until it had been submitted to this House and had received the approval of parliament.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) was asking for light a little while ago. I watched him quite closely while the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) was diffusing such light as he has diffused on this Bill; I did not see much of
an answering gleam on the face of my hon. friend, and when the Minister of Finance got up I noticed that my hon. friend fixed [DOT]both eyes on him. I do not believe I am far astray when I venture the guess that no very great light has gone into the cranium of the hon. member for Hants as a result of the explanation or the diffusing of light by the hon. Finance Minister.


Judson Burpee Black: I am still waiting for light.


George Eulas Foster: Still waiting! Then, I want to give the hon. member for Hants some of the light he was asking for. If he will just remove the little blur before his eyes and look back and down he will see a certain figure, not long ago upon the ministerial benches. He will see that that figure is no longer on the ministerial benches, but is removed a little farther to the right, and he will remember that that gentleman has had for some years a veTy decided liking for the absorption of maritime province railways by the Intercolonial railway, that he has advocated it in the country before his constituents, advocated it in the House, that he has pestered and bothered the present Minister of Railways and Canals considerably by the persistent advocacy and criticism which accompanied that advocacy, and that as a result the Minister of Railways, bothered with the fellow, gave a commission and had some of his wise men sail around about the maritime provinces. They had a good time, looked over all these roads, drew their money, got their expenses and then prepared a report for him which, strange to say, the Minister of Railways has not yet read. Am I wrong in that?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is wrong to this extent, that it was laid on the table last year and he should have read it if he has not.


George Eulas Foster: I am not talking about myself. The hon. member for Hants has not been asking me for light.


George Perry Graham: But you are attempting to give it to him.


George Eulas Foster: And I thought that it was a fair assumption from what the minister said that he had not looked within the pages of the report. Has he?


George Perry Graham: I have read it through twice.


George Eulas Foster: Then, if my hon. friend has read it through twice, it is a very poor report or he would be able to give his opinions in reference to it. Now, he certainly says that he has not 'bestowed any thought upon it at all. Meanwhile the hon. member for Westmorland, still somewhat critical, a little on the offside, bothers the minister again, and the minister says: I

will have another whack at him; I will put some enabling measure on the law-book; I will have a statute that will enable me to take in these railways. Of course, I am not going to bestow any bother upon looking into the question whether there are or are not any roads. This is sufficient for my purpose at the present time. My purpose is to get another stepping stone away from that bothersome man from Westmorland. That is about all the light there is in it except that a little more may be shed upon it in this way. I see a splendid arrangement for future good work about the time of the coming elections. The minister comes down and says: Here is a matter of sufficient gravity to be called to the attention of two hundred and odd gentlemen whose time is precious and who are here to consider serious, honest and earnest legislation. He first calls the attention of his colleagues to it and says: This is the measure that I propose to bring down, and then he calls the attention of the House to it. When he calls the attention of the House to it, asks them to pass it, and they ask him for his policy he has no more policy than the man in the moon. He cannot teil us whether he believes there are any roads that would come under this category. He does not say whether he will find the branches in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Quebec, or whether he will use this power as a possible negotiating instrument to obtain a road and join it on to the Intercolonial railway at the city of Montreal running to the Great I ,akes, or a road running across the prairies, or a road running all the way across to the Pacific ocean, because, under the enabling power of this Act, he can enter into negotiations with the Canadian Pacific railway to-morrow or any day and can acquire these roads by lease, provided they axe willing.


William Stevens Fielding: But he could do that without the Act.


George Eulas Foster: He could do that without the Act, but let me tell you what I say is the difference between doing it with and without the Act. You have done it without an Act. The government have done things equal to this and like it, as the government are doing time after time. Instance after instance is given. But, there is this difference which is two-fold. The moment you pass this Act everybody knows that the minister will have every branch and small railway which joins with or is in close proximity to the Intercolonial railway on his back and he will no longer have the advantage of being able to say to them:	The government has not made
up its mind in reference to this; I have no authority for this sort of thing. The best I can do would be to make a sort of arrangement with you and to take it to parliament. But the moment the Act is Mr. FOSTER.
passed he is in a very different position, they come to him and say:	You have no
excuse for not entering into negotiations for this road. Here is a branch road, we want you to take it over; what is your excuse for not doing it? You have the approval of the House to do the very thing that we are asking you to do. Does not the minister see that his powers of resistance are absolutely taken away from him and he cannot help but enter into negotiations with them and yield to their pressure? Then, when it comes down to the House, the House itself is restricted and restrained when the minister rises and says:	Here
is the report of my board of managers, here is the report of my engineer, I am doing exactly what parliament has sanctioned and ordered to be done under certain conditions and why are you opposing it? So, the power is made all the greater as against any opposing force because the government would say: We have the authority of parliament; we have simply entered into a contract with the authority of parliament and it must be passed. It is difficult for the opposition, even though part of it is composed of men on the government side, to make headway against a government measure when it is brought down for the first time, but it is infinitely more difficult when it is brought down in sequence of a measure that approves of the principle involved in the transaction. The House will have committed itself to the principle once it passes this Act, and that is the reason why I rather agree with my hon. friend the late Minister of Railways and Canals in reference to this matter. But there has not been a single assertion made by the government or the minister who is bringing down this measure as to how extensive or how limited this power may be. Does the minister think this proper to ask us to confirm a power which might be applied to all the great railways of the country because they all merge into either the city of Montreal, or the city of Quebec, as well as the points along the Intercolonial railway. It is of continental application and the ministers, in bringing in their Bill, do not even say that they do not contemplate going beyond branch lines. It is giving them a tremendous omnibus power and this parliament is binding itself that if certain conditions are fulfilled they may carry out the operation. Then, there is another point in connection with the matter and it was hinted at by my hon. friend from Halton. What a splendid avenue this opens up to the ingenious and skilful schemer. Here is an omnibus proposition. Here are some people who to-day own the bonds of a crippled railway. They say: The government has the power to take this railway over and operate it. Once it is taken over and operated and the blood of the Intercolonial railway system runs in its deadened veins,

it will suddenly come to the point of not only sustaining itself but of giving profits, and what a splendid avenue it opens up to companies of every kind to bring influence upon the minister and the government to negotiate with reference to the absorption of a certain road and possibly to carry it out. We will wake up after the negotiations have carried through probably to the fact that somebody has got the worthless bonds, worthless up to that time and that these people will then have made a fortunate speculation for themselves. As to the recommendation upon which the minister acts, what does it amount to as it is outlined in this section? Nothing at all. They need not give a single reason to the minister. If the minister communes with himself or with his creatures for he is the creator of these creatures; if he communes with himself and satisfies himself he takes that part of himself which is outside himself, to wit his board of managers and he says; Write me a recommendation. They write him a recommendation which may be in five lines or less and he comes down to the House with that recommendation and it is not worth a hill of beans simply because it is not a reasoned recommendation. He does not provide for a reasoned recommendation in this Bill and he ought to provide for it. The grounds upon which the recommendation is based should be set out and should become the property of the House when they are asked to consider the matter. It does seem to me that the minister and the government have not thought about this thing sufficiently to give us light on it. I join in the pitiful cry of the member for Hants:	Light, more light upon this
subject before we can consider it.


Mr. MACDONALD.: This little preliminary discussion has swung in a rather wide circle ranging from the position of my hon. friend from York that this Bill had absolutely no meaning whatever, to the wild flights of imagination indulged in by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster). Now that we have had these preliminary fireworks it might be well for us to consider just what this proposition really means. We do not need to soar to imagination nor descend to misrepresentation to arrive at the proper conclusion which is quite apparent to any one who looks at the measure with calmness and deliberation. It is nothing more nor less than that the government has asked this House to affirm the principle that it would be desirable for them to go into the question of obtaining a lease of certain branch lines along the Intercolonial railway to be utilized as feeders thereof and in connection therewith. My hon. friend from Toronto has no doubt overlooked the preamble of this measure which expressly limits the railways to be leased under this Act to such railways as are feeders of and are in connection with the Intercolonial railway. I do think that this proposition is sufficiently important to engage the attention of hon. members in a somewhat more serious discussion. Is it wise that this parliament should say to the government that they should look into the question of what branch lines lying along the Intercolonial railway would be advantageous to the people of the country generally as well as to the people of the country living along the lines of the railways in question. We have had the matter discussed at various sessions in the abstract, but parliament has never declared one way or the other on the proposition, and now this Bill asks for a declaration in favour of it. Of course hon. gentlemen know that it is impossible for the minister to say that he proposes to lease this, that or the other railway, but it is well within the knowledge of every member of this House that last year a return was brought down showing that after investigation it was found that there were 15 branch railways lying along the Intercolonial. Some of which it might be advisable to incorporate with that trunk line of railway. Let me premise by saying that so far as the operation of the Intercolonial is concerned, after you leave the city of Quebec and until you come to Campbellton it can hardly be said that the Intercolonial strikes any point that is accessible to the ocean. From Campbellton you run through a country that does not connect with any ocean port until you come to St. John; thence you run along to Halifax and the railway touches at one or two points only in Nova Scotia which are available for ocean transportation.


William Findlay Maclean: Could you not connect at Metapedia and get an ocean port along the Bay Chaleur to Gaspe?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: That railway is only constructed to Paspebiac.


William Findlay Maclean: That is an ocean port.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The railway is not yet constructed to Gaspe, and we have the Intercolonial railway in the anomalous position that with the exception of some points in Nova Scotia and at St. John, the whole of that vast range of coast along the maritime provinces is not reached directly by the Intercolonial but is reached by some 15 or 16 branch lines. That is a condition of affairs that invites attention. Some of us dream of the time when this country will be sufficiently self-contained that at least in the winter season we will be able to control Canadian exports through Canadian ports, and make our own ports the avenue through which will come our imports. That seems to me to be a laudable idea and one which we should aim to attain. And, in order that we may control the traffic to the sea the proposition now before us be-

comes a very important one. What this Bill does is that it asks parliament to say whether or not parliament approves of the idea of incorporating these branch line feeders with the trunk line. Upon the wisdom of that proposition a gentleman of such wide experience as Mr. Tiffin, the traffic manager of the Intercolonial, and formerly of the Canadian Pacific railway, and Mr. Story, say:
The want of proper facilities for the conduct of even the existing traffic is detrimentally affecting the business interests of the districts interested in these branches, and preventing that development of industries, enhancement of property values, and general betterment that would undoubtedly follow on an improved service.
The present branches are hampered by lack of capital and insufficient equipment, and are not in a financial position to increase their inadequate traffic facilities, and the absorption of these lines into the Intercolonial system would beyond question result in a greatly improved condition of affairs.	_
It is a well established fact that in nearly every case where branch lines have been absorbed by trunk lines, and extended markets have thus been opened up for business along the main lines, such a policy has not only proved to be of great value to the branch lines, but lias provided additional revenue for the main line, they becoming valuable feeders, increasing the traffic and the earning powers of the trunk lines.
One need not argue that proposition further. The magnificent success which has attended the Canadian Pacific railway throughout this country and which has made it the pride of every Canadian, has been very largely due to the wise policy of its directors in reaching out here and there and absorbing the feeders of the Canadian Pacific railway which has developed the territory through which they ran. The position of the Minister of Railways simply is: that the government should be permitted to look into the advisability of acquiring the branch lines and feeders of the peoples' railway as the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk and other railway systems in Canada have done with regard to their connecting lines. To that proposition the House cannot fail to give assent. The interests concerned are not merely local or provincial but they are great national issues in that the object sought is to obtain an outlet for the Intercolonial Tailway to the various ocean ports of the maritime provinces and a connection with the mineral resources of these provinces. As to whether or not any one is to be injured by the minister entering into negotiations for the purpose of obtaining a lease of a railway which is in proper condition for operation, I think the Bill throws around that the very proper safeguard that nothing can be eventually done without the sanction of parliament.
I venture to say that my hon. friend from North Toronto, who conjured up some difficulties that might result from the adoption of this Bill, would not be deterred from the most energetic opposition to any proposal which the Minister of Railways might bring down if he chose to think that the proper thing to do was to oppose it. It is perfectly understood thak, the House does not commit itself to the adoption of any particular proposal under this Act until it is submitted; but by this Bill, if it is adopted, parliament will commit itself to the proposal that it is wise that the Intecolonial railway should enter upon the policy of incorporating branch lines.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. member tell me what difference there is between the power the Minister of Railways and the government possess now and the power they will possess after this Bill passes?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend had listened to the argument of his hon. leader who sits beside him, he would not have found it necessary to ask me that question. The hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto both made it clear that this Bill does do a veTy important and serious thing, in that it declares that the policy of this country shall be to incorporate with the Intercolonial railway such branch lines as it may be advantageous to the country to incorporate with it, and the minister is authorized to go on and negotiate subject to the ratification of this House. It affirms an important principle that has never before been affirmed by parliament, and for that reason this is an important measure. The question of the acquisition of branch lines is one in which not only the people of the maritime provinces, but the people of the whole of Canada, are interested. 1 would like as a sequence to this proposition that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways would look into one or two other matters relating to the extension of the Intercolonial railway. The construction of a line of railway from Moncton to Pugwash, along the north shore of Nova Scotia, and the construction of a comparatively small addition from New Glasgow to Country Harbour in Guysboro would give the people of this country a line of railway exactly the same in length as that part of the Intercolonial now running from Moncton to Halifax, and would place the oceangoing trade 100 miles nearer to the other side it is at present by the line to Halifax.


Judson Burpee Black: And by a good port too.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is a matter beyond doubt. I have frequently pressed this proposal on the minister privately. It is to be hoped that


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: the people of Canada generally will appreciate the ambition of this little province down by the sea, that as we go on developing Canada it may more and more become the entry and the exit for the trade of this country. We look to measures such as the one before the House as hastening the time when our ideas and ambitions in that respect may be realized.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he can point to any Act on the statutes of this country that enacts a theory. I have always thought that parliament enacted something, and not merely a theory or a principle without anything being done.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend will find that this proposal is no mere theory, but a very practical piece of legislation which I hope will be for the good of Canada.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (East Hamilton).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) appears to think that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Geo. E. Foster) has been indulging in a little imagination. On the contrary, I think that what the hon. member for North Toronto said is very hard business, and it is just the kind of business that I would expect from him. Before I heard a word that he uttered, I had prepared and intended to introduce an amendment on the very point he raised, and I do not think I am much given to imagination. The hon. member for Pictou tells us that everything is made right by the preamble-that satisfies the general idea. But the point is that the preamble does not say how much of the preamble is to be looked to by the minister, how much by the board of management and how much by the chief engineer. When we come to clause 3, however we find how very little the board of management have to do. The minister will go to his board of management and will say: Do you think we ought to lease such a railway or such half dozen railways? And they will say:	Perhaps we ought to, the line
would be more or less valuable to the government railway; yes, we recommend that. Then the minister enters into negotiation and ascertains what the terms are likely to be; but there is not a word in that clause that requires him to obtain from the board of management their approval of the terms. It is very little use to ask, as protection to the people of this country, the approval of the board of management unless that approval covers the terms of the lease, and that is the very question raised by the hon. member for North Toronto. Now, I propose to ask the House to amend that clause to that effect. Then we shall have a recommendation that will be worth something to us. I might very easily re-36
commend the minister to take a lease of a piece of property; but when I saw the terms of the lease. I might advise him not to have anything to do with it on those terms. I hope the minister will not object to making that point clear. So far as I am concerned, if it is made perfectly clear, I approve his getting the recommendation from his board of management, which consists of practical railway men and experts in railway management. In committee I propose to move an amendment to that effect.


Mr. CONGDON.: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken with respect to the purport of this section 3. The recommendation of the Government Railways Managing Board must cover the whole terms of the lease, and it is only the report of the chief engineer that relates to the good and safe condition of the road. So that objection appears to me to be removed by the terms of section 3 of the Bill itself. I think it is a matter of common knowledge to this House that the Intercolonial needs some extension in order that it may become efficient and effective, and serve the country through which it runs. It is also a matter of common knowledge to this House that there are many branch roads connecting with the Intercolonial which it would be in the interest of that system to acquire. It appears to me, therefore that there is some soundness in the contention that this Bill does not give any additional power to the Minister of Railways, but is merely an intimation that this parliament supports him in the endeavour he contemplates making to add to the effectiveness of the service of the Intercolonial. Ample protection is thrown around the whole operation under this section, by providing at the end that any lease made under it is of no effect until ratified by the parliament of Canada.


