1910-02-01

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 128) to incorporate the James Bay and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.
Bill (No. 129) to incorporate the Ontario and Ottawa Railway Company-Mr. Low.
Bill (No. 130) respecting the Vancouver Island and Eastern Railway Company.- Mr. Ralph Smith.

Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE (North Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 131) respecting pure foods.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: Explain.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Pure food is now attracting world wide attention especially in respect to the conditions under which food is prepared for human consumption. The United States, the Australasian colonies, Great Britain herself, all civilized countries are. legislating in the direction of securing the purity of food. In Canada we have the Adulteration of Food Act, and we have the Canned Goods Act, and we have the Inspection of Foods Act, all directed more or less towafds this object, but to any one who has studied the subject it would appear that something is still wanting. This Bill among other things proposes to provide legislation for the establishing of standards of pure food, and in drafting the Bill I have endeavoured not to intrude upon the prerogatives of government by placing any charge upon the public or interfering with any trade. I trust the Minister of Inland Revenue, under whose jurisdiction

such matters come, will give this Bill careful consideration. My only regret is that some medical man who may understand the matter better than I, is not in charge of the Bill. This Bill provides that it shall be called the 'Pure Food Act', and that it shall be read and construed with the Adulteration Act, the Canned Goods Act, and the Inspection and Sales Act, and, following the precedents set by the legislature of Victoria it to some extent consolidates these Acts relating to pure food, and provides a uniform law on the subject. Under the heading of 'interpretation', the chief point is the definition of the words 'article of food' and for the purpose of this Bill an article of food is defined to be every article used for food or drink by man. Then, the Bill provides, similar to existing legislation, that an officer may enter upon and examine premises, and 'an officer' for the purpose of this Act is interpreted to be an officer under the meaning of the other Acts to which I have referred. The provisions with respect to seizure and so forth are similar to those in the Inspection and Sales Act and the Adulteration Act. This provision is made because there may be included in the standards fixed under this Bill certain things which are not contained in our present legislation.
Another clause provides that food put up for sale must bear a legible stamp or stencil mark, giving the name of the article, the quantity, measure, volume and so forth, and the name and address of the vendor or maker. The package must have on it, placed in a prominent position, in prominent letters, the words ' prepared under the regulations and standard of the Canadian Pure Foods Act.' The purpose is to give in a larger measure_ a guarantee to the public that these articles are properly prepared.
I find that other countries compel manufacturers to place a guarantee of this kind on their exported goods, so that it gives to the foreign consumer a certain guarantee of their quality. I desire that we should have the same law here, so that any foods or other articles of food that we sell abroad will carry with them a stamp of a pure food law of our own, such as is carried under the laws of the United States and Australia. The next subject that is dealt with is how samples should be taken in packages. Another clause concerning witnesses, provides that a witness need not be compelled to disclose where he obtains his information, also making a provision where and how an officer may purchase samples. Then another clause provides that the prosecution must be instituted within forty-two days after the information has been given, that is to limit the prosecution to a certain specified time. Then again when a person is summoned under this Act the summons is not 89
returnable for fourteen days. The next clause perhaps is one of the most important and defines what is meant by adulteration.
For the purposes of the Pure Food Act an article of food or substance or compound or other article shall be deemed adulterated or falsely described,
(a)	When it contains or is mixed with or diluted with any substance in any quality to the prejudice of the purchaser or consumer, or in any proportion which diminishes in any manner its food value or nutritive properties as compared with such article in a pure or normal state and in an undeteriorated or sound condition,
(b)	When it contains or is mixed with or diluted with any substance of lower commercial value than such article in pure or normal state and in an undeteriorated or sound condition, or
(c)	When it does not comply either wholly or in part with the standard therefor prescribed under this Act by any regulation, or
(d) When it contains any substance prescribed as a prohibited addition, or
(e) When it contains any substance concerning which any restrictive regulation has been made in excess of any quantity or proportion permitted by any such regulation, or
(f)	When it contains methyl alcohol, or not having paid customs or excise duty, it contains more than two parts of proof spirit per centum, or
(g)	When any article of food or other article or substance or compound in any package is described by any stamp or stencilled or impressed or printed or written statement or claim or brand or covering or label or mark or tag purporting to name or indicate the nature or quality or strength or purity or composition or origin or age or proportion of any article of food or ingredients or substances contained therein, which statement, claim, brand, covering label, mark or tag, is false or incorrect or misleading.
This clause in the Act virtually follows the Australian and American law. The next clause takes up the question of the addition of certain injurious drugs to liquors and wines, and provides that certain dangerous ingredients shall not be contained in them, such as cholorides, sulphites, sulphuric acid and other substances of that nature. The next clause deals with the quality of the tin which is supposed to be used in putting up a package, and makes provision against there being a dangerous quantity of lead in the covering or package. The next clause deals with toys, wall paper and articles of that kind, and provides that there shall be no arsenic in the paint used on them. Then another clause deals with the matter of use of dangerous compounds in wall paper, leathers, and so forth. This provision against the use, for instance, of arsenic and lead, is contained in the statute-books of other countries, and is borrowed largely from them. The principal clause deals with the question of who shall



fix these standards, and that is perhaps the most important section in this Act. It reads thus:
The Governor in Council may appoint for the purposes of this Act a pure foods standard commission.
(a)	Such commission shall be composed of fifteen members. The chief analyst of the Dominion shall be a member and shall preside as chairman of the commission. _
(b)	The other members of the commission must hold the position for the time being or have held the position of professor or teacher of any one of tlie following subjects in a recognized university in the Dominion of Canada, chemistry, biology, materia medica, physiology, agriculture, sanitation, bacteriology, veterinary science. The said members shall be appointed from the following faculties : One from a university in Nova Scotia, one from a university in jPrince Edward Island, one from a university in New Brunswick, one from the University of Laval, one from the University of McGill, one from the University of Queens, one from the University of Toronto, one from the Western University of London, one from a university in Manitoba, one from a university in Saskatchewan, one from a university in Alberta, one from a university in British Columbia, and two provincial medical health officers.
The commission shall have power to fix a standard for foods and drugs, and to establish regulations. In the United States this commission is composed of three officers of the government who frame regulations and fix the standard. There has been considerable difiiculty and controversy over these standards, and in order to avoid any theories or fads in the establishment of our standards, I think it would be wise for us to have a board of experts as large as possible, and composed of men who would be above reproach in any possible way. I think the commission I have suggested in this Bill would be well qualified to fix the standards on those articles mentioned in the Bill, and they would remove any onus from the department or officers connected with the department. The public at large could have every confidence in this commission who had fixed these standards.
There are other clauses which provide that the -commission shall meet twice a year, and that the commission shall be called on notice of the chief analyst for the purpose of considering the advisability of placing some new article on that standard or of changing the present regulation.
Those, Sir, in substance, are the main provisions of this Bill. I trust the Minister of Inland Revenue will take it into his favourable consideration, and will adopt if possible some of its provisions and incorporate them in our present law. At present the standard is fixed under the Adulteration Act, and virtually it is the chief analyst whose duty it is to fix the stand-Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
ards. The Act has been on the statute-book for many years, and we have had no standards as the law says we shall have. The duty of fixing the standards being placed upon the shoulders of one man exposes him possibly to attack from manufacturers on the one hand, and also to attack from the public on the other. For that reason I think the commission as proposed here would lead us wisely out of the difficulty. The Australian law provides for a commission established on a similar basis, and it has received the commendation of those who have given consideration to the matter of pure foods in other countries, and other countries have followed a similar plan. I think, Sir, that the matters dealt with under this Bill are of sufficient importance to the people of Canada to merit that, the Bill should be considered in committee, to see if we cannot arrive at some better method of securing a high quality of foods in this country than we have at present.


William Templeman: Mr. Speaker, it would be premature to discuss the Bill, as explained by the hon. member for North Sim-coe (Mr. Currie), at the present time. When it is printed and circulated and when we have had time to study its provisions it will be the proper time to give that consideration which my hon. friend asks for it. But, as my hon. friend explains the Bill, it seems to me, that we would require to amend or repeal the Adulteration of Foods Act. The most important provision in the Bill, as explained by my'hon. friend, is that providing for the establishment of standards for foods. In the present Adulteration of Foods Act, as my hon. friend has just stated, there is power for the Governor General in Council to establish standards of food and if the Adulteration of Foods Act in Canada has not been that success that it might have been it is due to the fact that standards of food have never been established. But, for some months the chief chemist of the department has had the question under consideration and food standards are now being prepared and_will be in force, under the present Adulteration of Foods Act, I think, on the first of April next. These standards embrace 500 or 600 articles of food. It has been a large undertaking for the chemist of the department to prepare these standards, but I am hopeful that as soon as the manufacturers of food stuffs in Canada and others interested have been apprised of what these standards are going to be, and as soon as the standards are properlv prepared they will be enforced. I just want to state that at the present time under the Adulteration of Foods Act the department is preparing to put into force what is apparently the most important provision of my

hon. friend's Bill. However, after the Bill is printed and circulated we will have a better opportunity of considering it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: If the Minister of Finance would be good enough to communicate with him as early as possible I would be very glad; or, perhaps the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) is acquainted with the circumstances and can answer my question.
On the orders of the day being called:


Mr. FIELDING.: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed with the orders of the day, may I have your permission to state that a telegram has been received announcing that the exchange of ratifications of the F'ranco-Oanadian treaty took place this day at Paris and therefore the treaty is now in operation.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS AND PAPERS.

Mr. U. WILSON.: I would like to inquire about a return with reference to immigration agencies that I moved for on the 18th day of November. The minister, a few days ago, said that it had been brought down long ago, but I made inquiry this morning and found that it has not yet been brought down.


William Stevens Fielding: I will call the attention of the hon. Minister of the Interior to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), in the absence of the right hon. the Prime Minister, whether or not there is any answer to the inquiry made by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) yesterday with regard to further documents touching the question of naval defence. I would like to know whether all the papers relating to the recent defence conference have been brought down, whether there have been any subsequent correspondence or communications, which, in the ordinary course, would be laid before the House for the purposes of a debate upon the second reading of the Bill. If there are any such documents or communications I think they should be laid on the table of the House not later than to-day in order that we may make ourselves acquainted with their purport before the debate takes place on Thursday next.


William Stevens Fielding: I will see that the attention of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is called to the matter a3 early as possible. I have no doubt he has given his attention to it, but unfortunately he is not very well to-day and unable to be present, but I will see that his attention is again called to it, so that if there are any additional papers they may be brought down.
89J


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: My impression is that all the papers have been brought down. Precisely the same papers have been laid on the table of this House as were laid on the table of the House of Commons in England. The conference was secret, as was announced at the time, and sol were the meetings of the subcommittees of the conference and unless some correspondence in reference to certain ships which have been under consideration may be in my hon. friend's mind I do not think there is any thing whatever connected with the conference per se which has not been laid on the table.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know of anything except that we would like to have the definite assurance that every thing which ought to be brought down and which in the ordinary course would be brought down has been laid before the House.
. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. I will look into that myself to-day.


Mr. JAMESON.: I wish to draw the attention of the minister in charge of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to return (No. 82) respecting the salmon fisheries of Digby county. I find that this return as brought down is incomplete. I know that certain investigations were had subsequent to the conclusion of this return, and I would ask that the return be completed as early as possible.


William Stevens Fielding: I will call the attention of the acting minister to the hon. gentleman's request.



SUPPLY-INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I would like to say to the minister in connection with the diversion of the line at Chatham, that if he has not got the information now, I would like him to state, when we return to the item, just what negotiations have taken place with reference to the acquisition of', 'the right of way, what properties have been purchased, if any, and from whom, and at what prices.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.', 'Wednesday, February 2, 1910.']
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of *hallways and Canals).: Mr. Speaker, according to custom, I propose to make a few observations on the work of the Department of Railways and Canals including that branch of the department's work, so much talked about, the Intercolonial railway. I wish in the beginning to note the regret I feel at the withdrawal from the public service of Mr. Butler, the able deputy and chief engineer of the department. In the few years he has been in the department he has made good, if I may be allowed that expression, and his efficiency in every

branch of his work is acknowledged. But perhaps above and beyond that is the fact that his sterling integrity and unswerving devotion to the public interest are conceded by every person. It is too bad in the public interest that we are not able to retain the services of such men because a question of salary, certainly, in reason, is not to be considered, because the difference between a capable and honest man and one who might lack either one or the other of those qualities, might mean an entire year's salary in one transaction in that department. However, Mr. Butler's ability and knowledge have been recognized by a great corporation, he has engaged with them and will leave the department in a few day3 1 have appointed in his place as deputy minister, Mr. Archibald W. Campbell, who is well known, particularly throughout the province of Ontario. Mr. Campbell is an engineer of standing and for the past few years has been deputy Minister in the Public Works Department of the provincial government. I know Mr. Campbell personally, and he has an excellent reputation, both for ability and honesty, and I believe that in him I have secured a deputy minister who will give good service to the country. I intend to make a change in the officials of my department to the extent that Mr. Campbell will act as deputy minister and a chief engineer will be appointed, separate and apart from the position of deputy minister. I propose also to make Mr. Campbell, chairman of the Board of Management of the Intercolonial railway, of which I shall speak in a few moments.


Mr. LENNOX.: What will be the difference in cost by reason of dividing the position?


George Perry Graham: It will depend on the salary I will be compelled to give the new man as chief engineer. Mr. Campbell's salary as deputy is regulated by the Civil Service Act and will be $5,000. Mr. Butler, as chief engineer, receives $3,000 in addition to the $5,000. I may say frankly that I have no anticipation that I can get a chief engineer of the ability required for the position for anything like the difference between $5,000 and $8,000. I propose to look about and see what I can do, and then I shall lay before the House an estimate for the amount for which I think we can get a chief engineer.


Mr. FOSTER.: What experience has Mr. Campbell had on railways?


George Perry Graham: Previous deputies of the Department of Railways and Canals have had very little experience in railways, and as deputy he would not need to have any experience in railways other than being a good business man. When the Temiska-Mr. GRAHAM.
ming and Northern Ontario railway, that is the Ontario government railway, was constructed, the construction was undertaken through a commission, and that commission originally was under the Public Works Department of Ontario. The present commission reports through that department. In the original construction, I think Mr. Campbell as deputy-I am speaking from memory-had a good deal to do in the department with the detail of the construction, not of the actual work but of the returns. So fax as I know that is all the experience he has had in railway work.
In approaching the question of transportation, we enter upon a veTy large subject. Canada has undertaken very large things in the way of the solving of the problem of carrying the produce of the people at as fair a rate as possible, but the work that she has begun and has now in contemplation does not by any means mean the completion of what she will have to undertake. I shall not detain the House further than to say what I have said before, that I believe the' Canadian people have shown greater courage than any people in the world in this direction, and that in the years to come and even now, we are reaping the benefit. But the present benefit is nothing to what the people to follow us will reap in this country from the amount of money we are now expending in solving this great question. I look forward to the time/ I think with some degree of reason at least, when Canada will do a large proportion of the carrying trade of this continent. We will not only carry our own goods from west to east and east to west, but will, on account of our situation and the natural advantages we enjoy, be enabled to make a successful bid for a large portion of the carrying trade of our neighbours to the south, because business men accept the best offers they can get for transportation as for anything else; and I say again that I look to the time when Canada will do a large portion of the carrying trade of the continent of America.
I shall not go into generalities, but wish to state a few concrete facts in connection with the work of transportation. During my visit abroad last summer I took occasion to visit the great Kiel canal in Germany. This is, if I remember, the 'only canal in Germany owned by the state, or at least the only large one. The great majority of the canals in Germany and other countries of Europe are owned by private companies. Some of them are owned by county councils, some by railway companies, which is a somewhat anomalous position when we consider the fact that canals are supposed to be rivals of railways and to reduce the cost of transportation. I visited the Kiel canal, a very large work about 61 miles long. It connects the

Baltic sea with the North sea and is used for the transport of the smaller war vessels, and the great improvements being made in it is for the purpose, I believe, of enabling the German government to move their larger warships from ocean to ocean. The length of the locks they propose to .make in the new canal will be approximately 800 feet, and the locks, will be 150 feet wide and 42 feet deep. This is looked upon as a very large enterprise and it is, but, Sir, when we look at some of the enterprises that are staring the Canadian people in the face, I think we might well say that Canada has engineering problems that she has undertaken and others that she will shortly undertake that will compare favourably in magnitude with even the great Kiel canal which the German government is building. The question of smaller canals in Germany is one that is attracting the very close attention of the German government. They have plans now prepared to practically make a network of canals all through the German empire. But, as I said a moment ago, they are not built by the state or the government, they are largely owned by private corporations, and in some instances by county councils. They build them in canalized rivers, they build small canals connecting lakes, and also build them where there seems to be practically no communication, in order, as one gentleman pointed out to me, to give manufacturers an opportunity to extend their operations out on these cheap waterways, away from the cities, away from the larger taxation, and the other troubles that they have in cities. The manufacture of coarser goods, such as brick, &c., is said to be greatly assisted by the construction of these smaller canals.