George Perry Graham: I do not think it is necessary to add much to what has been said. I assure the House that this Bill was nob introduced, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) thinks, to placate a certain gentleman lest by his continual coming he might weary me. It is a sincere desire to make the best possible out of the government railway; that is the only desire I have, not to try to serve any friends, or disconcert any enemies. I want to make it clear to the House that my Bill is introduced with the object in view of taking parliament into the entire confidence of the _ government, and having a decision on this question before we enter upon negotiations; and then, after negotiations have been entered upon, to submit the details to parliament for ratification. We want everything to be done openly and above board, after the fullest investigation and scrutiny are made. I can assure my



1124
hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), who discussed this question from a practical point of view, that I certainly thought I had covered the point he has mentioned. The minister does not propose to enter upon negotiations to lease any line unless upon the recommendation of the board, which recommendation shall include the terms of the lease also. Certainly that is my intention, and if it is not clear we will make it clear in committee. I assure the House again that this Bill is for the sole purpose of rendering, if possible, the government railways more efficient. We take the step in the interest of the public and of the government line, and if it is found after investigation by practical men, that they are lines, the leasing of which would bring about this object, then we will proceed to negotiate for a lease.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Might I ask if any applications have been made to the government, or any negotiations have been entered into with any branch line company?


George Perry Graham: The only discussion I have had as to branch lines, hon. gentlemen have heard it all in the House. There has been no application for leasing any line from any company that has come to my knowledge.


John Graham Haggart: Allow me briefly to draw the distinction between the position of the government before this Bill is passed and their position after it is passed. The House and the minister must remember that by the passage of this Bill we affirm the principle that branch lines may be a necessity of government railways, and we empower the government to enter into arrangements for acquiring them. When we affirm the principle and give power to the government, it is the duty of the government to acquire them. Look at the different position you are in after the passage of this Bill from the position you are in before. Before, the option was left entirely with the government to enter into an arrangement of this kind or not; but after the passage of this Bill, if my reasoning is correct, it is compulsory upon the government to do so, you have1 no longer an option. If a branch line, or any railway that connects with the Intercolonial, is considered to be necessary for the Intercolonial, and will increase the earnings of the Intercolonial, we affirm the principle that under certain circumstances the government must acquire that branch line. My contention is that you are not merely passing an empowering Act, but you are laying down a principle which the government must enforce. Now I differ from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who thought perhaps it was best to come to parliament and get the power. He qualified that statement, however, by saying that the principle should be laid down before Mr. GRAHAM.
exercising the power, and that a principle could be laid, down in an Act _ of_ parliament which would guide the commission in making the inquiry, and the government in exercising the option. The better plan I think the government may act upon at the present time. If they think, in the interests of this road, that it is desirable to enter into an agreement with branch line companies to acquire their property, then let the government come to parliament and get the necessary power, after they have obr tained the opinion of the board of management that the road is likely to be useful to the Intercolonial, and the opinion of the chief engineer that the road is in a proper condition. Then parliament would authorize the government to go on and acquire the road.


Mr. NESBITT.: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart), who is much older and more experienced than myself in these matters. But.
I cannot see that if we adopt the principle of authorizing the Minister of Railways and his board of management to inquire whether it w'ould be well to acquire a branch line or lines, that we thereby force the government to do so. I do not believe there is anything in the whole Bill that would suggest such a thing. If the Bill is not clear enough on the question that the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) raised, let it be made clear, but I think it is perfectly clear. When I read the Bill I thought that was the intention of the Minister of Railways, but if that intention is not clear let it be made clear. Now as I am not of a suspicious turn of mind like my hon. friends of the opposition, who think that this Bill hides some sinister purpose, I must say that for my part I commend the Minister of Railways for coming to this House and asking us to lay down a principle before he proceeds with the investigation of any particular road with a view of taking it over. I understand it is the intention that the board shall investigate any particular road which in their judgment they think would be serviceable in increasing the earning power of the Intercolonial. If this board are not capable of doing that, they are not capable of managing the Intercolonial, they are not capable of doing what they are supposed to be doing now.
Therefore, as I think, personally, that thev are capable, and as I think the minister is wholly capable. I believe this House runs no risk in trusting to this board the further addition to their duties of examining into whether branch railways will be a benefit to this railway or not. The principle of branch railways has been adopted not only by the great roads of this country but by the great roads of the United States as well. Feeders are absolutely necessary in order to get re-

turns, and it is returns we want, after all, from the Intercolonial. I believe that when we have the statement of the Intercolonial before usi, it will show that we were justified in appointing this board of management. As I have stated before, that I believe we do not run any risk. The minister has to come back to this House with all the terms and particulars; he. has to get sanction for every piece of road he proposes to take over. It seems to me there is no reason for the suspicion which seems to exist in the minds of some hon. members, judging by the expressions we have heard this afternoon. We must trust to a very large extent to the management. The minister has to report to the governor in council and get their sanction and he has to get also the sanction of parliament. How can it be necessary to hedge him around more than with these precautions? Again I say that, for my part, I commend the minister for asking the authority of this House to the principle before taking action.


Mr. RHODES.: I quite agree with the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) that the passage of this Bill will mean the affirmation by this House of the principle of the acquirement of branch roads. Upon that ground alone I am prepared to support the measure now before the House. It was not my intention to speak on this subject, because it seemed to me obvious that the Bill ought to' pass. Privately-owned railways, whether in Canada or elsewhere, make their business successful in proportion as they acquire or build feeders for their lines, and, if the Intercolonial is to be run as a business proposition, to my mind It is obvious that it must acquire feeders along its route. So much from that standpoint; but there is another phase of the question which has not been discussed at all, and one to my mind that is of vital importance to the people of the constituency in which I live in common with many others in the maritime provinces and in' Quebec. That point is that where there is a multiplicity of small railwavs, a shipper of freight who lives on a branch line has to pay two, and sometimes three, freights. In my own county, for instance, to send freight' for a distance of only twelve miles in a certain direction three railways must be used. I sneak of freight shipped from River Hebert via Maecan to Springhill. The freight miyst be sent over the Maritime Coal, Railway and Power Company's line to Maccan, then over the Intercolonial to Springhill Junction, and then over the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company's line to Springhill. Consequently, to cover this distance of nineteen miles a shipper is called upon to pay a larger sum for freight 36}
than he would have to pay for perhaps 100 miles over a line of railway owned by a single company or by the government, as the case may be. Without discussing the question further, I wish to say that I am in hearty accord with the principle of the Bill, and if it comes to a vote it is my intention to vote for it.


Judson Burpee Black: I desire


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member has spoken.


Judson Burpee Black: Others have spoken twice


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I did not call attention to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) speaking in answer to a question.


Judson Burpee Black: But. the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) spoke twice, and he is not a minister of the Crown.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


Judson Burpee Black: Have I the right, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would warn the House that if the right to speak twice is given to one member, it can hardly be refused to another. The. rule is against, but it is for the House to say whether the rule is to be lived up to.


William Stevens Fielding: Only a question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I suppose a question might be allowed.


Judson Burpee Black: Before this vote is taken, I wish to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) if the refusal of his commission to examine and report on the Dominion Atlantic railway means that the minister does not consider that the Dominion Atlantic is a branch or connection of the Intercolonial and so is barred from the operation of this Bill? I feel very strongly on this subject, because we have been for years paying two freights on almost everything imported into that country. If we get a barrel of flour from Montreal, we pay two freights; if we get a parcel by express, two express charges must be paid. All our manufacturers who export have to pay double freight, and so have all the people who import goods into that country. I cannot help feeling waTmly on this question, because the interests of the -people I represent, the prosperity of the manufacturers and importers are vitally concerned. So far as the Act of the commissioners is concerned, I think they treated the country from Windsor to Annapolis not exactly very courteously. I would like to know in what position the Dominion Atlantic railway stands in regard to this scheme before I cast my vote.


George Perry Graham: That is a pretty long question; I am afraid it will take a long answer. As to the latter part of what the hon. member (Mr. Black) says, it rather proves what has been said before, that the Intercolonial so far as rates are concerned, is more beneficial to a community than an ordinary company road, else my hon. friend would not prefer that the Intercolonial should have the Dominion Atlantic. The second part of the hon. member's question is easily answered: There is nothing that would preclude the Dominion Atlantic from coming within the scope of this Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. W. F. Maclean^ has already spoken.


William Findlay Maclean: I have not spoken on the general subject; I only asked a question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is an infraction of the rules


William Findlay Maclean: I still say that I am within the rules, Mr. Speaker, as I only asked a question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule is that a member may not speak twice on the same motion.


William Findlay Maclean: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that asking a Question is not interpreted as making a speech. I shall not occupy the attention of the House for more than a moment. I am an absolute believer in the public ownership of railways in Canada. Therefore, I believe in this country owning and maintaining in the highest efficiency the Intercolonial. I would like to see it extended and improved on the line indicated by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). I take this measure to be a declaration in favour of the acquisition of local lines, and that it will mean an end to the talk and rumours and secret negotiations said to be under way concerning the handing over of the Intercolonial either to the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian Northern. And with this new departure in favour of public ownership, I believe there will come an absence


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member should confine himself to the question he wishes to ask.


William Findlay Maclean: I think, Mr. Speaker, I can set myself right in your eyes by explaining that I said I had asked a question only, but had not spoken on the subject. I think I am quite within your previous ruling, having only asked a question, in speaking on the question now. There is a declaration to-day in favour of the extension of the principle of govern-Mr. BLACK.
ment ownership of railways to the wide extent of taking in all or most of the local lines in the provinces where the Intercolonial railway now runs. But if they are to be taken in, they must be taken in on business terms and on reasonable values, end the roads so acquired and the Intercolonial railway itself must be administered from the point of view of business and efficiency and must be absolutely separated from politics. I believe if public ownership is attempted in this country on those lines it will succeed, and I hope that not only will the Intercolonial railway be widened and broadened in the maritime provinces, but that at an early date this state-owned road, which to-day is Canada's greatest asset, will be extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I want to see the state-owned road extended into Ontario, I want to see it at the Niagara river and the Detroit river, and most of all I wish to see it extended where there is abundance of traffic and where the competition of such a road would discipline the great private-owned roads, that is in the west. We were told a while ago that it was very much in the air that the Intercolonial railway was to pass into the hands of the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern. Instead of the disappearance of that road, I wish to see it extended, its administration made efficient, and its operations extended to the west. If there is room in this country for the extension of the Grand Trunk railway to the Canadian west, there should have been room and there is to-day room for the extension of the state-owned road to the Canadian west. My objection to the Transcontinental system is not so much that it was not required, it was required very much, but that I thought it should have been a part of the present state-owned road, the Intercolonial railway system. The government which is to-day taking the power to lease these roads could a short time ago have taken over the Parry Sound road which the Grand Trunk railway have now acquired. If they had acquired that road on reasonable terms, or on lease, the Intercolonial railway would to-day have been at the Georgian bay, which is now the source of the greatest amount of traffic for the roads going east. The Canadian Pacific railway are now double-tracking their system from the Georgian bay to Montreal and the ports of the St. Lawrence in order that they may handle the traffic of the west. In the same way, if the Intercolonial railway-had taken a lease of the Canada Atlantic, the policy which is now begun in the east where there is very little traffic, -would have produced such results that the Intercolonial railway, the state-owned road, would be in a much better position, would be able to pay all its expenses and even some interest on the cost of construction. So I agree

with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) that the principle is not a bad one, but that it ought to be lived up to in the best way. Speaking of state ownership and taking over leases, one way of bedevilling public ownership, and it has been practised a good deal in this country, is to apply the principle only where there is very little traffic or Business, and then you have public ownership condemned. Take the instance of the government telegraph systems. The only government owned telegraph systems in Canada are those supplying the coast where there is very little or no business, and as a consequence, if you want to cite a horrible example of public ownership, you say: Oh, look at the government telegraph system! The only way to apply government ownership is to apply it where there is business and traffic, and the only way in which the Intercolonial railway will become the success it ought to become is to extend it into the province of Ontario, extend it to the Niagara boundary, to the Detroit river, put it in touch with the Georgian bay and extend it through the great Canadian west. That is the way to work government ownership in this country, and that is the way I hope we will yet see it.


Mr. OSLER.: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the taking over of short branch lines connecting with the trunk line is, as a rule a very wise and proper policy. I understand from the Minister of Railways that in connection with the report which he proposed to get from his advisory board, the business aspect of these lines will be considered as well as their physical fitness. If they are taken over on a business basis, there is no doubt it should be a good thing for the branch lines, a good thing for the Intercolonial railway, and a good thing for the country. The danger is that very often branch lines are taken over as feeders and they turn out to be suckers. If that can be avoided I think the principle of the Bill is exceedingly good.


Mr. DANIEL.: It has been stated this afternoon that this Bill, if passed, will not confer on the government any more power than it has already. That of course may be the case but the Bill is important because it will be, if passed, the adoption by this House of the principle of the Intercolonial railway taking over the branch lines in the maritime provinces. We listened a couple of years ago to a very interesting discourse on this subject by the present member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson). He went into the matter very fully and I think gave very good reasons indeed why the branch lines in the maritime provinces should be taken over by the Intercolonial railway. I agreed with the remarks of that hon. gentleman when he made them in this House. I
thought his reasoning was sound and I am prepared to vote for this Bill which gives the Minister of Railways power to go into the taking over of these branch lines under certain favourable conditions. Why, Sir, in the rest of Canada, leaving out the maritime provinces, the uniform policy of the great through lines has been the taking over of branch lines, the building of branch lines, the grid-ironing of the country with their own lines and feeders, and in that way they have succeeded in becoming prosperous and in serving the country to a far greater extent than they otherwise would have done. There can be no doubt that the policy which has succeeded so well in the western part of Canada would succeed equally well in regard to the eastern provinces. I cannot see any reason why this Bill should not pass, especially as, by its adoption, parliament will approve of the principle of taking over these branch lines. I do not support it because the Intel colonial is owned and operated by the gcvernment. I quite agree with those who think that perhaps the Intercolonial railway might have been much better operated and governed under a private owner than it has been under the government. At the same time the Intercolonial railway remains there one of the guarantees of confederation; and I am quite sure that the people of the maritime provinces are determined to keep that line in the ownership of the people of this country. I do not believe that the large majority of the people of the maritime provinces will consent to its passing out of the hands of the people of this country. For these reasons I shall be pleased to vote for the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House went into committee on the Bill.
George Perry Graham: As intimated a few minutes ago there is no objection at all to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) to make clear our intention, except that there is a correction of one clerical error which I have made. I have inserted the word 'chief so as to make it read 'chief engineer.' I propose this amendment to section 3:
That clause 3 of the Bill be amended by inserting, in the 26th line thereof, after' the word ' Canada ' the words ' nor shall any such connecting railway be entered upon or operated on behalf of the government of Canada until the said managing board and the said chief engineer shall have approved the terms and conditions of such lease having regard to the beneficial results to the government railways and until the parliament of Canada has ratified such lease.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the clause would be better drafted if the words Tine or' were inserted between the words 'such' and Tines' in line 20. I therefore beg to move:


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Is the committee ready for the amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways and Canals?


George Eulas Foster: That meets the objection that I raised provided the meaning is clear. 'Having regard to the beneficial results to the government railways.' How broad is that? I had a thought like this- may be this carries it out-that the board of managers would write a full report showing that the line of railway in question, from its situation, condition and traffic resources, is one the acquisition of which, under the proposed terms of the lease, will result beneficially to the net revenue of the government railways.


George Perry Graham: This covers the point.


George Eulas Foster: If it covers it that is what I want. I want a reasoned report.


George Perry Graham: A report will be required giving reasons.


George Eulas Foster: And showing that good will result to the goverment road from a money point of view.
Amendment (Mr. Graham) agreed to.


Frederick Tennyson Congdon: That the words ' be binding upon the government of Canada ' in the 26tli line be struck out and instead thereof there be inserted the words ' have any force or effect.'
He said: I suggest this for the reason that the lease is made in the first instance by the Minister of Railways, and I do not see why the proviso should substitute for the minister the government of Canada. I submit that it would be better to use general words and say that no such lease shall have any force or effect until the parliament of Canada has ratified the same.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Oswald Smith Crocket: In view of the amendment which has been added to the Bill I think it would be safe in striking out the words:	If such lines are reported by the
chief engineer of the Department of Railways to be in a good and safe condition for operation. I can conceive of a railway not being in a good and safe condition for operation, but which it might be advantageous to the country to take over and put in good condition, and operate as part of the system. There are perhaps some lines of railway in New Brunswick of which it might be said that they are not in first-class condition for operation, but which might be taken over and operated very advantageously from the standpoint of the country and of the Intercolonial railway itself. The words added to the Bill: 'Having regard Mr. RHODES.
to the beneficial results to the government railway,' make it possible for us to safely strike out the words I have referred to, and leave the question entirely in the hands of the board and of the engineer. I take it that any proposition of the kind must now be submitted to parliament for approval and that the facts will be stated in regard to the condition of any railway which it may be thought desirable to take over, and therefore it would be just as well to authorize the government to negotiate for the taking over of any branch railway which might be thought advantageous to the government railway system.


William Pugsley: I suppose the province of New Brunswick is more interested in this question than any other province because it has a greater number of branches of the Intercolonial than Nova Scotia or Quebec. But while that is so there would be very serious objection to changing the Bill in the way proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket). It is one of the essential features of this Bill that parliament shall not adopt the principle of entering upon a large capital expenditure in connection with any of these branch railways. One great objection which would be raised in other portions of Canada would be that such a proposition as that set forth by the hon. gentleman might involve the country in a large capital expenditure. The Bill provides that the managing board can only make a recommendation for the leasing of a road when it is certified by the chief engineer that that road is in good and efficient condition for operation as part of the government railway system. That is a safeguard which it seems to me will commend itself to prudent men all over Canada whether they live within the sphere of the influence of the Intercolonial railway or not. It would be very unwise to change the Bill in this respect. If there is a railway which is not at present in good condition and which the board of management may think it desirable to acquire it would not be a very difficult thing for the owners of that road to make the necessary financial arrangements to put it in proper condition, on the assurance that it might then be leased to the government. Of course the rental to be paid by the government upon the recommendation of the board of management would be to some extent based upon the expenditure incurred by the company in bringing the road up to the required standard. If any special case should arise which the board could not deal with under this Act that case could be brought before parliament and considered by itself. It seems to me that in adopting this general principle we ought to be very careful that we do not authorize the Minister of Railways or the managing board to enter into negotiations with respect to any road which


would involve any large capital expenditure, or indeed any capital expenditure at all on the part of the government.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would agree with the Minister of Public Works if under the terms of this Bill parliament were not to be consulted before any such road was leased. But, when we provide that a Bill shall be submitted to parliament for the leasing of the road it does seem to me that no harm can be done if we authorized the Minister of Railways to negotiate so that even although a road may not at present be such as the engineering department would describe as in good and working condition, that road might advantageously be taken over by the government and put in good condition afterwards. My idea is that if it is intended to take over such a road it would be far better to have the government put it in good condition than to have the railway company do it simply for the purpose of leasing it to the government.


William Findlay Maclean: I agree with the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket). We have this afternoon adopted this principle largely on the ground that it is the invariable practice of all the big roads to take in the smaller lines and to improve the service and give better facilities to the people. If a road happens to be in bad condition and it would be advantageous for the country to take it, and the owners could not get the money to put it in proper condition, the improved service will not be given to the people and our idea will not be realized. If the principle is sound it ought to be applied to any road which when put in good condition by the government would serve the general public and would be advantageous to the government system of railways.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It seems to me that the principle upon which the government, on the advice of the Railway Board, is to take over any given branch line is the consideration whether that line would be a paying one for the government.


George Perry Graham: Not that alone.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If that be the principle then we need not object to capital expenditure on these lines if we can get a fair return for our money. I think there is much in the suggestion of my hon. friend from York.


George Perry Graham: I quite appreciate that hon. gentlemen opposite are now willing to go much further than I contemplated. But, if it is found that this Bill works out in the interests of the people and in the interests of the government railways it would be possible to meet their views later on. However, we must be very careful that the power which we take under this Bill shall meet with the approval of the people
of Canada. There is no use disguising the fact that there has been a good deal of criticism on both sides of the House on the large expenditure of capital on the Intercolonial. In submitting this Bill to parliament I wanted to guard against the criticism which would have at once been launched, that we were opening the door which perhaps might lead to an enormous addition to the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial. It is well to proceed gradually. If we find that the lines that we take over meet with acceptation we perhaps may come to parliament later and change the Act as is suggested. But for the present I want to tie up the Board of Railway Management so that they cannot recommend the acquisition of a line unless it is placed in such a condition that it would not require an immediate large outlay of capital. With that condition, the question of whether it would be profitable or beneficial would be largely problematical. Once started on the expenditure of capital for the improvement of a line, we do not know where that expenditure will end. We merely say to the company, we propose to lease your line if after full investigation we come to the conclusion that if it were put in proper condition it would at least support itself. There is no trouble about a company under such circumstances being able to finance such improvements as would put it into good condition. Thus we avoid opening the door to a large capital expenditure; but if such a door is opened it will not be closed if it turns out to be for the benefit of the country and of the government railway.


Mr. JAMESON.: While on the subject of the possible cost of improvement to these railways and the expenditure likely to be incurred by the government in acquiring them, I would like to ask the minister if he. has any plan as to the fixing of the basis of rental which would be paid for any roads that might be taken over; whether the amounts which have been paid, either by a provincial government or the Dominion government, in the way of subsidies to aid in the construction of any of these branch lines or connecting roads, will be taken into consideration by him when the rents are determined? I have in mind particularly the case of the Halifax and South Western railway, one of the connecting roads which may possibly receive some benefit under this Bill. The minister, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlebro), has very frankly stated that, so far as he is aware at the present time, no application has been made by any branch or connecting road to participate in the benefits of this Act. At the same time, from the information which I have been able to obtain from time to time regarding the oper-

ation of the Halifax and South Western railway, and the results of its operations so far as revenue is concerned, I am very much inclined to think that it is not altogether unlikely that in the comparatively near future that railway will be one of those brought under this Act. According to Poor's Manual of Railways, 1908, the government of the Dominion of Canada paid toward the construction of that road, including the Middleton and Victoria Beach branches, the sum of $1,147,069, and the province of Nova Scotia contributed $2,213,173 in subsidy and by way of loan. It has been stated to me, though I am not prepared to say that the information is correct, that the company is not at the present time earning the operating expenses and fixed charges of the road. If that be the case, it is not unlikely that when the door is opened, this company will ask, or possibly the government of Nova Scotia, being the mortgagor, may ask, that the government of Canada enter into arrangements for the leasing of that line. Under these circumstances, I think it might very properly be asked of the minister that he should state to the committee whether he has arrived at any conclusion as to the basis upon which these rentals would be fixed, and as to whether he is in a position to say that the amount of such subsidies which have been paid would be taken into consideration and would in any way lessen the amount of rental which would ordinarily be paid in cases where large subsidies and loans had not obtained.


George Perry Graham: I have not thought much along that line, but my idea was riveted to this point, outlined in the Bill and the amendment, that the chief thing to be kept in mind is, can we lease this line so that it will be a benefit to the government railway and to the country. The details will all lead to that point. If what my hon. friend says be true, that the Halifax and South Western railway is losing money all the time in its operation, perhaps it would not be up to the standard which the board would require in any line proposed to be taken over. As a matter of fact, I think the Nova Scotia government has a mortgage on the Halifax and South Western railway, and if anything were done with regard to that line-I have no intimation that anything of the kind would be done-it would probably be that the Nova Scotia government would proceed against the railway or would become the interested party. I can assure my hon. friend that his statement is the first intimation that I have had that the Halifax and South Western Railway Company had any idea of leasing their line to the government. But all the questions brought up by my hon. friend will be considered from this point of view: will this road benefit the Mr. JAMESON.
Intercolonial railway and assist the people in the transportation of their products?


William Findlay Maclean: And will the terms be reasonable?


George Perry Graham: Of course.
On the question, that the Bill be reported :


David Henderson: After this lengthened discussion, I feel that I have a very slight knowledge of this Bill, and I think other members are in the same position. I think it a pity that a Bill of such far-reaching importance as this, and cut and slashed in the manner in which this has been, should be dealt with without having some expert draftsmen go over it and make all these clauses fit one into the other. I think the minister would be well advised if he would ask the committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and in the meantime have this Bill submitted to the law officers of his department to see if its various clauses are well fitted together.


George Perry Graham: This Bill was drawn by the legal adviser of my department and was submitted to the law clerk of the House of Commons, and the amendment is that of the hon. member for Hamilton, who is himself a good lawyer and draftsman.


David Henderson: If the hon. minister had allowed the amendment of the hon. member for Hamilton to remain as he suggested it, I would have much more faith in it.


George Perry Graham: I did exactly.


David Henderson: Was there not an amendment to the amendment? At any rate, the Bill has been amended and reamended so much that I think it should receive the mature consideration of some expert draftsman to see that the different parts properly fit into each other and in such a manner that the Bill will be workable.
Bill reported as amended, and amendments read the first and second time and agreed to.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS PENSION FUND.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved the second reading of Bill (No. 19) to amend the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act. He said: As hon. gentlemen know, the Provident Fund Act is an Act under which the employees of the government railways contribute a certain amount, the government duplicates the amount, and on retirement of the employees they get a certain allowance. It is along the lines adopted by

the other great railways of Canada and the United States, and this amendment is designed to make the terms of the Provident Fund Act a trifle more liberal to employees. I will tell the House franklv my object in introducing this Bill. Owing to the large reduction in the staff of the government railwavs, quite a number of the older employees have been for the time being dropped from the service; I would not like to use the term 'dismissed,' because if opportunity offers these will be the first men to be re-employed.
Mr. HUGHES.: What does the minister mean by employees? Does he mean merely workmen, or does that include railway officers?


George Perry Graham: It includes some of the railway officers, but some of them are under the old Superannuation Act. The term 'employees' includes the workmen, who are bv far the larger number. Not a few of the older men who have been working on the government railways for many years were dropped. The hardship to them came from the fact that some of them, perhaps from 75 to 100 in number, speaking roughly, were within a few years of the time at which they could have had some benefit from the provident fund, but dropping them at this time Drecluded them from receiving that benefit. The case was represented to me, not pushed at all; but a few months ago a gentleman pointed out that this was a hardship to some of the old employees, and after thinking the matter over I came to the conclusion that, looking at it from the human side, it was a hardship. Men who had worked for a number of years for the government, and contributed to the provident fund a certain amount, and were then dropped out, although in a few years they would have become entitled to the benefit of the fund, that seemed to be a hardship.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister define what he means by 'a few' years.


George Perry Graham: Under the present statute, the number of years an employee has to work before he is entitled to be placed unon the provident fund is 15; my Bill proposes to reduce that time to 10 years, and to apply it to those who were in the employ of the government up to March 31 last. My sole object is to meet the situation that has arisen by dropping a lot of these men, and depriving them of the benefit they would have had if they had remained a little longer; in other words, those who were dropped since March 31 last, and have been in the employ of the government for 10 years, can be placed under the provident fund.


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister say whether there are not some men who, on March 31, were within a month or a few days of being entitled to the fund?


George Perry Graham: The reason we take that arbitrary position is that before that time there were very few men who were dropped except for cause, dismissed absolutely. But here are men who were dropped because the board of management thought the staff was too large, they were not dropped because of any fault of their own.


Samuel Hughes: Are those men now in the service that have been retired?


George Perry Graham: The men have been dropped. Advisedly I did not use the word 'dismissed,' because it is the intention of the board, if at anv time the services of these men are again required, to re-engage them.


Samuel Barker: This Act will apply to a few men who may hereafter be retired.


George Perry Graham: This will apply to a few. It reduces the time, and makes that reduction to all men who were retired since March 31 last.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would ask the minister to consider a proposition to extend the advantages of that section to men who have been permanently disabled while in the employ of the government but who had not yet served long enough to obtain the advantages of the retirement fund, having served perhans a couple of years short of the 15. I think there ought to be some reasonable limitations to cover that class of men.


Samuel Hughes: The minister says in the second section of the Bill that this amendment should not apply to any person retired prior to the 1st day of April, 1909. What about the persons who were retired between the 1st day of April and the coming into force of this Act?


George Perry Graham: I think these will be included.


Samuel Hughes: It does not state that it should apply to persons retired between those dates.


George Perry Graham: We must read into it the consequence that it does apply to any person retired since the 1st day of April of this year. All but those who are executed will be included.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Haughton Lennox: Are the men referred to bv the minister a few minutes ago those who were under investigation recently by Judge Barron, Mr. O'Donaghue and

another? I understand there was an investigation quite recently into the cause of the dismissal of 350 men from the Intercolonial road. Are these the men referred to?


George Perry Graham: That takes a little explanation. It does not apply to any particular class, but to all employees that come within the scope of the Act. In the case of certain employees, a conciliation board was asked for by the men themselves. A conciliation board was asked for by the men of Halifax, and that conciliation board was formed with Sir George Garneau as chairman. That board made a report a few days ago. This other board, to which the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) refers, was asked for by the men at Moncton who have their own brotherhoods. This board will make a report on the grievances complained of. It may be of interest to hon. members to know that, from the despatch I have just seen in the Toronto papers, the board suggested that this measure should be passed, as it will assist in meeting some of the difficulties that in the *opinion of the board, seem to exist.


Haughton Lennox: That is what I was referring to. These gentlemen recommend that some legislation should be passed that would enable the minister to deal with companies of this kind; and I presume that some of these men dealt with in that report would be covered by this legislation.


George Perry Graham: Yes, they would.


Samuel Hughes: What was the necessity of appointing this commission consisting of Judge Barron, Mr. O'Donoghue and another? Why did the minister feel called upon to appoint them?


George Perry Graham: The minister did not feel called upon to appoint them and did not do so.


Samuel Hughes: Who made the appointment?


George Perry Graham: They were a board of conciliation appointed under the Act, asked for by the men themselves.


Samuel Hughes: Who appointed them?


George Perry Graham: A board of conciliation, under the Act, is constituted in this manner: When the workmen of the Intercolonial, or any other railway, let us say, think they have a grievance against the management, they ask the Department of Labour to appoint a board of conciliation.


Samuel Hughes: Then, they were appointed by the government?


George Perry Graham: The men select one member, the management selects another, and if these two do not agree on the third, the appointment of the third is made by the Department of Labour.


Haughton Lennox: 


Samuel Hughes: Whom did the Department of Labour appoint in this case to this commission?


George Perry Graham: It is not a commission, but a board of conciliation. And there were two such boards that have been spoken of here; to which does the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) refer?


Samuel Hughes: The one of which Judge Barron and Mr. O'Donoghue were members.


George Perry Graham: The Department of Labour appointed Judge Barron.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I desire to express my entire disapproval of the minister appointing a board in the manner he has done. No provision is made for the appointment of such a board as sat for the consideration of these matters. The Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to the Crown, in the absence of any specific provision making it so applicable. It seems to me that for the Crown to resort to the provisions of an Act of that kind to settle disputes with its servants is a very unfortunate principle, one that ought not to be acted upon in the Railway Department or any other. Until we have a declaration on the statute-book and some method by which the Act is to be applied, it seems to me that no department of the government should be made a party to such a proceeding.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Do I understand the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald) to say that the Minister of Labour had no right to make the appointment?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) is a member of the legal profession and will appreciate what I said. I ventured the opinion that the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply to any department of the government. That is my position as a lawyer. The hon. member can draw his own conclusions.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did this appointment purport to be made under the Industrial Disputes Act?


Robert Laird Borden: I think we ought to have that point understood. It is a very important one. We should have some explanation.


George Perry Graham: I suppose this raises the whole question of the Crown's prerogative.


George Eulas Foster: It raises the question of King's prerogative.


George Perry Graham: It is a very large question, and I do not intend to discuss it. I may be all wrong, but I think that when the Crown goes into running a railway it might conform to all the conditions that govern other people in the same line of business. The employees on the government railway have the same brotherhoods,

the same rules and regulations as the employees of any other road. They would consider it rather arbitrary, if, having provided machinery by which the employees of company roads can ask for boards to settle a grievance, the very authority that created the machinery should refuse the use of that machinery to correct grievances on the government line. Speaking broadly, I suppose, the Crown is not subject to any of these laws. But I am told that when the Industrial Disputes Act was up for discussion in this House, it was generally understood that the employees of the Intercolonial railway should have the same privileges under the Act as the employees of any other railway. As to the legal "part of it, I will leave that out of the question, because the road, during the whole of my time, and, I believe, ever since the introduction of the Industrial Disputes Act, has allowed the employees to apply for a board of conciliation and it has been granted.


Robert Laird Borden: But the minister has not touched the point raised by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald). If it is the policy that boards of conciliation be created in respect of employees of the Intercolonial, the only means by which that can properly be done is by a statute. That is perfectly plain and straightforward. But when you undertake to apply to the employees of the Intercolonial a statute which is not legally applicable, though, of course, the Minister of Railways has not any regard for the legal side of the question -it seems to me a curious


George Perry Graham: I did not say that.