George Eulas Foster: Did the minister find any like the


Haughton Lennox: -the Newmarket canal?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend is getting anxious again. Another point that struck me. and here I think Canada will stand fairly well in the comparison, is that I did not find a canal in the countries I visited owned by any of these people which was free like the Canadian waterways. We have shown greater courage in making our canals free than any of these countries. In Germany, and in England a? well, the rates in many cases were high. On one canal the .rates were five cents a ton besides harbour dues charged for loading and unloading in harbours constructed along the canal. On another canal the rate went to seven cents a ton, and these canals are run both for the benefit of navigation and as investments. In most instances they pay a small interest on the investment. I point
these things out to call attention to the fact that in that respect Canada has shown greater courage than any of these older countries by spending millions upon her canals and throwing them open to the commerce of the North American continent. I also took occasion to visit the great Manchester ship canal, which is about 60 miles from the sea; but even at that distance .Manchester is made an ocean port. But I wish to draw attention to the fact that Montreal is now an ocean port, though a good many miles farther from the ocean than Manchester. We have spent millions of dollars in making Montreal an ocean port, and in that again we have_ shown courage for a young people. Taking our expenditures on our railways, our canals and our waterways generally, it is not at all out of the way to say that Canada has shown greater courage than any other country in the world in the amount of money she has expended per head of the population for carrying out these great works.
With regard to our canals, we have all heard the discussions pro and con upon the Georgian Bay canal and the Welland canal. The opinion of the government as to these is pretty well known. I might state here that there is now being urged the necessity, owing to the great increase in icanal traffic in this country, of building another lock at the Sault. Allow me to make a guess, which will not be considered an educated guess on my part, that this will cost the country from $8,000,000 to $10,000,000. That lock, if constructed, ought to provide for a depth of from 25 to 27 feet, 1 e-cause it wnuld be folly to half do the work, when in a few years we would have either to deepen the lock or build a new one.
A few words of statistical information. The canals of Canada in 1909 carried perhaps the largest volume of traffic in their history. The freight which passed through amounted to 33,720,748 tons, as compared with 17,502,820 in 1908. This was an increase of 16,217,928 tons, or 93 per 'cent in one year. To give an idea of the measure of increase in the freight traffic through our canals, let me state that three years ago the total traffic was only 10,523,185 tons, and ten years ago it was only 5,013,693 tons; so that last year it was nearly seven times as much as it was ten years ago. Of the traffic of 1909, 27,976,399 tons was eastbound and 5,744,349 westbound.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister the proportions of Canadian and foreign?


George Perry Graham: I have not the figures, but I can state generally that while we carried a large amount of American traffic, the proportion of increase of Canadian traffic has been equal and perhaps a little more than that of American traffic.

In this connection I may be allowed to call attention to Port Colborne and the Port Colborne elevator. The harbour at that point was originally an open roadstead which was at the mercy of the sea, and it became absolutely necessary to protect the harbour if it was to be used as an entrance to the canal. Both the Public Works Department and the Department of Railways and Canals have done a large amount of work there. That entrance to the canal was adopted a good many years ago. At that time or shortly afterwards the depth of water in the canal was only 14 feet, and, therefore, the depth of the entrance was only 14 feet. But when it became advisable to build an elevator at Port Colborne, to unload the traffic from larger vessels into smaller ones, it became necessary to make the depth of the harbour equal to the draft of the vessels on the lakes. . As the ruling draft of the vessels on the great lakes is now 20 feet, it became necessary to make this harbour suitable for vessels of that draft. This .cost a large amount of money for the protection of the harbour; and I may say that more work will have to be done in the way of building breakwaters in order that the harbour may be fully protected, and that ships may be perfectly safe there, no matter what storms may prevail outside, in taking on or discharging their cargoes. The elevator at Port Colborne has now a capacity of 860,000 bushels, and we have foundations and other provisions for increasing that to 2,000,000 bushels. Last year there was put through that elevator about 1,500,000 bushels. That is a comnaratively small quantity, particularly when you bear in mind that this elevator is perhaps as efficient a one as can be found any where, capable of unloading some 60,000 bushels per hour. I was not at all sanguine that this elevator, if carried on by the government, .would handle any great amohnt of grain. I think it is no secret that corporations only use government property when they cannot do anything else. They do not encourage us to any great extent in this work. But I am told by a very large shipper that the fact that there was such an elevator at Port Colborne, ready and willing to tranship .grain from the larger vessels into the smaller ones, had a very mollifying influence on the freight rates by other routes. One man thought that this resulted in a saving of nearly a cent a bushel in the rates of the other transportation lines. I am not going to discuss that, because I dc not know. But even if the saving were onlv half a cent or a quarter of a cent a bushel, it would mean a great dear to the people shipping their grain from the west. It might be in the interest of all parties- I have not made up my mind on it-if the Mr. GRAHAM.
elevator were leased and run in connection with some of the lines of transportation; but if we did that, unless some restrictions were imposed, it might deprive us of the benefit the elevator now confers of keeping down the freight rates on other routes.
Leaving the canals, allow me to take up the question of the railways of Canada. We have a larger railway mileage per head of the population than any other country in the world. It now amounts to 24,104 miles, an increase on the previous year of 1,138 miles. There is a peculiar situation in reference to the traffic of last year: there was a considerable improvement in the moving of products, but the passenger traffic fell off. Notwithstanding the apparent improvement in business, the people did not travel as much last year as the year before when business was better, perhaps having less business they had more time to travel the year before. ' The results were as follows:
The railway mileage of Canada' is now 24,104, an increase of 1,138 miles during the year.
The freight traffic aggregated 66,842,258 tons, an increase of 3,771,091 tons. In dollars $1,9G8,128.00.	.
The passenger traffic amounted to 32,683,309, a decrease of 1,361,683. A decrease in dollars of $919,015.00.
Nearly a million dollars decrease in the income from the carrying of passengers last year. I do not attempt to explain it but merely state the fact.
I wish to place on record a memo I have received concerning the Grand Trunk Pacific from Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, chief engineer for the government. I shall just read this memo as I think that is the shortest way to put what I desire on record;
Office of the General Consulting Engineer to the Government and Chief Engineer of the Western Division of the National Transcontinental Railway.