Robert Laird Borden: It seemed to amount t<? that. Of course, there is a great deal of force in what the minister says, that if the Crown carries on business it ought to carry it on under the usual methods. But it is absolutely true, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) has said, that no statute is binding on the Crown unless the Crown is expressly made, subject to the provisions of that statute, and no consensus of opinion of the House of Commons, no expression of that kind in the progress of debate, has any more effect on that statute than the deliberations of any debating society. The difficulty of the situation is that when you are proceeding under a statute which has no application whatever, the whole matter is without any legal foundation, the persons appointed are not properly appointed, they have no right to subpoena witnesses, the witnesses have no right to be paid and any witness can insult the commissioners, disregard their authority, treat them with contempt and nothing -can be done about it. The result would be to bring the whole operation into public contempt of the community upon occasion. That is if my hon. friend from
Pictou is correct in the statement that there is nothing in the statute which makes it binding upon the Crown, and my recollection is the same as his.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is some misapprehension, I believe, in the impression derived from the position taken by my hon. friend from Pictou. The Conciliation Act, as I understand it, does not apply to the Intercolonial railway men. The consequence is that the railway employees can refuse to be bound by that Act, they could so on strike with impunity. But in this matter the railway authorities thought it advisable voluntarily to apply to themselves the provisions of the Conciliation Act. They had certain disputes with the management, and it was thought advisable, very properly, to have a conciliation board, to bring themselves under the Act. It was not perhaps legal, but it was voluntary and was acted upon in a voluntary manner. They agreed to have a conciliation, they selected their own arbitrator, the management selected another and these two called upon the Minister of Labour to select a third. All this was done in a voluntary manner. I do not think it was done under the law, but it was done by consent, and the result was the same, a satisfactory conclusion of the dispute between the railway men and the board of management. If the men had refused to be bound by that Act, no authority would have been able to force them to act on it, but of their own motion they chose to come under the provisions of the statute.


Robert Laird Borden: Then it is just the same as if some other body of men to whom the Act does not apply had done the same thing? The difficulty is that whenever anyone chooses to treat the court as having no legal position and. for instance, refuses to obey a subpoena or to acknowledge the authority of the court, all the proceedings fall into contempt. Therefore, I say if the Intercolonial railway employees are to have the benefit of this Act, their rights should be given to them by a statute of this country, they should not be dealt with in this way. If it is worth while putting such a provision on the statute-book, and if it is desirable to give it a more extended application, the way to do so is by passing a proper amending Act.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think you will look in vain for any proceeding where the Crown has abrogated the right to deal with its own servants in whatever way it deems best, and the responsibility of the Crown on the advice of the different ministers to take a certain course in regard to its servants is a matter in regard to which it is responsible to parliament, and the minister's responsibility in such a case cannot be abrogated by saying that a conciliation

board has come to a certain conclusion and therefore the government is rid of the responsibility. Personally, I do not think that in the case of the Intercolonial railway it is wise that the provisions of this Act should apply. These men are servants of the Crown. I know of no case in which they have threatened to strike, or have struck, and I cannot conceive of a case in which they would strike. I think the minister is the proper person to remedy the grievances that exist and to deal with them, and he is responsible to parliament for his course in regard to them. I mention this matter because I not only think there was no legal authority for the appointment of the board, but I think that as a matter of policy the board should not have been appointed.


Samuel Hughes: Why not change the reading of clause (f) to make it apply to those who were in the service on the 1st day of April, 1909?


George Perry Graham: The law clerk of the House advises me that that clause refers to the original Act and this amendment is passed as if it were part of the original Act. Therefore, the form used is necessary.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that this fund is provided, one half by the government and one half by the monthly contributions of the employees of the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway. The fund is to be administered by a board consisting of five persons, of whom one is the general manager of the Intercolonial railway, who shall be the chairman and preside at meetings of the board; two members appointed by the minister from among the chief officers of the railway, one of whom shall always act as chairman in the absence of the general manager and the remaining two shall be elected annually by the employees contributing to the fund. I would like to know whether the proposed amendment has been submitted to the board or the representatives of the employees who contribute half the amount of the fund and, if not, whether the minister does not think it would be fair to give them an opportunity of being heard.


George Perry Graham: I have received a communication, not in reference to this, but in reference to some other things that the employees want to place before me. There is no doubt in the world about them being in harmony with this Bill, I think, but they are going to submit some other matters to me early in January. I thought that if we put this Bill through the committee stage I would let it stand for the third reading, Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
and then, if there is anything that they desire by way of amendment, it can be dealt with before the Bill receives its third reading. There is a committee representing the men who were on the provident fund, or those who were interested, and I will ask them to present to me in writing the matters which they desire to bring to my attention so that I can submit their proposals to the board before we assemble again after recess. I expect that will be done.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I am quite prepared to accept the assurance of the minister that they are entirely in harmony with the proposals, but at the same time I do not see how they can be in harmony with them if they da not know anything about them; nor do I see how the minister can be sure that they are in harmony with them if he has not heard anything from them. That, however, is a matter for himself and the committee will be bound to accept his assurance. I am under the impression that the minister added to the rules of the fund a note to "the following effect:
No absolute right of retirement exists under this Act. It must he clearly understood that the fund is a provident fund for the purpose of caring for disabled, worn out and old employees and not a retiring fund for the purpose of allowing men to secure other employment and at the same time draw an allowance.
I understood that that was the memorandum of the minister and I am not sure that it met the approval of the board. The minister will know about that. Does the minister consider that the proposal contained in clause (f) is quite in harmony with this note, for which he, I understand, is responsible.


George Perry Graham: I am not responsible for that note, but the object of that was to prevent applications being made by men for retirement who really left the employment of the road to better themselves. We have had men who left their employment whom the board did not consider as being entitled to be put on the provident fund at all. No man may. demand to go on the provident fund. He may make his application and that application is referred to the board, which is composed of the representatives of the men as well as of the government, each furnishing a portion of the money for the purpose. That board, after taking into consideration all the circumstances, pass upon the application before it comes to the minister. Then, it comes to the minister for his approval, and I think that no injustice can be done to any person. Some circumstances have arisen in which men have.no right to the benefits of the retirement, fund, because they took other employment and simply

wished to better their positions. They endeavoured to get their retirement allowance and to better their position at the same time.


Robert Laird Borden: It will still be necessary to secure the recommendation of the board in order to be placed on the fund?


George Perry Graham: Yes, absolutely.


Robert Laird Borden: That provision is not interfered with in any way?


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think the minister has mentioned how many people will probably come within the scope of this Act.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: About how many?


George Perry Graham: The chairman of the board told me that he thought between 75 and 100. It is a little difficult to say because we have not the ages of the 'men, but from the information he received he thought the number would not be more than 100.


Mr. CROSBY.: Some reference has been made to the conciliation boards. We have had two conciliation boards. The last conciliation board which was referred to this afternoon was a board called together for the purpose of ascertaining the rights of some men who had been dismissed from the Intercolonial railway within the last year. I think that is what they were called together for.


George Perry Graham: That was one of the questions before the board.	.


Adam Brown Crosby: Has it anything to do with this Bill?


George Perry Graham: No.


Adam Brown Crosby: Because if it has I would like to bring up some other matters in connection with it.


Haughton Lennox: The minister said that it had to do with it, that a number of the men who had been dismissed and whose case was investigated would, with others, come within the scope of this Bill.


George Perry Graham: The board itself would not have anything to do with this Bill. Any person whose services were dispensed with w'ould come under this arrangement, whether they were in that class or some other class. They would be affected by this Bill, but the conciliation board itself would have nothing to do with it.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then, if I understand it, the Bill is intended only to apply to employees from April, 1909? It does not go any further back than that? These men
who have had this conciliation board dealing with their affairs certainly were dismissed. They were all out of employment before that time and consequently this Bill would not cover them.


George Perry Graham: One of the things for which the employees asked for the conciliation board was to ascertain if the management of the road had not violated some agreement with them in dispensing with the services of several of them since April 1 last, because that is when the board took charge. This Bill deals with the employees who were dismissed since April 1, 1909, and any man of them who had then served ten years would be entitled to superannuation if the board recommends it. Without this amendment he could not be superannuated unless he had served fifteen years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there any restriction as to the age of the employees who will be entitled to the advantages of this section?


George Perry Graham: It only applies to men who are seventy years of age and have been ten years in the service, we substitute ten years for fifteen.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, but are you not making provision for another class of people who no matter what their age, were removed since April the 1st, 1899. Under the wording of this would they be entitled to superannuation ?


George Perry Graham: They have to fulfil all the other conditions.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, but there are different classes mentioned and in all these classes an age limit is specified and now you are adding an additional section in which there is no age limit.


Robert Laird Borden: I should think that the point mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. .Macdonald) is well taken. I am not discussing the question of policy but simply the construction of the statute, and if the clause is passed as it now reads there would be no age limit stipulated.


George Perry Graham: I think the point is well taken. Under the old Act m6n who withdrew from the service for any reason would not participate in the provident fund until they had reached 60 years, and I do not think we would be doing any injustice if we put the age limit here at 55 years, then they would have the benefit of five years in the two rvays.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the object of restricting this Act to those who are retired since April the 1st 1909?


George Perry Graham: Before that date there were practically few compulsory retirements except for cause, and a man who was dis-

missed for cause would not have any claim on the provident fund. But since April the 1st the board has dispensed with a large number of men whose only fault was that they were not required in the service. By this legislation I am trying to meet the well .founded complaint that they were harshly dealt with.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the minister say that men were not dismissed before April, 1909?


George Perry Graham: I would not say that, but as a rule the men retired before that time were retired for some cause.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Political or otherwise.


George Perry Graham: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many men have dropped from the service since April the 1st last?


George Perry Graham: I gave the number in ' Hansard ' the other day; I think about 500.


Adam Brown Crosby: I understand that there were quite a number of men dismissed and particularly in Halifax, between the 1st of December, 1908, and April, 1909, and some of these were men who had served 25 years but who not having reached the age limit of 60 years were not provided for out of the provident fund. They were dismissed simply because their services were not required.


George Perry Graham: I have not had any cases of that kind brought to my notice.


Adam Brown Crosby: If there are cases of that kind would it not be very unjust to provide for those whose services were dispensed with since April, while you make no provision for those who were dropped between December and April.


George Perry Graham: If there are such cases I imagine that the committee which is to wait on me will probably present them. We will not press the Bill to the third reading until we hear from that delegation.


Adam Brown Crosby: I should think that would be satisfactory. One class of employees should be provided for as well as the other.


Robert Laird Borden: We are to understand then definitely that the Bill will not be read a third time until this delegation makes its views known to the minister.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Would it not be better to leave the Bill in committee?


George Perry Graham: We can refer it back to committee if there is any difficulty.


Haughton Lennox: It is much better to leave it in committee. There is a great deal in what has been said by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby). Here we Mr. GRAHAM.
have men who have not been in the service for more than 10 years who are being dismissed, which is proof of what we have contended often from this side of the House that we have had a small army of men on that railroad who were not required at all. If it is fair and equitable-and I am not going to object to it, because I have a good deal of sympathy with the men-to make compensation to those men who have been in the service only 10 years, many of whom admittedly should not have been in the service at all, would it not be far more equitable to make provision for men who have been probably 25 years in the service, and yet have not reached the age of 60 years? I think it is pretty harsh that a man who is 59 years of age and has been say 25 years in the service, is to get no consideration at all. When we are reconsidering the Act, let us reconsider fully, and do justice all round. The question arises from the fact that we have had a large number of people employed on the railway who should never have been employed there at all. This is no fault of these men, though a great deal of fault to the government, and I am disposed to treat these men generously, or at all events justly. We shall not be doing even-handed justice if we do not consider the cases of the men who have almost reached the age limit. I do not think the minister should object to leave the Bill in the committee for fuller investigation.


Samuel Barker: Let us understand clearly what we are talking about. In the first section the wording of the Bill is: 'Those who are in the service at the time of the coming into force of this Act'. As I understand the minister, those words do not mean at the time of the coming into force of this Bill as an Act, but they mean those who were in the service on the 22nd of March, 1907.


George Perry Graham: That is correct.


Samuel Barker: I think perhaps the minister w'ould have avoided some confusion if, instead of saying 'at the time of the coming into force of this Act', he had said, on the 22nd of March, 1907, which is the date he is referring to.


George Perry Graham: I had not the Bill drafted in this way originally, but on being referred to the law clerk of the House of Commons, he redrafted it in this form in order to keep it within the four corners of the original Act.


Samuel Barker: There was no objection to the words 'the 22nd of March, 1907', in the original Act, and if they were put into this Bill there would be no confusion.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the first section is perfectly clear as it is. It. is incorporated in the original Act and is to be construed as if it had been there when the

Act was originally passed. Therefore the date is when the Act was originally passed.


George Perry Graham: The Act referred to is the original Act, and this section becomes part of that Act. I wish to move to add the following words at the end of the section 'and had at the time of such retirement reached the age of 55 years'.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Perhaps the minister will explain a little more fully why he is adding those words. He mentions a specific age, which might 'cause a good deal of injustice.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will see that had the old Act remained, only those persons who had reached the age of 60 years could be retired. We are reducing the length of time they have to be in the service by five years, and we are also reducing * the age limit by five years.


John Waterhouse Daniel: At the same time, this Act is intended to apply to only a few men- those who are relieved of duty after the first of April, 1909. That appears to me to be an extremely arbitrary arrangement. 1 think section 2 had better be allowed to stand until this whole matter can be considered again. I do not think the committee has sufficient information to be able to deal with this matter in a proper and judicial way.


Haughton Lennox: This affords an additional reason why this Bill should remain in committee. I understand that a deputation of parties who are interested is going to wait on the minister. I understand from a newspaper report to-day that there has been forwarded to the Minister of Labour a report and recommendation from the recent conciliation board with reference to 350 men. We shall have this deputation waiting on tire minister, and yet not have afforded, up to this moment, any of the men interested any notice whatever that we propose to put a time limit on this provision. The Act has been announced in the press, the men interested know something of it, they understand it to be an Act providing that any man who has been ten years in the service will be entitled to recovery. Now we propose to make an age limit of 55 years. The minister may be right in that or wrong, but the men interested have had no opportunity to present their case. Why amend these sections now when in all probability we ishall have to refer the Bill back to the committee for reconsideration in a few days? Will it not be more sensible to leave the Act unamended, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and leave the Bill in committee?


George Perry Graham: It is not worth while arguing about it. What I want is to get the measure advanced a stage, and the interests concerned will be protected just the same as under my hon. friend's suggestion.


Haughton Lennox: Except if we determine on 55 years, whether right or wrong, it will be more difficult to alter it afterwards.


George Perry Graham: It will not make a whit of difference. I do not want to urge the Bill through, but merely as a matter of expedition to get it off the Order Paper, after giving the assurance that I would have it referred back to the committee if necessary. When my hon. friend starts to make out. a case, he must see that no matter what limit we may fix, it would be open to question. There must be a line-drawn somewhere. The Act is arbitrary, and I am just changing the terms a little to meet the condition of the people referred to and who may have some reason for complaining. When the Act was passed, the argument of my hon. friend could have been used just as well as to-day. Section (a) provides:
Those who have attained the age of 70 years after being 15 years in the service.
Why, according to the hon. gentleman's argument, exclude those who were in the service fourteen years and six months? Why exclude people who were fourteen years in office and let in those who were fifteen? You have to draw the line somewhere and make an arbitrary ruling, and any Act to help a certain class of men will give reason for others to complain because they are not included. Take another class, class (b) which covers those, who, after being fifteen years in the service, become physically or mentally incapacitated. But here is a poor man who was fourteen years in the service when he became incapable. Why do injustice to him by excluding him? Take the other class:
Those who have attained the age of 60 years after being 15 years in the service, and request to be retired from the service.
Why not include those who served 13 or 14 years? While there may be something in the contention of my hon. friend, draw the line where you like, it must be arbitrary, and some will come just short of meeting the conditions you impose, no matter how lenient.


Samuel Barker: We may as well be quite frank in discussing these things. There is an impression, rightly or wrongly, among some people, that men have been dismissed otherwise than for lawful cause, and that possibly some of these clauses may affect the rights of such men. There would not be any difficulty about the first part of section (1). The difficulty seems to be about section (2); and I propose to discuss section (2) with relation only to these 55-year men, leaving the other to be discussed separately. Why not make paragraph (2) read:
The paragraph added to section 12 of the said Act by section 1 of this Act shall not ap-

ply to anybody retired prior to the 1st April, 1909, otherwise than for lawful cause.
This cannot affect the hon. gentleman, as he knows he has not dismissed anybody except for lawful cause.


George Perry Graham: I am not trying to open the door for a great many years back, but to meet the complaint which has arisen among a large number of the men who have been dismissed by the board. There was no complaint along that line, so far as I have heard, previous to the establishment of the Railway Managing Board. Rightly or wrongly, they have dispensed with the services of many men, and both sides of politics have complained to me that they thought the action of the board was perhaps not wrong in dispensing with the services of these men, but there was quite a number whose services were dispensed with through no fault of their own. This is to meet the conditions which have arisen since the board took charge and dispensed with the services of a large number of men.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I believe this measure is particularly intended to relieve 75 or 100 people who have complied with the conditions of ten-year service. But what will happen the other 350 who have given good service during 4 to 9 years and have been put out in the cold without an hour's notice?


George Perry Graham: The Provident Funds Act was passed to relieve those who had attained a certain age and men could not be employed, since that Act came into force, over 35 years of age. In the case of men who were employed fairly young and had not served the railway ten years, of course their claim on that fund is not so strong as that of those who have attained a certain age. No one regrets more than I that men should lose their positions. That part of the management of the road has worried my mind more than any other, but in all great industrial enterprises that occurs, and fewer have lost positions on the Intercolonial railway than on any other railway during the last five years.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) suggests that there is less reason for pensioning a man who has been improperly employed for ten years and who has been a charge upon the public funds than one so employed for lesser number of years. There is logic in that, as -the minister must see. The whole thing comes back to this-that the difficulty arises through the fact that the government would not take any action until this Railway Managing Board was appointed. The Managing Board now has discharged men who ought never to have been employed. The fact that these men have been employed ten years rather than five is not a Mr. BARKER.
very logical reason why they should get a pension rather than the five-year men. At the same time, no doubt, it would be a hardship on the men, and I suppose we should have to let it go in the end. It arises from having too many men on the railway.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Is section I amended as agreed to?


Haughton Lennox: No, the minister said he would allow it to stand.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) does not wish to carry out the arrangement made between his leader and myself. I am quite willing that it should remain in committee.


Haughton Lennox: I did not understand that any arrangement was made.


George Perry Graham: The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) was satisfied that I should leave it until the third reading.


Haughton Lennox: I would not have made objection had I understood that. But I hold to what I said.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Is the committee ready for the amendment to section 1 ?


Haughton Lennox: No.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Carried.


George Perry Graham: I would like to get the Bill into shape so that it can be reprinted, for I propose to send a copy to this committee for their consideration as well as to ask them to send me their suggestions.


Samuel Barker: And the whole Bill will be open for consideration?


George Perry Graham: And leave it to the third reading.


Haughton Lennox: We have settled this matter. If we are going to argue further, let us argue it all. If the minister is not prepared to do what he suggested a few minutes ago, there are many things we can discuss) I understood that the minister was ready to move that the committee report progress.


George Perry Graham: As far as I am concerned, it does not make any difference to me. I submitted the matter to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the gentlemen from the section particularly affected who will probably be waited on by those concerned. If I can get this through to the third reading, I will have it reprinted and a copy sent to the committee. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) does not want it that way, I am not particular.


Haughton Lennox: That can be done without it going through Committee of the Whole.


George Perry Graham: It will not be printed unless it passes the committee.


Robert Laird Borden: If the minister says he will, on request, send it back to the Committee of the Whole, I think that covers the point.


Haughton Lennox: If my .leader says that he is satisfied with the. proposal, I will certainly submit. At the same time, I do not feel that that is the best way, and I will give my reason:	There are a good many
things in connection with this Bill that we shall want to discuss more at length, and it is advisable that we should have the fullest information before we discuss them. It is not advisable that we should discuss them piecemeal and from time to time. If this Bill remains in committee we should have an opportunity to bring them forward. I submit to the judgment of my leader that it would be better to leave the Bill in committee.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I do not wish to force my views on any hon. member. But I understand the minister to say that he-desires to get the Bill out of committee that he may have it printed. And he undertakes, on the request of any hon. member, to send it back to the committee after it is reprinted.


George Perry Graham: Certainly-no trouble.


Robert Laird Borden: So, we have only to make the request and we should be where we are now.


Haughton Lennox: As I plainly see that my leader thinks that the proper course, I certainly take his suggestion, and allow the matter to go.
On section 2:
The paragraph added to section 12 of the said Act by section 1 of this Act shall not apply to any person retired prior to the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nine.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What objection would there be to striking out this section altogether and allowing this measure to apply from the passage of the Bill of 1907?


George Perry Graham: That would open up the whole Act very much more than is intended. It would be popular, I have no doubt, but I have no idea what it would cost the country or how much it would cost the men. On the basis of the present section, we have a pretty good idea of how many men would come under it. That matter will be discussed with the representatives of the men when they come.	[DOT]


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. minister stated that there had been no dismissals except for cause. So, I thought there could be no objection to striking out this section. I ask it for the sake of those cases, if there 37
are any, that the minister does not call to mind and to whom injustice may have been done and who would be cut out by this paragraph.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE.: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) as head of the department knows the position of the employees prior to April, 19u7. If there have been no dismissals prior to that, the elimination of this section will not enlarge the scope of the Act or increase the expenditure necessary to carry it into effect. The hon. minister knows who has been dismissed, and whether dismissed for cause or not. I think the point taken by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) is well taken.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. member (Mr. Samuel Sharpe) had the responsibility of carrying out such an Act and realized the scope of it he would not, I am inclined to think, make the remarks he has made. The men were under certain conditions up to the introduction of this amendment, that is up to April 1, 1909. A new system of management was introduced. The hon. gentleman must remember that there are, if I recall the number correctly, some 8,000 employees on the government railways. If we open the door for those back to 1907 some hon. member may say, ' Why 1907? Let us go back further.' There must be a line, and it must be, in a measure, arbitrary. This Act was passed in 1907. I was not here then, but no doubt many hon. members before me were here at that time. The line was drawn strongly and arbitrarily and an age limit fixed. All I pretend to be attempting to do is to make the Act a little more lenient owing to the new conditions having arisen by the change in management. My hon. friend suggests that I know just who were dismissed out of all these men. I suppose he is not serious in that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The minister would know the number.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister stated there
were none.


George Perry Graham: I did not state anything of the kind.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Except for cause.


George Perry Graham: I said once or twice that I did not make that statement, but my hon. friend has put it in my mouth twice since. Generally speaking, before this A t men were dismissed for cause as they would be in any railway or any other line. But when the management was changed the conditions changed, the circumstances to which the old Act applied were altered and a general reduction of the staff all over the system was entered upon. New conditions! arose which acquired a new [DOT] Act. I am trying to meet the conditions



that have arisen owing to a large number of men having been dismissed at once by the board of management. It must be remembered that the men still in the employ of the road will have to pay their share to those men who retire, and this Act has met with their approval. I do not know why in attempting to meet new conditions we should drag in all the old conditions existing before the passage of the Act of 1907. My only attempt was to meet the new conditions that have arisen since the board was appointed.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How many men have been dismissed from October last to the 1st of April?


George Perry Graham: I think I gave that information in answer to a question.


Robert Laird Borden: Information of that kind was given in answer to a question of mine, but it related only to the county of Halifax. When the Bill is again in committee perhaps the minister would be good enough to have all this information ready so that we can discuss it a little more intelligently.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY-THE NAPANEE RIVER.

[Stage Direction]
/ Mr. FIELDING moved that the House
' go into Committee of Supply.
['I cannot promise to\nsend a special engineer, but I will again look carefully into the report. My hon. friend also mentioned Battery Point, Digby, Nova Scotia. I find that a part of it belongs to the Department of Militia and Defence and the other part to the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company. Therefore, there is no obligation on my department to make any improvements.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.', 'Thursday, December 9, 1909.']
Mr. U. WILSON (Lennox and Addington).: 
William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend (Mr. U. Wilson) has mentioned the subject of the dredging of the Napanee river and has intimated that one of the captains has made the statement that navigation is more dangerous than before, I think perhaps I should call the attention of the House to what has actually been done during the past season. Before doing so I may say that before we began working upon that river during the past season the river, for seven miles, was full of obstructions, such as sunken logs and stumps. There was also a wreck right in the channel of the river and it was a serious menace to navigation. It was reported to me, not only by my hon. friend but also by prominent citizens of

Napanee, by captains of vessels as well, that the dredging of this river was necessary in order to give satisfactory navigation. Well, Sir, it is true, as I told my hon. friend and a number of other gentlemen in Napanee, who communicated with me upon this subject, that there was no special appropriation made at the last session of parliament for this work, but I stated that if possible I would endeavour to get a dredge and have the work done. We had no government dredge available for the purpose because our dredges were all busily engaged elsewhere, but we did succeed in making a very satisfactory arrangement with the Windsor Dredging Company, what I think every one who is familiar with the condition of affairs in that river will say was a satisfactory arrangement, the price being 14 cents per cubic yard with a special allowance of $150 for removing the wreck. The report which I have is that dredging has been performed to a depth of 12 feet below low water at various points in the river where most required, the cuts were widened from 25 to 30 feet and the remains of the old wreck were entirely removed. Altogether during the past season this company dredged some 20,000 cubic yards of material in addition to removing the wreck. The total expenditure has been in the vicinity of $2,800. I think from this report and from what I have heard outside of the report the work which has been done has been very satisfactory and excellent value has been got for the money which has been expended I may say to my hon. friend that the question of continuing the dredging will receive careful consideration, but I do trust that my hon. friend recognizes, that, at his own request and at the urgent request of a number of prominent citizens of Napanee, I made arrangements under considerable difficulty to do this work, believing that it was a justifiable work, just as all other work which is done by my department is justifiable work and necessary in the public interest. I can assure my hon. friend that he would make a stronger case for the dredging of the Napanee river if he would simply rely upon the merits of the work which we have on hand and not seek to disparage the public work which is being done in other places. I think it is a great mistake, when one desires that some work should be done in his own locality, that he should feel it necessary to throw out the suggestion that every expenditure made in any other part of the country is a waste of money and that the only place in the whole Dominion of Canada where money can be expended to public advantage is in the particular locality in which he resides.


Uriah Wilson: I did not throw out any such insinuation, I did not intend to a x ^ think, Mr. Speaker, you will bear me out when I say that I gave the minister full 37i
credit for his generosity last year. I acknowledge that under difficulties he made this appropriation. I have a letter from Captain Christie which bears out everything I have said in reference to the dredging. I will let the minister see it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Public Works-chargeable to income, harbours and rivers. Nova Scotia-Pinckney Point breakwater-extension of, $1,000.
['I did not throw out any such insinuation, I did not intend to a x ^ think, Mr. Speaker, you will bear me out when I say that I gave the minister full 37i\ncredit for his generosity last year. I acknowledge that under difficulties he made this appropriation. I have a letter from Captain Christie which bears out everything I have said in reference to the dredging. I will let the minister see it.']
William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of exbreakwater at Pinckney Point, the difficulty which we are seeking to obviate there is that silt and gravel wash away through the action of the sea and obstruct the berth. We find it necessary to build an extension of the block 40 feet long, the whole cost of which will be $1,000.
Piper's Cove-breakwater-pier, $8,000.


Mr. PUGSLEY  .@: This is to provide for the construction of a breakwater pier at Piper's cove on the Bras D'Or lake; The proposed structure will extend to eight feet at low water, and it proposed to construct blocks and spans 224 feet in length. There is to be a road bridge 270 feet long as well. The total cost is $8,000.


Clarence Jameson: Will this work be done by tender and contract P


William Pugsley: Yes, I think this will be done by public tender and contract.


Clarence Jameson: I would like to urge upon the minister the advisability, where-ever possible, of having these works done by contract. There is a variety of very good reasons why this course is preferable to the alternative of having the work done by day labour. ''In most of these communities there is a large number of people who are very anxious to secure employment upon these public works at certain times of the year when they have not very much to do and when it is a great boon to them to be able to make a few dollars. It very often happens that when a work is done by day labour only the personal friends of those who have the management or control of it are placed upon the work, and others, who are equally deserving, are debarred from that privilege. There is another reason why it is desirable to have this work done by contract and that is that it reduces the number of foremen, sub-foremen, supervisers and officials of that character, and saves expense. The cost of construction is lessened, perhaps I may say the cost of officials who do not work is lessened, and a saving is thereby effected to the department. I have found in my own constituency that where the work is done by day labour and not by contract, the privilege of supplying timber and other materials is usually given only to a few individuals who are often compelled

to take the value of the material, out of the store of the person who has charge of the work. In like manner the workmen are obliged to take out theif wages under what is called the truck system. For these reasons it is desirable that the work should be done by contract wherever possible so that all may have a fair chance of participating in the distribution of the money. When work is let by contract this truck system is broken up and that in itself is a good thing. When we were considering the [DOT]other day the appropriation for David's . nove in Digby county I expressed the desire that the work should, if possible, be [DOT]done by contract, and I urged it because the experienoe in that county at least has been that very great hardship has been entailed in the nast on the workingmen and on those who supplied materials in that they had not been able to draw their pay in cash but were frequently compelled to draw it through the shop of the man in [DOT]charge of the work. I know _ that the minister has the welfare of his department and of the public works of Canada at beart, and it is for this reason that I bring this to his attention.


William Pugsley: I have already stated that it was the rule of the department to [DOT]do work by contract except in cases where it clearly appeared to the responsible officers that it could be done better by day work. With regard to workmen being [DOT]obliged to take goods from a store in lieu of their pay I wish to state publicly that no foreman has the right to require a man to take his pay otherwise than in cash, and if any complaint is made to the department that a foreman has required those under him to resort to the truck system that foreman would be reprimanded and unless a satisfactory explanation is given,he would be dismissed. Of course it may happen sometimes that workmen in anticipation of a cheque coming for their wages desire to [DOT]obtain supplies in advance from a store, but in all cases it is the well understood duty of the foreman to pay promptly in cash when the money is available in the hands of the engineer.


Clarence Jameson: I may say for the information of the minister that I know a case in which men who are willing to work and who had applied for work were flatly told that unless they took their wages out of the store of the man who had charge of the work he would not give them employment, and, those who were willing to supply material were told that they would have to take their payment in a similar way in respect to this particular work. I think that is a very serious hardship.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend [DOT]object to giving me the name of the foreman who made that condition and if he does I assure him that I will have the mat-Mr. JAMESON.
ter investigated and will see that such a foreman will not receive further employment. Any foreman who insists upon that condition of employment is certainly not discharging his duty.


Clarence Jameson: I will have great pleasure in giving to the minister privately the name of the foreman.


William Pugsley: That will do.


Clarence Jameson: I do not suppose it is necessary to publish the name in ' Hansard ' but I shall give the name to him privately.


William Pugsley: Very well.


Clarence Jameson: The view taken by the Minister of Public Works is the proper one and I was quite confident he would take such a view when the matter was brought to his notice. Let me say that if foremen generally have notice from the department that such conduct would not be recognized it would go far towards effecting a cure of this pernicious system.


William Stevens Fielding: I like the contract system best, but I am bound to say that I am not so satisfied as my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) as to its popularity in any given district. I do not say that because it is unpopular it should not be adopted but there are views that may be offered on the other side. The contractor may come from a distant part of the country and very often he brings with him his staff and some of his employees to the exclusion of those living in the neighbourhood, a thing which is never very popular. Then again it sometimes happens that the contractor not having sufficient resources gets into difficulties, and I have known cases where the contractors went away leaving claims unpaid and very much discontent. The contract system, as a rule, is the better one, but there is another side to the question.


Clarence Jameson: If a contractor should bring from outside a considerable portion of the labour to be employed I can well understand that it would not be satisfactory, but in the case of these works ranging from $7,000 to $8,000 I think the contractor would be very likely to find sufficient local iaoour and would not import any. As to a contractor leaving the workingmen unpaid I do not think there is any excuse whatever for such a condition, because it would be a proof that the officers of the department, who had the money in their hands had not exercised proper supervision and had been derelict in their duty.


William Stevens Fielding: No. I could give my hon. friend a case where no one was at fault; where the contractor took his work at too low a price and although his intentions were honest enough he got into difficulties and he was not able to pay the workmen. The usual percentage was kept

back but that did not suffice. He was a man of honest purpose but there was not enough money to give him his contract price and a fair profit.


Clarence Jameson: That would be an exceptional case.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.
Port Dufierin - breakwater at Smiley's Point, $2,550.


William Pugsley: This will complete the work.


Mr. STANFIELD.: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: 

Porter's Lake-boat channel to Three-Fathom harbour, $4,500.


William Pugsley: This is an important work, Porter's lake being 17 miles in length and surrounded toy a good farming country, well settled. The total cost of the work, including breakwater, will be $17,000.


Clarence Jameson: Where is this?


William Pugsley: In Halifax county. There have been expenditures in 1907-8 and 1908-9.


Adam Brown Crosby: How much more will toe required to complete the work?


William Pugsley: It is estimated that it will take $10,000 more.


Adam Brown Crosby: As the minister states, this is in a very fertile part of the county of Halifax, and the work gives access to a very beautiful lake. I suppose it is intended that the work shall be continued during the coming summer?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Port Hood harbour-closing northern entrance, $40,000.


William Pugsley: This is a very important work. A good deal of coal is shipped from Port Hood. Formerly there was a natural breakwater extending from the island to the mainland, tout some years ago it was carried away by a violent storm, and we have been for some years gradually closing the entrance so that it will afford a sheltered harbour. We are asking this year for a larger vote than usual, with a view to proceeding vigorously with the work.


Clarence Jameson: How much has been expended on this work, and what does the minister estimate the total expenditure will be? Also, what material is used in the construction of the breakwater?