The Hon.   G@: Graham,
Minister of Railways and Canals.
Ottawa, Canada, January, 13, 1910.
Sir,-I think it desirable at the close of the year that I should report the condition of the works of construction on the western division of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway up to the 31st December, 1909.
Prairie Section.
This section of road extends from Winnipeg to Wolfe Creek, a distance of 915 miles.
The grading and bridging are completed throughout the whole distance, and 1,431 miles of single fencing have been built. The track is laid from Winnipeg to a point about 24 miles west of Entwhistle, a distance of 885 miles, and a telegraph line has also been built. There is a lift of ballast on the line from Winnipeg to Entwhistle, a distance of 861 miles.
[DOT]2805

The road is in operation from Winnipeg to Edmonton, a distance of 795 miles, and the traffic for the past twelve months has been as follows:-
74,715 number of passengers.
5,880,069 bushels of grain.
117,810 tons of general freight.
The accommodation provided for nublic traffic service on this section is as follows:-
G engine houses, 3 machine shops, 0 divisional station houses, 33 way station houses,
56 section houses, 67 bunk houses, 55 tool houses, 35 water stations, 6 coaling stations,
77 loading platforms, 113 grain elevators, 13
stock yards.		
For the safety of the travelling public all crossings by this road of other railways have been guarded by an interlocking plant.
The following is the public traffic rolling stock:-
92 locomotives, 6 sleeping cars. 3 parlour cars, 4 first-class cars, 9 second-class cars,
4 mail and express cars, 9 baggage cars, II colonist cars, 83 conductors vans, 33 refrigerator cars, 2 official cars, 3,213 box freight cars, 895 platform cars, 31 stock cars, 3 Russell snow ploughs.
Work on the ' prairie section ' is practically closed down for the winter season: the only work going on, being the laying of the track and the finishing of some of the buildings.
Mountain Section.
l'his section of the road is about 837 miles in length.
The following works are under contract, viz:-	' *
From Wolf creek to a point 179 miles west thereof. Messrs. Foley, Welch and Stewart are the contractors for the grading and wooden bridges.
They have done considerable clearing of the right of way and about 200,000 cubic yards of excavation. They, however, have a great number of teams on the tote road hauling in plant, tools and supplies, so as to be in readiness for a vigorous prosecution of the works upon the opening of spring. Only a small force is now at work in the cuttings.
Mr. Charles May is the contractor for the substructure of the Wolf Creek and McLeod river bridges.
There is a large quantity of sand and gravel delivered at both points, and a large force of men are engaged in excavating the foundations for the piers, pedestals and abutments ; as soon as the track reaches Wolf creek, say in three weeks, cement will be carried up to that point by train.
It is of urgent importance that the work on these two structures be rushed to completion with the greatest possible speed, in order that the track-laying may be advanced, thus facilitating the transportation of plant, tools and supplies to the unlet portions of the ' mountain section,' enabling intending contractors to bid very much lower for the work than they otherwise could.
From the point 179 miles west of Wolf creek to a point 597 miles west thereof, the work has not been placed under contract.
From the point 597 miles west of the Wolf creek to Prince Rupert, a distance of 2401
miles, the work of grading and the construction of wooden bridges is under contract with Messrs. Foley, Welch and Stewart.
No work has as yet been executed on the first 40 miles, and merely a good start has been made on. the next 100 miles; the reasons being, that navigation closed on the Skeena river about a month earlier than usual, thus putting a stop to running in supplies, tools, plant, etc. However, the contractors are exerting their efforts to push a tote road through so as to enable them to haul in supplies, etc., by team and keep the. work moving throughout the winter. They ore now at work on one of the tunnels and some rock cuttings.
The work of grading and the construction of wooden bridges on the last 100 miles, to Prince Rupert, was practically completed when a very heavy storm with a high tide caused damage, washing away some of the rock embankments where exposed to the sweep of the open ocean, and bringing down considerable slides from the mountain sides, filling up some cuttings and blocking up waterways. The damage, however, was not very extensive.
Mr. Ferguson, the contractor for the sub structure of the several steel bridges, having failed in carrying out his contract, the Grank Trunk Pacific Railway Company have relieved him of the work, and are carrying it on themselves by day labour. This work is progressing very slowly, but better conditions are promised for the future. If these promises are not realized, the track-laying in the spring will be delayed.
Steel rails for this 100 miles; one locomotive; one conductors' van and 24 cars, for the work of track-laying and ballasting, have been delivered at Prince Rupert, and a large quantity of ties have been delivered along the line.
About one mile of track has been laid, but nothing further will be done in that direction until next spring.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) COLLINGWOOD SCHREIBER, Chief Engineer, West. Div. N. T. Ry.
In addition, at the risk of being tedious, I want just to give in a concrete form the position of the work up to date on the eastern section, so that hon. gentlemen will see at a glance what has been done on the whole undertaking by looking at ' Hansard.'



[Stage Direction]
-	Done to March 31, 1909.	March 31, 1909 to Nov. 30, 1909.	Total done to Nov. 30, 1909.Miles.	Miles.	Miles.District ' A '	170	71-	241-„ '15'	267-25	82 35	349 6„ 'C'	Nil.	8-	8-„ ' D ' ...	24 29	8P71	106-„ 'E'	5 96	27-04	33-'F*	258-	49-50	307 5Total	
-	725 50	319 60	1,045-1

[Stage Direction]
District.	Main line.	To Mar. 31, 1909.	To Nov. 30, 1909.	j Sidings.	Total.	1 | -anil	Sidings.	Total.Miles.	Miles.	Miles.	Miles.	Miles.	Miles.'A'.	3P44	11-44	45-88	124 98	20-84	145 82'B'.	11503	11-46	120-49	169-33	13 94	183-27'D'.	47-44	10%	'F'.	120 02	36 98	163 00	255-87	56 81	312-68275 49	59-88	335 37	597 02	102 55	700 17

[Stage Direction]
-	Done to March 31, 1909.	Done to Nov. 30, 1909.
	Miles.	Miles.
District ' A '	252	1015.. 1 B '	40-2	74-8n 'C'	Nil.	Nil.Ml	Nil.	Nil.M 'E'	Nil,	Nil.„ ' F '	112-8	212-4Total	178-2	425 0
Note.-Above mileages represent the equivalent of fully ballasted track. The mileages of sidings are included.
Mr. HAGGART.: Is that up to date?


George Perry Graham: Up to November 30, 1909.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAIN.: Roughly, what is the total mileage of the Transcontinental?


George Perry Graham: 1,804. With reference to I the steel superstructures, I have the figures here:


RELATING TO STEEL SUPERSTRUCTURES FOR BRIDGES.
[Stage Direction]
Steel Beidges Completed.
District.	Weight of Steel.	Timber	Total cost.'A'	
[DOT] 1C	Lbs. 1,961,486 19,290,501	Ft. b. m. 161,297 1,380,257	$ cts. 48,331 82 917,101 24'C'	E'	' F '	190,750	157,015 99
23,600,223	1,732,304	1,122,449 05
Steel Bridges under Contract not Completed.
District.	Estimated weight of steol.	Estimated Timber.	Total Estimated cost.	Paid to Dec. 31, 1909.	Estimated balance to complete.'A'	Lbs. 23,296,314 4,998,799	Ft. b. m. 1,237,403 350,743	8 cts. 1,148,060 74 197,386 75	8 cts. 637,907 60 164,754 49	$ cts.'B'	510,153 14'C'	3^,i)3l£ 2b[DOT]|>
	8,471,000	537,400	375,647 66	87,794 34	287,852 66'E' 	'F*	7,693,504	524.451	423,971 17	59,104 57	364,866 60
44,459,617	2,649,979	2,145,065 66	949,561 00	1,195>504 66
George Perry Graham: Steel Bridges Required but not tet under Contract.
District.	Estimated weight of steel.	Estimated Timber.	Total Estimated cost.'A'	Lbs. 3,281,000 9,608,786 10,092,000 4,879,200 9,224,700 725,000	Ft. b.m. 231,500 865,748 731,900 532,400 757,800 100,893	$ cts. 162,033 63 543,765 21 491.466 90 246,715 70 462,984 00 43,022 22[DOT] ir	'C'	'D'	' K'	' F'	
37,810,686	3,220,241	1,949,987 66