William Pugsley: The material used has been brush and stone. The total estimated cost was originally $215,000. The work has been carried on continuously since 1903. There has been expended $92,796.67, and with this $40,000 it is estimated that $82,250 will still be required to complete the
work. I may say that this work has been asked for not only by the people of the locality, but by resolutions of various boards of trade, including the Maritime Board of Trade, which has urged the importance of continuing the work as rapidly as possible.


Mr. WRIGHT.: We are frequently told of wharfs being washed away on the Atlantic coast. Is it not possible to devise' some method of constructing these wharfs so that this will not happen so frequently? There must be some fault in construction-


William Pugsley: What was washed away was the natural connection between the island and the mainland-not an artificial structure, but a natural breakwater or bar, and the fact of its being washed away deprived the harbour of its natural shelter, and it is for that reason that we are erecting a breakwater.


William Wright: I may have misunderstood the hon. minister in this case, but all the same we do have constantly recurring cases of wharfs being washed away.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it often happens that a wharf is washed away. Undoubtedly wharfs are damaged from time to time, and I am afraid that my hon. friend is not sufficiently acquainted with the force of the Atlantic waves, or he would not see anything surprising in that. I am not sure that even concrete works would withstand some of the storms on the Atlantic coast.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I want to call the minister's attention to the fact that while large sums are being expended on wharfs and breakwaters along the coasts of the maritime provinces, some expenditures are necessary on the inland waters. I have had occasion to refer to the need of a little dredging near Wolfe island. The people there build their own wharfs, but in the latter part of last session I informed the minister that an expenditure of $150 or $200 in dredging would enable vessels to land coal on the island, whereas otherwise the people would be obliged to haul their coal on the ice from Kingston. This would mean a saving of fifty or sixty cents a ton on all the coal used on Wolfe island. I simply want to draw attention to that. The hon. minister said last session that it was then too late to consider the matter. I want now to call his attention to it before it is loo late. This is a matter of great importance to the people there, and while we are making these large expenditures down by the sea, we should not forget the people living along the lakes.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is speaking of dredging required at Wolfe island. The result of the inquiry I made is

that this is a private wharf, owned by a company, and the business down there is the business of this company, and the work could not be properly regarded as work for the general benefit of the public.


William Cameron Edwards: The wharf, I believe, was constructed by private parties who were living on the island, but it is used by the general public without charge. I can only repeat that the dredging would result in great and general benefit to the people on that island inasmuch as it would enable coal vessels to land cargoes there, and the people would then get their coal at 50 cents to 60 cents a ton less.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman would write me a letter stating the number of people accommodated by that wharf and mentioning the fact that the wharf is open to public use without charge, I shall be glad to take a note of it for further consideration.
1 200 EDWARDS. The population is some


Oswald Smith Crocket: How long has this work been in progress?


William Pugsley: Since 1903.


William Pugsley: This is for an extension.
Port Malcolm-wharf, $2,500.


William Pugsley: This is to reconstruct. There is a private wharf there now, owned bv Mr. Malcolm. The department is going to acquire that for some $2,100, including the right of way. The department will make it a public wharf and reconstruct it. The total estimated cost, including cost of the property, will be $7,000. I am now asking $2,500 and will require a further $2,500 to complete the reconstruction.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What are the dimensions of the wharf the department is buying?


William Pugsley: 225 feet in length and it extends to 6i feet below water. For a distance of 105 feet it is 64 feet wide; for a distance of 24 feet, 42 feet wide; for a distance of 70 feet, 18 feet wide; and for the remaining distance of 26 feet, 22 feet wide. That is the existing wharf. We propose to reconstruct it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How was this figure arrived at? Was that just the amount asked or was an officer of the department sent to examine the wharf?


William Cameron Edwards: When will it be completed?


William Pugsley: It is proposed to let the contract now and we hope to finish it in about two more years.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When the work was begun in 1903, how is it the department is only giving a contract now?


William Pugsley: The work was experimental. To have made a solid breakwater of crib-work and stone would have cost a great deal more perhaps than we felt justified in spending. This mode of construction was an experiment and we went along gradually to see whether it would stand the action of the waves. It has certainly stood remarkably well, and the department is convinced it will be permanent, so that we feel justified in asking a larger appropriation with the view of entering into a contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 
William Pugsley: The resident engineer, Mr. Bernard Sconi was instructed to make an examination and report, and he estimated its value at $2,100. It is on his report that we propose to buy the property.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the deed been executed?


William Pugsley: No, we could not take a deed until we got the vote.
Mr. CROCKET, it?
How large a place is


William Pugsley: It has a population of 600; the residents are farmers, who engage in fishing during the fishing season. There is a freight and passenger steamer which calls there.


George Taylor: What county?


William Pugsley: Richmond.


George Taylor: If this wharf belongs to a private individual why should the government acquire it?


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: All that was done by day labour?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Mr. CROCKET What is the estimate oi the work yet to be done?


William Pugsley: $122,250 to finish the whole work.


Mr. KYTE.: The parties who own the wharf are out of business. They conducted a large mercantile establishment there until a few years ago. The senior member of the firm died, and the property is in the market. Up to the present it has been used by the public without charge, but the wharf is not in proper condition at present and a request was made to the department to furnish a new one.
Port Joly-extension of Herring Rocks Mr- CL TAYLOR. We have hundreds of breakwater, $2,000.	cases throughout Ontario of wharfs owned


William Pugsley: by private parties and used by the public. We have three or four at Gananoque which the owners would be glad to sell to the government if the government feel disposed to buy old wharfs. I do not see why the government should furnish a wharf at this place.


William Pugsley: In Ontario the department has done that frequently. It sometimes happens that a private wharf, owing to the owner having gone out of business, becomes neglected, and there is a justifiable demand for a public wharf. It is often considered best, that, instead of building another wharf, the private wharf should be taken over, where it can be had at a fair and reasonable price, and repaired and devoted to the public use. It has been done in several cases in the province of Ontario and in Quebec also. It is not confined to the province of Nova Scotia, I can assure my hon. friend.


John Stanfield: Is this engineer, Bernard Sconi, one of the regular men?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Stanfield: In Halifax?


William Pugsley: No, in Antigonish.


William Cameron Edwards: I would call attention to the wharf at Wolfe Island to which I have already referred. In view of what the minister has said in regard to the policy of acquiring wharfs owned by private individuals who have gone out of mercantile business-


William Pugsley: Perhaps the hon. member (Mr. Edwards) will pardon me a suggestion. If he wishes to make a suggestion as to the government acquiring a wharf in Ontario, perhaps it might be more convenient to wait until the Ontario items are before the committee.


William Cameron Edwards: If the minister prefers it. It struck me that it would be cheaper for the people if the government will buy the wharf. It could be got for less money than is being paid for this one.


Oswald Smith Crocket: By whom was the department asked to buy this wharf? Was there any request from the municipality?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) informs me that he presented a petition of the people urging strongly that this wharf should be acquired. I do not recollect the petition at the moment, but no doubt it is on file.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there any request from the municipality?


William Pugsley: No.


William Cameron Edwards: Is there any income?


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Richmond informs me that Mr. Malcolm
gave the public free use of the wharf while he was in business.
Port Maitland breakwater, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the reinforcing block of creosoted timber on the outer face and partial renewal of the flooring.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How long is it since the work was begun?


William Pugsley: In 1908. The total estimated cost is $6,700, and this $2,000 is intended to complete the work.	-


John Stanfield: Is this in Hants?


William Pugsley: No, Yarmouth.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the work been done by contract?


William Pugsley: No, by day labour.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that the principle upon which the department proceeds in works of this kind?


William Pugsley: The total work in any one year did not amount to more than $3,000, and it was considered by the engineer better to do it by day work. It was repairing work and, while that class of work can sometimes be done by contract, it is not always so.


John Stanfield: Is this Mr. Perry, the
foreman, one of the faithful?


William Pugsley: Does the hon member wish to ask if he is a faithful workman? I think he is.


Mr. LAW.: Mr. Perry belongs to one of the oldest Tory families1 in the county of Yarmouth. I may say that it would be impossible to have that work done by contract. The breakwater came near being washed away last winter. The work is the tearing down of old work and building new.


John Stanfield: I did not intend to raise talk over this matter, but I know that in the county I have the honour to represent the only people appointed on these jobs are the faithful. Occasionally, a man on our side gets a position by promising to help my opponent.


William Pugsley: I do not hesitate to say that, so far as the foremen are concerned, if, in any locality, we can get a competent reliable man who is a Liberal I think it is our duty to appoint him. For, a Liberal is interested in doing satisfactory work, work that will be creditable to the government; a Conservative would be interested rather the other way-in work that will bring discredit upon the government. So far as men under the foremen are concerned, let him employ good workmen whatever their politics may be.


Mr. BLAIN.: Are there no good Liberals at this place to be recommended?


Bowman Brown Law: If the hon. member (Mr. Blain) heard what I said, he will know that I stated that this gentleman belonged to one of the oldest Tory families in the county. But I wish to add that he has seen the light.


Richard Blain: That is the explanation.
By whose recommendation was the gentleman appointed and what were his special qualifications for the position?


William Pugsley: He was appointed by my direction.


Bowman Brown Law: Further, the resident engineer, Mr. Dodwell, has told me several times lately that Mr. Perry was one of the best foreman he had had for men in the province of Nova Scotia.


Richard Blain: At whose recommendation was he appointed?


William Pugsley: I do not carry in my head the names of those who make such representations. I have no doubt that I satisfied jnyself that Mr. Perry was a thoroughly competent man. And I may say also that it is one of the instructions to the resident engineer that when a foreman is recommended he must satisfy himself of the competency of that foreman.


John Stanfield: I suppose we shall have to agree with the minister that, when a position is open, a Liberal must get it. But I would ask him to instruct his resident engineer and director to occasionally give a ,T(?ry a ]ob' if is notbing better than as a labourer. In my county, a Tory cannot get even day's work on one of these government jobs.


William Pugsley: I think the labourers are employed irrespective of party.


John Stanfield: In my county, our Liberal friends go at these things as though it were their own money and we had nothing to do with it. I don't see why a poor Tory might not have a chance occasionally. You might kindly make a note of that.


William Stevens Fielding: Was it the practice to give the poor Liberals a show in former years?


George Taylor: Always.


John Stanfield: I have only been in politics a short time, I am a mere lamb in politics, but I understand the Liberals did get a job occasionally. If I remember, one or two Liberals were appointed to the Senate.


Mr. McCOIG.: It might be a good idea for the hon. gentleman to send some of that advice up to the government at Toronto.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there a subforeman on this work as well as a foreman?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: An assistant foreman.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many men were employed?


William Pugsley: I cannot give that information, I have no memorandum as to that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there also an inspector?


William Pugsley: The work would be inspected by the resident engineer, Mr. Dodwell, of Halifax.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the resident engineer always relied on to inspect the work?


William Pugsley: The foreman is relied on first of all to see that the work is well done, but the engineer is relied on to visit the work from time to time to see that it is done properly.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I see that in the majority of cases of construction of wharfs and breakwaters there is an inspector.


William Pugsley: That is where the work is being done under contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Only where it is under contract?


William Pugsley: Done under contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that the practice?


William Pugsley: Unless you call the foreman an inspector.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the foreman's duty?


William Pugsley: The foreman is in charge. It is his duty to see, where the work is done by the day, that it is done according to the plans and specifications. We do not have an inspector where work is being done by the day, in addition to the foreman, but where it is done under contract we have an inspector.


Oswald Smith Crocket: As a matter of fact, those are the chief duties of a foreman, to inspect the work. Does he engage the workmen?


William Pugsley: He employs them.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And purchases the materials?


William Pugsley: He purchases the materials and sees that the work is done.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What are the duties of the subforeman?


William Pugsley: To assist the foreman. He is really more like the head labourer.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But the foreman does not take any part in the work, he supervises it.


William Pugsley: Oh, yes, the foreman, if he is a good man, very often takes off his coat and works with the rest.


Clarence Jameson: The minister was very kind in stating that wherever there was a Qualified Liberal available he preferred to have him appointed to the supervision of work of this character. Does he think it is good policy that these men, good Liberals as they are, where they are so appointed, should discriminate between Liberals and Conservatives when it conies to engaging a labourer on this work? I mean that a man should he asked his political leanings, how he is going to vote, in order to determine whether or not he is entitled to labour on that government work.


William Pugsley: The foremen are left free, so far as it has ever come under my observation, to employ such labouring men as in their judgment are best qualified to do the work. The government has never interfered in connection with the politics of a labouring man. The foreman is left free to exercise his good judgment, to get good workmen at fair wages, and to see that they do their work properly.


Clarence Jameson: Would the minister approve of such a policy? It has been the practice for them to ask workmen how they were going to vote before they were engaged. When the answer came: I am not going to vote Liberal, the men were turned away. I do not suppose the minister is aware that that position exists to-day in Nova Scotia.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would be highly improper that a man should be asked how he is going to vote, that he should be asked to make any promise as to his vote in connection with his employment. The first consideration should be to get good capable men and it generally happens that men are found in both political parties for work of that character. But suppose there is a limited number of men required, what harm would there be if a preference were given to the friends of the government? I do not think we should have any hypocrisy in this matter. I propose every time, all other things being equal, to give a preference to my friend in every relation of life. What is wrong with it?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: We have heard the hon. gentleman express that opinion many times in the House but when it comes to employing labourers in work of this kind I am surprised that the minister should make such a statement. It is not the government's money.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say it was.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: It is the money of the people of this country and surely if a man happens to be a Conservative, he has
been taxed for that money and why has he not a perfect right to participate in that work?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see any distinction in respect to the labouring man and the man who might be a candidate for the highest office in the country. Our system of government is a party system. With all its faults it is the best that has been discovered. It is the British system and a preference is given by the government wherever the party system prevails to its own friends. There is nothing wrong in that. It would be perfect hypocrisy to pretend that the Conservative party did not practice that during the whole 18 years they were in power. My hon. friend from Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) says he is only a lamb. He is old enough to know that in his own county that rule was thoroughly enforced, he knows that a man could not get employment on the Intercolonial railway in the days of the Conservative administration unless he was identified with the Conservative party, and we did not kick about it either, we recognized it and we did not squeal. When these hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the poor Tory not getting any chance, I wish they had a l'ittle of that compassion for the poor Liberal in the olden days.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I simply wished to remind the minister that this was not his money.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say it was our money. It is the money of the people of Canada, but the government of Canada are the custodians of that money and they are answerable to the people of Canada for the way in which they expend it. If it is a crime to give a preference to a Liberal the government will have to be turned out for that crime.


Clarence Jameson: The Minister of Finance has been very frank in his statement to the committee. His frankness deserves that I should be equally candid. He has stated that he considers it perfectly proper that a man should be asked his politics.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I did not say that. I said I would regard it as highly improper that when a man comes to work he should be asked anything about his politics. In every small community in Canada every man's politics is thoroughly well known, and I say that if a preference was given by the government of the day, be it Liberal or Conservative, to its own friends, always with the condition that they are capable, good men, I do not think there is anything to complain of. No one is hurt, the public interest does not suffer so long as the work is done properly. It can be as well done by a good Liberal as by a good Tory. What is the difference?


Clarence Jameson: The minister stated that in the good old times the poor Liberals did not get any share.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: They were not the good old times, say the old times.


Clarence Jameson: Well, call it any kind of a time you like. Now, he says that he considers that in every district in Canada it is unnecessary to ask a man's politics because the politics of the people are generally pretty well known. I am going to say, with regard to the work which was done at Digby during the election of 1908, that men who went to the government pier to make application for work were asked: How are you going to vote?-and if they said that they were not going to vote Liberal, as many of them frankly did, they were told that they could not get any work, that they were bleu. Consequently they were not permitted to share in the labour which was available. The minister has said that in the good old days the poor Liberals did not get an opportunity to share in any of this labour or to receive any benefit from it. On that same public wharf at Digby, when money was expended under the Conservative regime, Liberals and Conservatives indiscriminately were given and had equal opportunities for employment. That is a matter of fact and it is a matter of record which the minister, I dare say, can verify if he chooses to look up the returns in the department, because, as he says, the poltical leanings of the people are so well known in these -different districts. I am not finding any fault. The minister does not, I hope, think that I am one of those who squeal, as he has expressed it, because I do not squeal ; I merely ask that every person in the community, without regard to his political qualifications, be permitted to share in this work.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not say that I would approve of what the hon. gentleman says occurred at Digby. If it is a fact that men came and asked for work and were told that they could not get it unless they voted in a certain way I certainly would not approve of it, and, while I am bound to accept my hon. friend's statement, I would be very much surprised if it occurred.


Clarence Jameson: I can assure my hon. friend that it did occur.


William Cameron Edwards: The minister would dispose of that fact by the statement that those in charge of these works were not thoroughly versed in the politics of the people.