SUMMARY.
[Stage Direction]
Cost of completed bridges	 §	1,122,449 05
Estimate cost of incompleted bridges under contract...	2,145,065 66
n ii bridges not yet under contract	 1,949,987 66
Total estimated cost of steel superstructures of Eastern
Division	
$	5,217,502 37Expenditure from September, 1904, to June, 1905	$	778,363 63" for the year ended 30th June, 1900	
1,831,263 50"	"	nine months ended 31st March, 1907...	5,537,867 50"	"	year ended 31st March, 1908	
18,910,449 41" year ended 31st March, 1909	
24,892,772 98
" nine months ended 31st December,
1909	 15,939,980 57
[Stage Direction]
That gives as briefly as possible the standing of the work, both on the western division and the eastern division of the Transcontinental, and hon. gentlemen will be able to see at a glance just about what has been done.
Now, Sir, I come to a very important matter. Hon. gentlemen have no doubt read with some interest the report presented by Mr. Butler, chief engineer and Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways, on the Hudson bay route. This report was made by Mr. Butler after studying the report of Mr. Armstrong, the engineer in _ charge of the Hudson bay railway project. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear to the country and clear to this House that this government has been committed to this work and intends to proceed with it with all possible speed. After a full study of the matter, or rather a study of it so far as is possible at the present time, the government has decided, and I believe the country will concur in that decision, that it is advisable to make the Hudson bay route another great outlet for the rapidly increasing products of the western part of this great country. Every dollar that can be saved to the people of the west in the transportation of their products means that a large part of that dollar will go to better remunerate
them for the labour they expend in the cultivation of the land. The government intends to proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of this work. You will notice in the report presented by Mr. Butler something which no doubt surprised many hon. members, as it certainly did surprise me. I refer to the fact that in the opinion of Mr. Armstrong, the engineer, Nelson harbour is superior to Churchill as the terminus of the Hudson bay railroad. I had always concluded, whether rightly or wrongly, that Churchill was the most suitable harbour on the Hudson bay, but my preconceived idea in that respect has been upset by the report of Mr. Armstrong, who, from the data secured, has no hesitation in expressing his opinion that Nelson is the better harbour of the two.
William Findlay Maclean: Which would be the shorter route?


George Perry Graham: To Nelson it is 67 miles shorter than to Churchill, by the railroad.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Has he given his reasons why he believes Nelson is the better harbour?


George Perry Graham: They are explained very well in the report.


John Graham Haggart: I drew a different conclusion from the report of the same man.


Mr. GKAHAM.: Well, he says in his report that Nelson is the better harbour. However, before either terminus is selected it would be wise to make sure of that fact, and I may say that the Minister of Marine will ask from the House a vote for the purpose of sending a ship up through the channel which will come into both these harbours from the outside, make an examination of the channel and of the passage through the straits. This expedition will make a thorough investigation of the entrance to the outer harbours of both places, and when that is done we v7ill be in a position to take up in a more practical way that part of the project at the harbour end. But that need not mean any delay in the beginning of the construction of the railway. Included in this great project there are wharfs and elevators, and the construction of these great . wharfs and elevators will be greatly facilitated by having the railway constructed so that the material may be carried in. I repeat that the delay necessary in making a full investigation as to the particular harbour which will be selected does not of necessity mean delay in the construction of the railway which, in my opinion, ought to. be constructed in advance of the building - of the elevators and wharfs, so that the supplies may be more economically taken on the ground.


Samuel Hughes: Instead of sending a ship round there to take soundings in the harbour, why not send a canoe? It would do just as well.


George Perry Graham: It is not far from the strait into the harbour, and the ship will be sent to make observations in the Strait as well.


Samuel Hughes: That is a different matter.


George Perry Graham: The ship will enter the harbours of Churchill and Nelson and make observations and give us information as to the approaches to these harbours as well as with respect to the conditions inside.


Samuel Hughes: The approach to the straits would be the same for one harbour as for the other, and I see no reason whatever for delaying to get up a junketing expedition to explore the harbours. There are fifty boats plying along each harbour, and the soundings of these harbours are just as well known as the soundings of the harbour of Montreal.


George Perry Graham: I am glad my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) has information Mr. GRAHAM.
about that, because the engineers have divergent views.


Samuel Hughes: The minister had that information in his department long years ago.


George Perry Graham: Well, I will not stop to discuss that now. The objection taken to some works undertaken by the government has been that the government embarked on the enterprise before they had full information, and so in this case I am going to try and get information in order that we may ensure that rve shall select the proper harbour.


Mr. LANCASTER.: 'Does the hon. gentleman propose to start to build his railway before he knows where the terminus is going to be? Surely he will want to know in what direction he is going to run the railway.


George Perry Graham: For over 200 miles the route will be in common no matter which harbour is selected.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Why were not the investigations in regard to the channel made before?


George Perry Graham: I am sure I do not know why they have not been made before, but, if we are going to provide what is to be a through route, and if we are going to have a railway to connect with, that route for the transportation of the products of the people of the west, I think every one will agree that we ought to have all the information which it is possible for us to obtain as to which is the better harbour. Heretofore the general opinion has been that Churchill is the better harbour, but we are now told by the engineers that Nelson is better, and even if Nelson is no more than as good a harbour as Churchill, if we can save 67 miles railway construction by going to that harbour, I think the country will consider that we are wise in making a thorough investigation of the matter. However, as I have pointed out, that does not mean that we should delay commencing the construction of the railway, because about 260 miles of the road will be the same no matter whiph harbour is selected, namely, from Pas Mission to Split lake.


Samuel Hughes: How far is it from the Pas Mission to Nelson?


George Perry Graham: It is 410 miles from the Pas Mission to Nelson, and 477 miles from the Pas Mission to Churchill, which gives a difference of 67 miles. There is a very interesting statement in this report, if it be true, that by the construction of this railroad and the establishing of the route, 5 cents per bushel can be saved to the people of the west on the grain they produce. An

examination of the conditions seems to lend credence to that statement, and if that be so it is in the interest of the people, of the west, yes, it is in the interest of Canada as a whole that we should without delay place within the reach of our western people this method of transportation which will enable them to effect this great saving. The report states that the distance from Nelson to Liverpool is 3,200 miles, and from Montreal to Liverpool 3,007 miles, or practically the same distance.


Mr. BRODER.: Would the construction of this Hudson bay route have any effect on the Georgian bay canal project?


Mr. CONMEE.: There is lots of work for both.


George Perry Graham: It is a little hard to say what the result would he, but I am such an optimist that I believe that within the next 25 years, in the Dominion of Canada, we can undertake to build all the projects we have in view and still not have any too many lines of transportation to carry the products of the country.


Andrew Broder: If you take grain by the Hudson bay route at 5 cents per bushel to the shipper, I do not see that you will get much advantage the other way.


George Perry Graham: It was estimated at 5 cents per bushel in comparison with existing rates, and my hon. friend must remember that running the Hudson Bay railway at full steam, and carrying all it is possible, we can relieve the pressure on the traffic from the Northwest to only a small amount, in view of the vast production of that country. I suppose hon. gentlemen have read that report, and they have seen that it is stated as the opinion of Mr. Butler that the coal of eastern Canada could by that route be taken at a commercial price to at least some of the points in the great west. If that be true, then not only is the west interested in the construction of this great work, but the people away in the remote east of Canada are also interested in the rapid and speedy completion of this great railway transportation. Now, without going into further details, I may say that when the supplementary estimates come down there will be an item providing for the commencement of the construction of this project as rapidly as possible, and I hope during the coming summer; I believe we will be able to undertake the construction of this project this summer, before we have another session of parliament. The country can rest assured that the government proposes to deal with this work in a practical way, and to proceed with its construction; because if any benefit is to accrue, I have
always believed in trying to get some of it for the people who are now doing the work and making the investment, and the sooner we get this project completed, the sooner returns will come to the people.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the estimated cost of the railway?


George Perry Graham: The engineer in charge, Mr. Armstrong, made an estimate, and the chief engineer of my department thought that in his estimate he had not provided for a standard of road such as ought to be constructed for the heavy traffic that will be carried during the very busy season. I want to say that this estimate is made on preliminary surveys, a survey party is now engaged in making the location from Le Pas to Split lake. There may be an increase in this figure after the line is properly located, because an estimate that may be approximate on a preliminary survey quite often is not a proper estimate if you have to change the location to some other point, and make it an absolute location. The estimate as given for the entire railway, with elevators, warehouse and terminal facilities at Nelson, is $16,426,340.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is that likely to be as accurate as the Grand Trunk Pacific estimate?


George Perry Graham: I have tried to explain these estimates to the House. I say frankly that these are approximate, because these are not location surveys, and we might run across a different kind of soil, and different material. But this provides for a railway of a grade of four-tenths of one per cent. There may be some difference of opinion as to the necessity of building a road with 80-lb. rails and an expensive grade of that kind. But as a matter of fact, the contour of the country is nearly level, and the engineer thinks he is well within his estimate.


Samuel Hughes: Four tenths of one per cent going to Hudson bay?


George Perry Graham: The engineer thinks it is practicable to make a grade of that kind both ways, and that grade will be at least for the east bound traffic.


Mr. LAKE.: Is the western end to commence at Le Pas mission and run into the prairie country?


George Perry Graham: The western end of this line has always been discussed and regarded as starting from Le Pas mission. Provision can be made for running lines into the country in other directions, but the western end of this line is supposed

to commence at what is known as Le Pas mission.


Richard Stuart Lake: Is it the idea of the government to construct this as a government work?


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman is asking me questions very rapidly. There might be a difference of opinion as to whether this should be constructed as a government work, or whether we should allow the project to be dealt with largely by a company. To-day I am not prepared to say in what way it may ultimately be done. But no matter how it is done, that does not of necessity mean that we cannot begin the construction at once, because if "an arrangement were made with a company that was satisfactory, any work the government had done could be handed over to it on reasonable terms in a contract..


Mr. WHITE.: The minister has said that there will be an appropriation in the supplementary estimates for building the Hudson Bay railway. I would like to know if ' there is any chance of an amount being provided for the commencement of the Georgian Bay canal?


George Perry Graham: Well, I think not this year. I have not been discussing the Georgian Bay canal. However, it is a great work which is before the people, and will be constructed in due time b.y this government, which has always undertaken the great projects that the country required. Now, Sir, the question of what a railway ought to do has been discussed in this House, and discussed elsewhere. Some hon. gentlemen have thought that a railway is a great promoter of industry, that is, that a railway can own industries, run them and make them profitable, and thus develop the country. I think however, that is hardly the proper view to take. As for England, I have looked into a recent decision there which was to the effect, that a railway company could not engage in any other business, but it must devote itself to the business of transportation. But there are cases in the old land where railways have constructed canals and operated them in connection with the railway. I think that is not the best method, because it places the rates practically in the hands of one company, and canals do not operate as they ought to operate in keeping down railway rates. But returning to the question of railways doing other business, in England they are not allowed to transact other business. In France, I think six private companies own all the railways except that portion of the railways that is owned Mr. GRAHAM.
by the state, the figures of which I will give in a few minutes. The conditions of aid given to the French railways are such that, if carried out, the state will own all the French railways by 1950 or 1960. But it is fair to say that as occasion requires, France has deviated from the arrangement with those railways, and has made some concessions and changed the conditions that were originally made. The only railway line not being operated under this arrangement with the government, was recently taken over by the French government, I think they call it the Great West Railway, which is now a part of the system. In the United States, one of the troubles in connection with railways during the past few years has been that they have been doing a coal business in connection with the railway, and imposing rates that the people thought were too high. When the Interstate Commerce Commission took charge, they began regulating the rate of the railways, but the railway could immediately proceed to make it up on the price of coal, and consequently there was no benefit coming to the people from the regulation of that railway. The inter-state commerce law now prohibits railways from owning and operating coal mines. If they do it they have to do it under some other name. I am merely pointing this out to show that the theory that a railway could go into any part of Canada and operate coal mines would not work out to the benefit of the people, and it would not be five years until an Act was passed prohibiting that because we would lose in railway rates by such an amalgamation. The United States has found it necessary to say that railways shall not own and operate coal mines.
I wish to place before the House a short statement in reference to the state railways of the continent of Europe to which I have given some study during the past few months. Germany, out ;of 35,000 miles, operates 31,043. In answer to my hon. friend I want to point out that the federal government of Germany does not own a mile of railway, but that these railways are owned and operated by the various states in Germany, just as if the various provinces in Canada owned and operated their railways. So, it is hardly fair to point to German state railways and compare the situation there to that which would exist in Canada if Canada owned her railways. I wish to say again that the states of the German empire own and operate their railways and that the federal government does not, while in Canada it would be the federal government that would have to operate them. To proceed with this table:

	Miles '	Operated
Countrv.	of	b.v
	Kailway.	State.
Germany	35,000	31,043France	29,293	5,530Italy	10,068	6,600Russia	38,300	35,350Austro-Hungary .	23,600	12,430Belgium	3,850	2,480Sweden	7,580	2,600Norway	1,548	1,329Switzerland	2,480	1,500Denmark	1,934	1,120
In New South Wales there are 3,623 miles of railway owned by the state and operated under a commission. In Victoria the South Australian railway is operated under a commission, being 1,879 miles in length, while in New Zealand 2,682 miles of railway'are owned and operated by the government under a general manager. I may say in passing that in Italy in 1885, owing to dissatisfaction with government operation, the lines were leased to a private company, but they found that private operation was obnoxious, the state took them back in 1905 and they are now being operated by the state.
I could speak at some length on the question of the railways in Germany or with reference to those to which I gave particular attention. I think perhaps it would not be amiss to speak of one or two points. With reference to passenger rates on all railways, I think I am safe in saying that in the aggregate they are lower than in this country. The great majority of people do not travel first-class on any of the European railways. Asked why the traffic was gradually and constantly increasing. the reason given by one of the general managers was that the multiplicity and increasing number of automobiles rendered it so easy for people who would travel first-class to reach their destinations, in comparatively small countries, that a great many of them travelled bv automobile instead of going by the railway. But, the fact remains that first-class rates are very high in comparison with second or third class rates. On a German railway I travelled from Kiel to Paris, a small portion of the railway being in Fiance, and I paid, first-class, including baggage-and it was very light baggage-4i cents per mile.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Single fare?


George Perry Graham: Single fare. I also paid for sleeping accommodation $3.50. When we compare this with our first-class fare it would be abnormally high both for the sleeping accommodation and the travelling rate.


George Eulas Foster: Was that an upper berth?


George Perry Graham: No, this was a good berth. The accommodation is excellent on the trains, but I submit again that there are certain phases of travel in the old land, even in a first-class carriage, or in a good many of them, that are not as good as they are in this country. An improvement is being made and has been made during the past few years, by the introduction of corridor cars, which removes to a large extent some of the objections which I have in mind. Go where you will in the old land, whether on a private or a state owned line, and you are impressed with the fact that first-class travellers have to pay much more than they do in this country. In Germany they practically carry no baggage at all, or a very small amount, and you have to pay for your baggage. That may account for the other fact that people coming from Germany or from the old land carry into their seats all the baggage they possibly can because they have got into the habit of having their baggage weighed in England or weighed and paid for in Germany. When you come to the lower classes, travelling is very cheap in the old land, and it can be cheap because there passengers travel by the million and the railways have the short haul and the crowded trains which is the ideal condition enabling a railway to make money. But, when you come to freight it is a little different. I found this out in my investigation, and I came back impressed with the fact that there is no place in Europe, at least, where the control over rates can at all compare with the eontrol over rates by the government of this country. They have control, through certain bodies, over the rates, but their rules are so lenient and their enforcement is, I think, so lax, that the railway companies, as far as I could judge, practically make their own rates and have very little, if any, interference. A good deal has been said in this country about cheaper passenger fares. That is the ideal situation, but I submit to the House and the country that the people whose labour is involved in the producing of goods are more interested in getting cheap rates for the transport of their goods than they are in securing cheaper passenger rates.


William Findlay Maclean: That is that the human consideration is less than the dead matter.


George Perry Graham: The consideration is not as my hon. friend stated. It is a matter of dollars and cents, but the human consideration is also taken into account. The matter of dollars and cents comes back all the same to the man's pocket whether he

is travelling himself or sending a carload of freight.