William Stevens Fielding: I would assume that as a rule they do know.


William Cameron Edwards: They do know what their politics are?



William Stevens Fielding: As a rule they do know. I may say to my hon. friend that they are well informed people in Nova Scotia and as a rule in any of the small districts the average man knows the politics of his neighbour. If a preference were given to men who were friends of the government, always provided they were good men, nobody would be hurt.


Adam Brown Crosby: 
William Pugsley: What do you suppose would happen if we appointed a good Tory foreman?


Adam Brown Crosby: I presume he would do about the same as anybody else.


William Pugsley: He would employ Tory labourers.


Adam Brown Crosby: Perhaps he would. If he did I would say he would not be doing right. But I do not deny that the Minister of Public Works or any other minister has the right to employ anybody else than his own friends in Dositions of trust. Perhaps that is a fair proposition, but I am simply speaking of the labourers. This is public monev and let the people have the money. There are always men who are particular to say that they are a great help to the party when sometimes they are not much of a help after all. All I plead for is that the ordinary workman shall be given a fair show and that he shall not be handicapped on account of his politics.


William Stevens Fielding: I should be surprised if it could be shown in the case of any work requiring any considerable number of labourers that the men were all of one political faith. It has generally happened in cases that have come under my observation that men of both parties have been employed. It generally happens that if you want a good many men you have to take men at certain seasons because you cannot get them at other seasons. My observation is that as a rule there are men of both political parties employed. My hon. friend seems to think that it is a great crime for a member of parliament or a prominent Liberal to give a recommendation to anybody to get employment. I cannot quite see-it in that light. I have no doubt that every member in this House is in the habit of getting a recommendation from some one asking him to be good enough to do something to help somebody. What is wrong in that?


Adam Brown Crosby: It is perfectly proper to give a man a recommendation, but what I
complain of is that the rule was made that a man could not get work unless he was recommended by a Liberal.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman was good enough to say that he has heard me many a time in Halifax express my gratitude to good Conservatives. That is true, but don't make any mistake about it, I never had anything to thank the Conservative party machine for. I never ran an election in Nova Scotia that I did not have to fight the whole Conservative party machine for what is was worth. I never owed them anything, but I do owe much to high-minded independent Conservatives who were good enough to vote for me and I have always been ready to express my indebtedness to them. I never ran an election for the local legislature that I was not opposed by every power the federal government could bring to bear against me.


Archibald Blake McCoig: The conditions must be very different in Nova Scotia from what they are in Ontario if opponents of the Nova Scotia government are employed on public works. In my riding of West Kent, where the federal government has very kindly given an appropriation for public works, we have Mr. Fluke, a Liberal contractor, doing the work, and at the last elections he had eight or ten men in his employment who were nearly all Conservatives. We also had another contract where a Conservative was the contractor and he had many Conservatives working for him drawing the money which was appropriated by this government. If the Conservatives have any grievance in Nova Scotia they certainly have not in the other provinces.


Richard Blain: Was that contract let after public competition, or is the work being done by day work?


Archibald Blake McCoig: The work was let after public competition and Mr. Fluke was the contractor and the men working on the job were nearly all Conservatives. I can assure you that as far as myriding is! concerned the Conservatives are not discriminated against. They have the same chance of getting work as the Liberals have, and I only wish the Conservative government in Toronto would be as generous to the Liberals as the Liberal government here is to the Conservatives.


Richard Blain: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman compliment the Conservative government of Toronto on the policy they adopt of letting public works by open competition.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I did not say anything about that. I merely expressed the hope that the Ontario government would be as willing to give employment to Liberals as the Liberal government here is to give employment to Conservatives on public works.


Richard Blain: The policy of the Ontario government is to put everything possible up to public competition but the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCoig) was a member of the Ontario legislature and he supported a government which did not carry out that kind of a policy.


Archibald Blake McCoig: No.


Richard Blain: Take for instance the policy of the Boss government with regard to the school books.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Is the question of the Ontario school books before the Chair?


Richard Blain: No, but my hon. friend (Mr. McCoig) introduced the subject and I tell him he was a supporter of a government in Ontario which instituted a school hook monopoly that was put out of business when the Conservative party came into office. The Conservatives put the publication of the school books up to public competition and awarded the contract to Timothy Eaton & Company, the heads of which firm are prominent Liberals.


Mr. STRATTON.: I desire to correct the hon. gentleman. I was a member of the Boss government in the province of Ontario and there is no doubt at all that Mr. Boss, who was Minister of Education at the time, invited competition for the publication of the school books and awarded the contract after public competition on the merits of the tenders.


William Wright: The Minister of Finance advocates the employment on public works of the party friends of the government, and he says that is the British system. I say that in Britain the government never distinguishes between' the two parties in such matters and the Minister of Finance cannot convince the House that such is the case. It is not the British system; it is un-British and the present government here has carried it on to an extent never before equalled by any government either federal or provincial. I deny that the present government of Ontario pays any attention whatever to the party ieanings of its officials. There never was a government in power in Canada, less partisan in this respect than the government of Mr. Whitney. In my riding there are men in the employment of the provincial government to-day who during my election of 1904 were in the employ of the Ross government and who chased me all over the riding. These men are still in the employ of the Ontario government and every time I go on the streets I have to meet these officials with a smile on their faces, still they are holding office. It is an unjust charge to make against the Whitney government that in any way it discriminates in favour of its party friends. The system in Ontario is very different from the system followed by the Nova Scotia government if Mr. McCOIG.
we are to take as a standard of its doings the dictum laid down by the Minister of Finance.
Saw pit-block and span wharf, $1,500.


Richard Blain: What county is that in?


William Pugsley: Lunenburg.


Richard Blain: There is to be a by-election there very shortly, and I hope the Finance Minister will not send down the policy, which he has announced to-night. The hon. gentleman is getting bolder every year in *announcing that policy. A few years ago he was very mild, but later he announced that it was the policy of the government to give work to their own political supporters. Now he announces it with a flourish of trumpets, and I thought he would probably go to Lunenburg and announce it in the By-election. May I ask when this money will be expended?


William Pugsley: Some time next summer.


Richard Blain: Will there be competition for this work?


William Pugsley: No, it will be done by 'day work. It is to repair damage done by ice, and cannot very well be done by contract.
Shelburne harbour - deep water wharf,


William Pugsley: This is new work. It is the construction of a much-needed deepwater wharf.


William Cameron Edwards: When was the lapsed vote of $8,000 taken?


William Pugsley: Two years ago.


William Cameron Edwards: Why has the vote been increased by $2,000?


William Pugsley: The reason is that we propose calling for tenders for the work, the total estimated cost of which is $30,000, and we expect to expend $10,000 during the coming year.


William Cameron Edwards: Will this be a revenue-producing wharf?


William Pugsley: It will be when it is handed over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the government any other wharf accommodation at Shelburne?


William Pugsley: Not at this point.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who makes the estimate of $30,000?


William Pugsley: The resident engineer, and his figures are verified by the chief engineer.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When did he make his report?


William Pugsley: About two years ago, "when this item was first voted.


William Pugsley: or eight miles.
No, not within seven
South Ingonish-wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision towards extending the wharf by adding a new block 24 feet square to the present structure. The new block will be in deep water. It is going to cost altogether $6,200, of which we are asking $5,000 now, and a balance of $1,200 will be required to finish it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the present wharf the property of the government?


William Pugsley: Mr. CROCKET. Mr. PUGSLEY.
Mr. CROCKET, the original wharf?
Yes.
When was it built?
In 11903 or 1904.
What was the cost of


William Pugsley: I have not the statement of the cost1 of the present wharf, but if the hon. gentleman desires it, I will give it to him at a later stage.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will that be done by contract?


William Pugsley: That is my present view.
Spanish Ship bay (Liscomb)-wharf on west side of bay, $1,800.


Richard Blain: How is it the hon. gentleman has neglected this important part of the county so long?


William Pugsley: There are so many important works to be attended to, that we cannot do them all at once.


Richard Blain: Last session a great many votes were allowed to stand over on the promise of the minister to take them up before any new expenditures were incurred. Have all these been attended to?


William Pugsley: I can safely say they all have except in some cases where, on further consideration, I have not been convinced of their urgent necessity.


Richard Blain: Will there be any revenue from this wharf?


William Pugsley: When handed over to the Marine Department, I think there should be some revenue, but it will be a great accommodation to a considerable number of people.
Swim's Point and West Head-removal of rocks from approaches to wharfs, &c., $1,000.


William Pugsley: There is a very good wharf there, but there are rocks quile near which are a menace to vessels, and it is necessary to have them removed.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. The total estimated cost is $1,800.
South Cove-wharf, $6,300.


William Pugsley: This is to give a water frontage of forty feet. This is the total estimated cost of the work to be done by contract.


Richard Blain: What request was there for the expenditure?


William Pugsley: I have no record of ^ was very strongly recommend-by the member for the county (Mr. McKenzie). It is in North Victoria, Cape Breton.
Sydney Mines-wharf at Barrington Cove, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision towards reconstructing the wharf so as to enable it to accommodate at all tides vessels drawing ten to twelve feet of water. It is proposed to build out to a distance of 730 feet from the end of the public road. It is going to be quite expensive, but the work is very important. There is a large shipping business done there. This is going to cost about $35,000 in all.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: In whose riding is it?


William Pugsley: Cape Breton, North Victoria.


Samuel Hughes: What were the reasons given?
Mr- PUGSLEY. That large shipments would be made from this place if this wharf were constructed. A daily steamer passes within a short distance, but does not call there as there is no landing place.


Samuel Hughes: What is the population of the town?


William Pugsley: There is no town, but m the locality there are a hundred farmers who would ship their produce by this wharf.	,


Richard Blain: Has there never been a wharf there?


Glenlyon Campbell: Has the contract been let?


William Pugsley: No, but the work will be let by contract.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is there any other government wharf there?


William Pugsley: No.


William Cameron Edwards: What population will this accommodate?


William Pugsley: 8,000.
Tenecape breakwater-addition, $7,000.


William Pugsley: This is to build an extension eighty feet long and forty feet wide. This will complete.

' The Wharfs/ Lunenburg county breakwater, $2,000


William Pugsley: This is to construct a breakwater. It is a fishing station; $2,000 will do the work. This is a new work and will afford shelter for the fishing boats.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this be done by day labour.


William Pugsley: We have not decided. I think it would be better done that way.
Three-Fathom harbour-renewal and repairs to breakwater, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is in the county of Halifax. It is to repair damage done bv storms.
Toney river-extension of channel protection piers at mouth of piers, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is to afford an extension fifty feet long and ten feet wide and will complete the work.
Tusket Wedge wharf-restoration and extension of, $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is a government wharf in the county of Yarmouth. This will complete.


Samuel Hughes: Is any provision made for placing a light on the rock where the ' Hestia ' was wrecked?


William Pugsley: That matter has been attended to, I believe.
Upper Prospect breakwater, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the construction of a breakwater 200 feet long by 30 feet wide and with a height of 19 feet at the outer end, as a shelter for the fishermen of the locality. It is in the county of Halifax. This sum will complete the work.
Upper Washabuck (McDougal's)-wharf, $1,800.


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: This is in the county of Cumberland. The work is to provide proper shipping accommodation and for the protection of vessels entering the port. A large number of vesseds go to West Advocate.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it a new work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this vote complete it?


William Pugsley: No, it will require


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will it be done by contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.
West Baccaro-extension of breakwater,


William Pugsley: This is in the county of Halifax. It is a necessary work, and all that is asked is an extension of existing breakwater.
West Dublin bay-dredging approach to wharf, $9,000.


William Pugsley: This is to remove some
30,000	cubic yards of mud to make a channel from Curry's wharf to the main channel, 100 feet in length, allowing a depth of 9 feet. The estimated cost is $9,000. This is in Lunenburg county.


William Cameron Edwards: What population has this place?


William Pugsley: About 200. It is a farming and fishing population. [DOT]


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this to be done by government dredge or will it be given out by contract?


William Pugsley: We have not decided that yet.


William Cameron Edwards: Do many vessels call there?


William Pugsley: Considerable shipping is done and vessels are not able to get to the wharf conveniently owing to the channel being filled in.


William Cameron Edwards: Are there any regular passenger boats to this place?


William Pugsley: They are mostly sailing vessels.


William Cameron Edwards: Fishing vessels?


William Pugsley: And trading vessels, too.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 
William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: How many cubic yards were dredged?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I do not know.


William Pugsley: Before the hon. member can say whether there was any money wasted or not, he ought to know the quantity of work done.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I remember that it was at the rate of 50 cents a yard. And I have heard it stated by men competent to judge that it was not worth 10 cents a yard.


William Pugsley: It is a great wonder they did not tender for the worir.


Oswald Smith Crocket: They did not get a chance.


William Pugsley: They did; tenders were called for by public advertisement and every one had a chance to tender.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I know the minister stated that last year, but it developed that the work was actually in progress by the Maritime Dredging Company when the tenders were called for.


William Pugsley: That does not make any difference.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister takes steps to give these things good appearance. But the result was that the Maritime Dredging Company and Mr. John E. Moore, the minister's friend, received three or four times the value of the work. And the Auditor .General's Report, which I have consulted, shows that the inspection charges require investigation. About $600 or $700 was spent for inspection on this work. There were three or four inspectors, one at $5 a day, one at $3, and another at $2.50, and my recollection is that they had seventy or eighty days more than the time within which the work was in progress. These inspectors are appointed by the ministers, and I have not the slightest doubt appointed upon the recommendation of the contractor. .


William Pugsley: Unless the hon. member has information to that effect, he ought not to make that statement. I tell him that there is no foundation whatever for the statement. No inspector in New Brunswick or elsewhere is put on at the recommendation of the contractor. The hon. member ought to know that he should have the most positive evidence before making a statement of that kind.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Notwithstanding the minister's statement, I have no hesitation in expressing my opinion that, in the dredging that goes on in New Brunswick, the inspectors are in league with the contractors. What does the hon. minister think
of the dredging at Dalhousie and the inspection certificates put through in that case? It developed in court that the dredging inspection was done and the records kept by an employee of the firm of A. & R. Loggie, who sued the inspector, issuing a summons against him in the magistrate's court. And the matter was fixed up. Does the minister mean to say that Mr. Alleyne, the dredging inspector, was thoroughly independent of the firm of A. & R. Loggie, or that the Inspection was done without reference to the interests of the firm? It is very well for the minister to make such statements as that which he has made, but it has been and will be pretty difficult to make the people in communities where the dredging is done believe that fraud is not being committed on the public treasury in connection with these dredging contracts in different parts of the country. It is only necessary to examine the certificates and note the handwriting of some of these inspectors. They are men who write with the greatest difficulty and could not possibly figure a cube. Such things are reported to me from different parts of the country. I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that these dredging grafts are worked in many cases by dishonest and fraudulent inspection. So, I think that when the minister comes down with an estimate of this kind for dredging, the House _ is entitled to have information as to just how that money is to be expended-whether it is to be expended by contract given out in this way or upon dredges owned by the government. It seems_ to me that there is a great deal of dredging done and let by contract to private contractors that ought to be done by the government dredges. The government own a very extensive dredging plant and I thought it was the intention that as much dredging as possible should be done by the dredges owned by the government. There is no doubt that men have gone into this dredging business who had no experience and have gone into it to make money out of it relying on their political puil with the _ department and with the government. Since _my hon. friend became Minister of Public Works the firm of A. & R. Loggie has embarked upon that business with very profitable results to them. They have not been in the business very long but they have contracts to the extent of thousands of dollars. That firm is composed of gentlemen who have been very close to the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: Close in what way?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Politically and in every other way.


William Pugsley: In what other way?


Oswald Smith Crocket: In every other way


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman mean now, ' in every other way.'