William Findlay Maclean: There are some things you cannot measure in dollars and cents


George Perry Graham: That is true, and it is a good thing it is true. When I come 'to consider the freight situation I say without hesitation that the people of Canada are in an infinitely better position as regards freight rates and the amount they get for the money paid in freight rates than they are in any country in Europe. I will in a few moments give you a table of figures which, I think, will convince you of that fact. The great attention paid to passenger rates in the old land seems to have deterred them from going as far as they might with respect to freight traffic. Of course, they have the small cars, wagons they call them, of 15 or 20 tons, although some, I think, are now 30 tons. But when you come to consider the freight rates they have to pay on this haulage, the people of this country would be astonished. In Germany, with state owned railways, taking into consideration all the special rates-and they have many of them-the freight in that great country of industry, that country filled with population and teeming with the products of the people, are more than double what we pay in Canada. In the matter of freight haulage we in Canada,-owing possibly to the regulation by the commission, and to the fact that we have given much aid to the companies-have rates lower than are enjoyed in any country in Europe which I visited. Speaking of the Railway Commission, I was called on by two or three gentlemen in London and was told that we were giving altogether too much power to our board of railway commissioners. One gentleman said that we were going so far as to perhaps make capital a little timid. Of course, I disagreed with him at once, and took up, as I thought, the practical side, the benefit derived by the people on account of the appointment of the commission and the1 work they are carrying out. I believe to-day that the decisions of the commission are fair and that the commission are looking after the interests of the people, but not in a way to be unjust to the men who have put their money into these great undertakings. The people of Canada do not want any control to be unjust to the people who have made investments in this country, and I do not believe the commissioners are unjust.


Samuel Hughes: Have any data been collected as to the possibility of winter navigation as apart from the spring navigation of Hudson straits?


George Perry Graham: 


George Perry Graham: I cannot perhaps give my hon. friend a satisfactory answer. My idea in having a steamer sent up there would he that we would make observations and get all the data necessary. That is the reason why I thought great care would have to be exercised. I have read in reports that while the navigation in the harbour was open for quite a long period, the navigation in the Strait vims open for a much shorter period. These questions only emphasize the necessity of a thorough investigation before we decide on what harbour we should select.
I turn now to another question involved in the management of the Department of Railways and Canals, that is the Quebec bridge. Hon. gentlemen will excuse me, I know, for giving a brief history of this project since it was taken over by the Department of Railways and Canals two years ago, and the work of preparing for reconstruction undertaken. As there are a good many technical terms in connection with this, the House will bear with me if I read the memoranda because some hon. gentlemen in the House are engineers and they will like to see the statement just as it is. The memorandum is as follows:


QUEBEC BRIDGE.
[Stage Direction]
Following the precedent of the United States government in the case of the Panama canal; the state of New York in the case of the Erie Canal enlargement; and of the city of New York in the case of the Blackwell's Island bridge, a board of eminent engineers has been appointed charged with the responsibility of designing the bridge, and the following gentlemen were selected for the task:-
Henri Vautelet, M. Can. Soc. C. E., of Montreal, as chairman and chief engineer.
Ralph Modjeski, M. Am. Soc. C. E., consulting engineer, of Chicago.
Maurice Fitzmaurice, C. M. G., M. Inst. C. E., chief engineer, London county council, England.
The task entrusted to these gentlemen is a great one, and, as was anticipated at the time of their appointment, material differences of opinion have arisen between them. Under the provisions of the order in council creating the board, in the event of differences arising, consulting engineers were to be called in to assist. Accordingly, on the question of foundations and substructures, Mr. Alfred Noble, M. Am. Soc. C. E., chief engineer of the Pennsylvania Railway tunnel, of New York (one of the most experienced men in America in foundation work), and Mr. Henry Holgate, M. Can. Soc C. E., of Montreal, were selected, and the matters in dispute were accordingly settled.
The south pier is to be enlarged to an area of 180 feet by 80 feet at the base.
A new caisson is to be sunk for the north pier and is to be carried to the rock, reducing the span from 1,800 to 1,785 feet.
Specifications covering every phase of the substructure work have been completed. Gen-

eral plans for guidance of the contractors have been prepared. The work of the substructure was advertised widely and the work was allotted to Messrs. M. P. & J. T. Davis, they being the lowest tenderers.
The other tenderers were Larkin & Sangster and M. Connolly.
Superstructure.
A great deal of valuable work has been done. The span, centre to centre of main piers, has been fixed at 1,758 feet; the width, centre to centre of trusses, at 88 feet; with a maximum depth of truss of 290 feet. A clear head room of 150 feet above the highest water has been provided for, a width of 600 feet under the centre of the bridge.
A general specification has been prepared, fixing the loading so that it will be ample for all possible contingencies of the future.
The unit stresses allowed have been settled, for carbon steel and nickel steel, and are conservative.
The form of the main compression members has been determined.
A series of tests of model columns has been started and a similar series of tests of chord bars will be carried to completion.
The dead load has been thoroughly computed and the relative concentrations determined, thus eliminating all possibility of error in calculations for the new structure.
Material differences of opinions relating to the superstructure have arisen from time to time between members of the board, and acting under the provision of the order in council, Mr. Paul Wolfel, M. Am. Soc. C. E., consulting engineer of Philadelphia, and Mr. Phelps Johnson, chief engineer and manager of the Dominion Bridge Company, of Montreal, were called in as consulting engineers, and the difficulties were overcome.
The work has advanced and at present stage is as follows:-
An advertisement has been published in the ' London Engineering ' and ' The Engineer/ in England; 'The New York Engineering News' and 'The Engineering Record,' in New York; and in the Canadian press, inviting the bridge builders of the world to go to the office of the board at Montreal and study the problem. The plans and general specifications are here, and they will be allowed until May to prepare their studies, get familiar with the details of the plans and specifications; after that date three or four months will be allowed for the preparation of tenders. All tenderers must bid on the plans prepared by the board, but may submit alternative designs-in this way the form of the trusses, about which there is a reasonable difference of opinion, will be tested; the question of a suspension or cantilever bridge will be settled. 1 he board have completed studies for a suspension bridge and also for a single intersection cantilever. The ultimate decision will be made when all the designs are before the board, having regard to: first, safety; second, speed of erection and completion; third, cost.
As the responsibility for the proper carrying on of the work is placed upon the builder, and the fact that the best designs the board are able to prepare is in competition with the best efforts of the best bridge builders in the world, we hope to secure the best bridge that the present state of engineering skill can produce.
Mr.  M. P.@: Davis, -who secured the contract for piers, was the lowest tenderer, the other tenderers being Messrs. Larkin & Sangster and Mr. Connolly.
I wish to point out to the House, although perhaps it is unnecessary, that unless you have studied this question beside an engineer and listened to all the difficulties suggested and discussed by him, or you are an engineer yourself, you have no idea of the magnitude of this work. It is so great that men with the ability and the reputation of these men will only move very carefully and very cautiously and not until they have absolutely made a study of every step to be taken. As I pointed out to them when discussing the question with them, the great point to be considered was the stability of this project, there must be no chance, so far as engineering skill can provide against such chance, of any failure in the construction and the remaining constructed of this bridge. That being their instructions-and they would have done it without any such instructions -they studied every step with the greatest care, tests and studies were made both in this country, in the United States and in more than one country in the old world, so that step by step they might be sure of what they were doing.
The effect of the specification as to width and height of the bridge, mentioned in the statement I have read, is that the channel for navigation will be 600 feet wide, and that there will be a clear head of 150 feet from the bridge to high water level.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I wish to ask the minister whether they had considered the large boats that are liable to come up to Montreal. Some years ago I had occasion to place some statistics and facts in regard to the boats coming across the Atlantic, and I would like to know whether it is not possible to raise the bridge more than 150 feet above the water.


George Perry Graham: That matter was placed before this board and information obtained and discussed, but it was thought that if any vessel needed a greater space than that for its masts or funnels, provision should be made for passing the bridge in the construction of the ship, but in all human probability this 150 feet will accommodate all vessels that want to come to Montreal.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Not with the Marconi system; it will only allow the smokestacks to go under.


John Graham Haggart: Has the minister at hand a statement of the differences between the engineers as to the substructure, to settle which these other engineers were called in?


George Perry Graham: The trouble was techni-cal2 so technical that I would not attempt to explain it. It was a difference between engineers. The question came up about formations and finding solid rock. Another term I heard discussed was as to the angle of repose for the earth-how far they would have to go to get certain results. There were technical questions of engineering, and these two experts were called in to consult with them. I might say that it is proposed that in the contract with the builder, so that there can be no question, he shall be required to accept the contract on the plans and specifications, and shall be held responsible as a builder for the construction of the bridge on the plans and specifications which he accepts.