Oswald Smith Crocket: I say they were close friends and closely associated with the Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: In what way?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister regards A. and R. Loggie as among his closest friends in the province of New Brunswick. Then there is the McAvity and the John E. Moore interest, who have also formed a dredging- company. They are ^ also very close to the Minister of Public Works, and I think when we see the thousands and thousands of dollars going to these firms, we should scrutinize these dredging contracts closely. I have no desire to make any reflections on any of these gentlemen, I am not here for that purpose. Any reflections I make are upon the department for allowing these things to take place. I have no hesitation in criticising them as wasteful expenditures. Dredging could be done in some cases for one-quarter or one-fifth of what has been paid by this government.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said that there was fraudulent dealing in connection with the dredging. There can be nothing fraudulent unless the contractor is guilty of fraud. How does the hon. gentleman reconcile that statement with his other statement that he makes no reflection on the contractors? If there is fraud, the contractors must be a party to it, and I cannot imagine a more serious charge for a member to make than to allege that the contractors have conspired together with the inspectors to send in fraudulent returns and so defraud the government. Let me say to my hon. friend that if he has information of that character, if he has information which would justify him as a public man in making that statement behind the backs of these contractors and sending it broadcast throughout this country, giving to it all the authority and weight that should be attached to the statement of a respectable and honourable member of this parliament, then he is negligent in his duty as a public man if he fails to give the necessary information to the officers of my department or to the officers of the Department of Justice in the province from which he comes, so that they may take the necessary proceedings in order to prevent any further defrauding of the public revenue, and to punish those whom he believes guilty of fraud. That is the duty the hon. member owes to himself, to parliament and the people whom he represents. Let me say to my hon. friend that he should be careful and take warning by the fate that has befallen some gentlemen who have preceded him in this parliament. I remember that an hon. member representing one of the Simcoes was in the habit of rising in his place in this parliament and making simi-Mr. PUGSLEY
lar accusations with regard to the treasury being defrauded by dredging contracts. He was never able to prove the assertions he made and when he went back, to his people where a considerable amount of this dredging was being carried on and where he had alleged fraudulent transactions were going on from week to week and from month to month, the people of the constituency let that hon. gentleman know what they thought of the exaggerated accusations he had so often made in this House. Let me say to my hon. friend that as one occupying a seat in a parliament of gentlemen he ought not to make these accusations unless he is prepared to back them up and give the proof of the statements he makes.
In regard to A. and R. Loggie, I do not know whether they went into the dredging business after I became minister or not. I think they were in the business before I became minister, in fact I am satisfied they were, and my deputy so informs me. Let me say further that they are not intimate personal friends of mine, I do not know whether I can say they are active political friends. I think that they but seldom take an active part in politics. They are men who stand in the veTy front rank of merchants and manufacturers in the Dominion of Canada. They are men who by patience and energy and devotion to their business have built up a very large business which extends over various parts of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and I think it extends up into the province of Quebec. Until to-night I have never heard any insinuations thrown out against their integrity. The hon. gentleman has chosen to insinuate that they have gone into the dredging business because they are friends of the Minister of Public Works, and he throws out the insinuation that they hope in some way by reason of that fact to secure benefits at the expense of the treasury of this country. Let me say that, so far as I know, since I became minister the Messrs. Loggie have never secured a single contract except by public competition when they were the lowest tenderers, and I know of no misconduct on the part of inspectors, I know of no misconduct or wrong doing on the part of Messrs. Loggie, and I have yet to learn that it is any crime for any man in this country to tender for a public work. I have yet to learn that it is any crime on the part of the minister to award a contract for any public work to the man who happens to be the lowest tenderer, even although he may belong to the same political party as the minister.
With regard to Messrs. Moore and McAvity it is true they are engaged in the dredging business, but they are both men of large activities, they are men who en-

gage in many lines of business, they are active, energetic, enterprising men. One of them Mr. Moore, is the president of the Maritime Dredging Company. What connection Mr. McAvity has with the company I do not know, but whether he has any connection or not makes no difference. Let me say that the contract for dredging both upon the St. John river and Maqua-pit lake and the harbour of St. John were let to the Maritime Dredging Company after public competition and after everybody had had full and fair opportunity of tendering for the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And after they had '_een put to work on the job.


William Pugsley: I do not remember whether they were on the work, but if so it was distinctly under this agreement that the work should be let by public tender and that for any work which they did in the meantime, pending the awarding of the contracts, the Maritime Dredging Company were to receive the price at which the work was tendered for by the lowest tenderer. Bu't no assurance was given them and they had no expectation that they would receive the contract unless they happened to be the lowest tenderers. Tenders were advertised for in the leading daily newspapers of St. John and everybody had an opportunity of tendering for this work. Take the case that my hon. friend spoke of. The hon. gentleman says that it is well known that the money is being wasted and that the contractors are receiving amounts larger than they aTe entitled to. Upon what does my hon. friend base that statement?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I did not say that in reference to the St. John Harbour contract.


William Pugsley: Then, my hon. friend, I understand, limits his charge to the Ma-quapit lake work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That and the payment of 90 cents per cubic yard to the Maritime Dredging Company for the Gasperaux river work.


William Pugsley: I will deal first with the Maquapit lake work. This is out of order and I would not have referred to it but for the extraordinary statement of the hon. gentleman. As to the Maquapit lake work, my hon. friend ought to know that dredging in different places does not always cost the same amount of money. A good deal depends upon the extent of the work that is to be done. Then, the question of the cost of a dredge enters into the calculation of the contractor. A good deal depends upon the nature of the soil which has to be excavated. But it so happens that all these considerations were taken into account, I presume, by the contractors who tendered for this work at 50 cents per cubic yard.
My chief engineer, who has had a large experience in these matters and who had the report of the resident engineer before him, certified that the price was fair and reasonable and the contract was awarded to the Maritime Dredging Company.
Now, let me speak of the work which my hon. friend referred to at the Gasperaux river. Tenders were called for the work. I am not quite sure whether there was any tender put in except that of the Maritime Dredging Company. The work was very widely advertised but there were very few people, if any, outside that company who. were willing to undertake it. The work is at a very exposed place, at Port Elgin- whether it is upon the straits of Northumberland or not I do not remember at this moment-and the cost of towing the dredge there was very large. There was a great deal of danger connected with it. While the work of dredging was going on one of the scows was wrecked involving a very large loss to the contractors. Although the Maritime Dredging Company were offered the work for the next season at the same price of 90 cents per cubic yard, they refused to again enter into a contract and declined to go back there last spring. In consequence of that we were obliged to wait for a number of months before we could make any arrangements for doing the work, and, being unable to get them to send their dredge back, we were obliged, late in the fall, to undertake the continuance of that work by means of the government dredge which we brought from Nova Scotia.
Now then, in face of these facts, how can the hon. gentleman expect this committee to believe there was anything wrong in the awarding of that contract to the Maritime Dredging Company? The only other contract to which reference has been made is that in the city of St. John. What took place there? You have the right to look at. all the work which this company is doing. Before I became Minister of Public Works my predecessor, having invited tenders by public competition, received tenders for this work and the lowest tender received was 90 cents per cubic yard. When I became minister, recognizing the necessity of continuing that work, I asked myself how it would be possible to get the work done at a lower price? In past years the practice had been to let contracts from year to year. I determined that I would let a contract extending over a number of years because I thought that in that case there would be an encouragement to the contractors to purchase a dredge and that they would be willing, as they would be sure of the work extending over a number of years, to tender at a lower price than they would be if they only had the contract for one year. I called for tenders and the result was that the Maritime Dredging Company tendered for the work at 39 cents per cubic



yard, a little more than one-third of what had been previously paid for dredging in St. John harbour. The hon. gentleman referred to the dredging work that Mr. Mayes did at one time at 55 cents per cubic yard, and afterwards at 90 cents per cubic yard. We are getting the dredging done, and a very important work it is, in the harbour of St. John, by the Maritime Dredging Company at either 39 or 39J cents per cubic yard.
Just a word in regard to the inspectors. 1 say to my hon. friend that in no single case has an inspector been appointed who was supposed to have any relations of any kind or description with the contractors. So far, I know of no inspector having been appointed upon the recommendation of the contractors, and we have always been careful to see that they have no connection of any kind or description with the contractors so that they would not be likely to be in the slightest degree influenced in favour of the contractors. We have endeavoured to get honest men, and I believe we have honest men. I believe we have honest men in the employ of the government to-day as dredge inspectors, and until I have some better evidence than the mere statement of my hon. friend that these inspectors are dishonest, I shall continue to believe that they are honest. I shall continue to believe they are honest until I have evidence to the contrary.
I	would say to my hon. friend that I think the fair thing for him to do would be to investigate these accounts thoroughly. 1 have no objection to the most thorough investigation before the Public Accounts Committee, but I do say to him that in all fairness to those who are not here to defend themselves he ought not to be throwing out these insinuations unless he has the facts to support such statements, and if he has the facts to support them, then it is his duty to submit these facts to the proper officers of the Crown whose duty it is to take criminal proceedings and give them an opportunity of taking such a course as they may deem to be best in the public interest. The hon. gentleman has now the opportunity of going to his own political friends. It so happens that the Premier of New Brunswick, who is also the Attorney General of that province, is a political friend of the hon. member who represents the county of York and who has made these insinuations. I have no doubt that if he goes, in the discharge of his duty, and submits the facts to the Attorney General he will feel it to be his duty to take the necessary steps in order to punish those who have defrauded the treasury of this country, if there has been any defrauding of the treasury, although I do not hesitate to tell the committee that I do not believe it, and I shall refuse to believe it Mr -PUGSLEY.
until I have some positive evidence that there has been such fraud as my hon. friend insinuates.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think I have a full sense of my responsibilities and duties as a member of this House, and that I do not require any instructions from the Minister of Public Works in that behalf. I stated that I believed in many cases in connection with dredging contracts in New Brunswick the public treasury had been defrauded of large sums of money. I stated that and I reiterate that now as my firm belief. I say this after having investigated, to some extent, the accounts in connection with the dredging operations and after having had communicated to me information by letter and by personal interview by several very reliable men in different parts of New Brunswick. I referred to one case, the contract of A. and R. Loggie for dredging at Dalhousie. I state what is my absolute and firm belief founded on information communicated to me by persons of unquestioned reliability. I have a letter from Dalhousie stating that Mr. Alleyne who was appointed-and I have since discovered that he was appointed upon the order of the Minister of Public Works to do the inspecting at that place-has been paid day after day during the whole season, and that for many days he was not there at all. There is a memorandum upon the file signed by the Minister of Public Works asking that this same Mr. Alleyne be appointed. He was appointed, but the work was done by another person, and my information is that he wa's an employee of the firm of A. and R. Loggie and that a summons was issued in the magistrate's court.


William Pugsley: Issued by whom?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Issued by the man who did the inspecting.


William Pugsley: Against whom?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Against the inspector who was receiving the money from the government. That is my information, and when the summons was issued and served it was fixed up through the intervention of the contractor. As . to .the dredging of Maquapit lake this was the easiest sort of dredging, dredging a channel where there was three feet of water to the depth of seven, feet. The minister has said that there has been no case in which a contract has been let to the firm of A. & R. Loggie, and I think he added, or to any other firm in New Brunswick, without a tender. What has the Minister of Public Works to say as to this? I hold in my hand a copy of a telegram which reads:
Dalhousie, Oct. If, 1908. Eugene D. Lafleur, Ottawa.
Kindly authorize resident engineer Stead to put dredge ' Hayward ' at work at Bathurst

at same price as Caraquet contract, to be certified fair and reasonable by Mr. Stead, work not to exceed $5,000.
Signed, WM. PUGSLEY.


William Pugsley: What is the date?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The 14th October at Dalhousie, when the minister was down there in the election campaign and after no doubt he had seen his friend, Mr. Loggie.


William Pugsley: Was that to be at the same rate as the other?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Prices to be certified fair and reasonable by Mr. Stead. Well, I have had occasion to look into some of Mr. Stead's certificates and to judge of the value of his certificates as to what is fair and reasonable, and perhaps when we come to some other matters that have occurred in, the province of New Brunswick this House will have more light as to the value to be attached to any certificate furnished by Mr. Stead as to fairness and reasonableness. But there is the telegram signed by the minister himself telegraphing from Dalhousie, where Mr. Loggie was, to his engineer and instructing him to give Loggie's dredge this work at prices to be fixed by the minister's engineer, Mr. Stead. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the people of the province of New Brunswick, where this work is being done, will require something more than a display of affected indignation on the part of the Minister of Public Works. He invariably shields himself-that has been his habit for many years-when a statement is made which reflects upon himself or his department by trying to treat it as something said against somebody else, and then he proceeds to laud that somebody else to the skies and to speak of him as some one of the highest reputation for honour and integrity and righteousness in which he is excelled by no man in the Dominion of Can-'ada. He has said that of his friend, Mr. McAvity, he has said that of his friend, Mr. Loggie. Well, these are private contractors and I am not here to criticise them,' but to criticise the Department of Public Works which is the trustee and servant of the people for not properly guarding the people's interests.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentlemen say that a contractor has conspired with an inspector to defraud the department and yet makes no reflection on him?


Oswald Smith Crocket: What I said was that I was not here for the purpose of making reflections on these people who were dealing with the department, but my criticism is directed against the department.


William Pugsley: Why do you do it then?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Because I am here as a representative of the people to criticise
the conduct of the department. I have no hesitation in saying that my firm belief is that there has been fraud in this connection and that the country is paying as much as fifty per cent and one hundred per cent in same cases for dredging above fair and honest prices.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman suggest to this committee that there can be fraud unless the inspector and the contractor are parties to that fraud?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not saying whether that is so or not, but I do say and the great majority of the people in the communities who know what is going on, believe it, that these certificates upon which payment is being made to these very contractors are certificates which cannot be relied upon. I have referred to the certificate of Mr. Alleyne, appointed by the minister himself in connection with the Loggie contract; a certificate which has been brought down, and which would convince anybody that the man was not competent to estimate the quantity of dredging material worked by that firm or any other firm. In addition to that there is the information which has been communicated to me by a prominent resident of that community in reference to Mr. Alleyne's neglect of his duty, and the fact that it was known that he was not there day after day and for weeks at a time, but he signed these certificates upon statements prepared by another man who was in close relation with the Loggie firm. Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of these facts the House will be in a better position to properly judge the weight of the statement which the minister made, and as I say, it will require more than these exhibitions of affected indignation to which the minister always resorts when he claims that there are foul insinuations made against him or his friends; it will require more than his affected indignation to change the opinion of the residents of these communities where these things have gone on. So far as I am concerned it is not an insinuation. I state, as a member of this House, my firm belief, after examining the documents which have been brought down in connection with these contracts, and after having had communicated to me by reliable people these facts of which I have made mention.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister said he did not know whether this work would be done by contract or by the government dredge. Is there not a government dredge in that vicinity.


William Pugsley: No.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is there not one at Lunenburg?

Mr. PTKjSLEY. Not a government dredge; it belonged to the W. J. Poupore Company.


Adam Brown Crosby: I understood there was a government dredge at Bridgewater not very long ago.


William Pugsley: That was a Poupore dredge, but of course we have dredges at several places.
Yarmouth harbour improvements, $60,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue the very necessary work of improving the harbour at Yarmouth.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How is the dredging being done there?


William Pugsley: It is done under contract. Tenders were called for, several were received, and the lowest tender was that of the Dominion Dredging Company, which is doing the work. The prices are 50 cents a yard for taking out to sea, and 30 cents to cast over.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How far do they have to take the material?


William Pugsley: I have not that information.


Bowman Brown Law: About five miles.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost of the work?


William Pugsley: That will depend on the extent of the improvement we shall make. We are widening and deepening the channel so as to accommodate the large steamers which now come to Yarmouth, especially those running to Boston. If we were to continue the. work to the full extent that would be useful the cost would run up to a large amount; but we do not think it necessary to do that. We can keep widening the channel gradually. At present we have in contemplation only the work for which we are now asking for an appropriation.


Clarence Jameson: Will the work at Westport be done by contract?


William Pugsley: Yes. The hon. member for Cumberland asked what the $367.77 was expended for at Diligent River harbour. It was for removing what is known as the Gore rock, which was a menace to navigation, about 225 tons of stone having been removed. Then, the hon. member for Digby asked me with regard to the wharf at Cen-treville. I may say that I have had a report made upon that wharf, and while it is a fairly useful work, I find that it will cost from $75,000 to $85,000. Therefore I am afraid that I cannot hold out much expectation that that work will be done in the near future.


Clarence Jameson: I do not want the minister to confuse the repairs necessary to Mr. CEOSBY.
sustain the present structure with the very elaborate harbour improvement referred to in the report. The wharf at present there is liable to be carried away during any tempestuous weather and a comparatively small sum would retain that, and that is what I referred to.


William Pugsley: The difficulty, in the opinion of the resident engineer is that it would be a waste of money to repair the present wharf, while to build a new one, which would be the only way to make it effective, would cost the sum I have stated.


Clarence Jameson: All I can say is that it would be a most disastrous thing to allow that wharf to go down for the lack of a comparatively small sum of money. I know the wharf quite as well as the resident engineer. The entire business carried on there is dependent on that structure, and if it is allowed to go down, the business done there will be brought to an immediate termination, and many thousands of dollars invested in valuable plants will be entirely lost and hundreds of people thrown out of employment. So I hope the minister will either ask the resident engineer for a soecial report on that wharf, or send a special engineer to make a special report.


William Pugsley: I cannot promise to
send a special engineer, but I will again look carefully into the report. My hon. friend also mentioned Battery Point, Digby, Nova Scotia. I find that a part of it belongs to the Department of Militia and Defence and the other part to the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company. Therefore, there is no obligation on my department to make any improvements.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.

Thursday, December 9, 1909.