William Findlay Maclean: Will he have a guarantee?


George Perry Graham: He will have to give a guarantee or he cannot get the contract.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How long will it likely be before the bridge will be completed?


John Graham Haggart: And what will be the probable cost?


George Perry Graham: I think it would be hardly fair for me to mention the estimated cost while we are asking for tenders. My own opinion is that the bridge will be constructed in about four years. That is not the opinion of the engineers, but my own; I have not asked their opinion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Four years from next fall?	,


George Perry Graham: I imagine so.


Haughton Lennox: Will there not have to be a limit of time fixed within which the contractors will be required to complete the work?


George Perry Graham: It will be very difficult to fix a time limit if that were to affect the safety of the project. The board will probably tell us what time will be ample for the construction of the work, and that will be the time limit we will put in the contract. Up to this time I have not studied that phase of the question, and I imagine that the engineers are not yet prepared to say what time limit should be fixed.


John Graham Haggart: The minister will have to give an estimate of the cost when he comes down with his estimates for the expenditure, and he might just as well give it now.
'Mr. GRAHAM.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will understand the difficulty, when we are advertising for tenders, of telling people what they would be able to tender for. I shall perhaps be in a position to give my hon. friend some information as to that a little later. There is no hesitation at all in giving it except public interest.
Leaving that and coming to a question of more local interest, perhaps, I will take up the much-discussed, mildly-criticised and somewhat interesting question of the Intercolonial railway. I want to speak of the question of capital account in connection with railways. The Intercolonial railway management, both under this government and under previous governments, has been criticised for its expenditure on capital account. Some of the criticisms, possibly, have been fair, but some of it I think will not be warranted by a comparison with other road3. A great advance has been made in arriving at a basis of what should be charged to capital account in the last few years owing to the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Under the ruling of that commission, a certain amount each year, according to the particular railway, is required to be devoted to betterments, and any betterments over and above this stated amount must come out of capital. That is to prevent work being done out of revenue that ought to be done out of capital. The result of the former method, or lack of method, was that in good fat years, when there was good business, the companies would make a lot of expenditures out of their revenue. That would really prevent the public knowing what their net profits were. But since the Interstate Commerce Commission have endeavoured to regulate rates, they have insisted that many things which heretofore were charged to revenue, shall be charged to capital account, so that people will know exactly what the profits of the railway companies are, and they can regulate their rates accordingly. I know that is the reverse of the argument that has been used, but that is the absolute fact to-day under the ruling of the Inter3tate Commerce Commission. If we take the principle that is now adopted on all the American railways, the Intercolonial can stand side by side with them on a question of what should be charged to capital and what to revenue. I will go further: I believe that in past years we have charged to revenue what under the Interstate Commerce law we would be compelled to charge to capital.


Samuel Hughes: And vice versa?


George Perry Graham: There is no vice versa in this case. On the question of what ought to be charged to capital account there has been a difference of opinion. I have been told in this House that certain small expenditures should not be charged to capi-

tal account, and that when a railway reaches a certain point its capital account ought to cease.


William Findlay Maclean: The minister speaks of the Interstate Commerce Commission controlling capital account. When does he propose that the Railway Commission of Canada shall have similar control?


George Perry Graham: That is a question to be dealt with by the Canadian parliament, of which my hon. friend is a member. I admit that I think he has done his duty in that respect. We want to treat the government railways in as approximately fair a way as we would the railway of a company. This much seems to be forgotten that about seventy-five per cent of the company lines on this continent have gone into liquidation, and the original capital and the original stock-holders have, for all purposes of profit, been wiped out. If you would apply the same principle to the Intercolonial railway, you could have wiped out all the capital invested in it some years ago, and started afresh, just as the purchasers of these other railways did when they wiped out the original investment by legal sale. Every dollar invested on capital account on the Intercolonial railway stands there to-day against it, whereas in many of the company lines one-half the original capital has been practically wiped out by liquidation.
It is said sometimes that the Intercolonial railway charges small things to capital which should come out of revenue. Well, in that respect I submit the Intercolonial stands on all fours with company lines and will also compare with them in that same respect as regards age. If the capital account of a railway must cease after a number of years, then the Baltimore and Ohio, which is 82 years old, ought to have come nearly to the end of its capital account. But it has not. I have its last annual report before me; and I find in that report charged to capital account items of a similar kind as those objected to in the capital account of the Intercolonial Tailway. For instance, I find such items as repairing tracks at shops, $289.18; a wagon scale, $358.62; new track scale, $983.69; improving track crossing, $98.23; new stock block, $142.44; sidings, new yardmaster's office, increasing water supply, new yards, round house-all these items are very familiar, and we see them all in the capital account of the Baltimore and Ohio railway as presented last year in its 82nd annual report. Therefore, the Intercolonial railway is doing exactly what these companies are doing as regards expenditure on capital account.


George Eulas Foster: What I would like for my own information is not so much the in-90
dependent items as the principles laid down for determining what is capital expenditure and what is expenditure out of revenue. If we could have those principles, which have now become operative in the United States, under the commission my hon. friend speaks of, explained by the minister, that would be of real service to the .House. In the case of a round house or a yardmaster's house, several things might occur. Was the track-master's house to replace one which had been burnt down or was it a new building rendered necessary for the traffic of the road and, therefore, chargeable to capital?


George Perry Graham: The report says a new yardmaster's office


George Eulas Foster: Whether the yardmaster was new or not, I suppose the house was one which had not existed before and was not the successor of a similar house.


George Perry Graham: I am not sure whether the yardmaster was new or not. It was the office I was speaking of, and my hon. friend was simply making a little play on words. The items in the Baltimore and Ohio report are identical with those we have in our own capital account. The rule, I think, is that anything which will add to the value of the property, any betterment which will add to the power of earning, should go into capital account. One man, a very great authority, has given the extreme opinion that if you put two nails into a plank where there was only one before, the second should be charged to capital account.


George Eulas Foster: So that is the principle, we can understand it.


John Graham Haggart: Will the hon. minr ister give us the principle as laid down by the commission?


George Perry Graham: I have given it in my own words.


John Graham Haggart: I mean the American commission. Do I understand the minister to say that he has given in his own words what the American commission have decided upon?


George Perry Graham: That is my understanding of the principle on which they act.


William Findlay Maclean: The American roads, through the commission, are systematizing the whole business of capitalization and keeping accounts. It would be useful information if we could get the actual rules and principles adopted in that country.


George Perry Graham: I think that would be a good idea, and I thought I had explained it.


George Eulas Foster: As the hon. gentleman has put it, if you put an additional nail in a plank along side the one which was already there, and it is serviceable, you can charge that additional nail to capital account. But if the old nail rusted out and you put a new one in its place that would not be a new nail and could not be charged to capital account. Is that the ministerial interpretation?


George Perry Graham: I did not give the Interstate Commerce Commission rule, but I gave the opinion of a railway authority. Practically speaking, anything that is new and that gives additional value or additional earning power is chargeable to capital account.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose a nail rusted out and you put another one in to take its place, that gives additional earning power, as the earning power would be less without it.


William Stevens Fielding: Suppose you put in a bigger nail?


George Eulas Foster: If you come down to measurement, you will charge to excess. The principle is absolute, if that is what we understand.	What has been doing
service and has become worn out, is not replaced at the expense of capital. But what never has been there and what it is necessary should be there, is chargeable to capital when put in?
_ Mr. GRAHAM. My hon. friend, I think, is right. The former condition should be kept up out of revenue, but there is this which all railway companies have done, so far as I can find out. When they are building a new station, to replace an old one, they charge that to capital. For instance, the railway companies will have to build a station in Toronto. Notwithstanding the fact that they have a station there already, every dollar of the new station will come out of capital account.


Robert Laird Borden: On what principle is that?


George Perry Graham: I am not stating a principle but a fact


Robert Laird Borden: On what principle is it done?


George Perry Graham: The old station becomes useless. There is no value for it for the railway, and a new, commodious and modern structure must be built, and it will be built out of capital.
I want to put on record just a few things that have been done out of capital account.


Mr. BARKER.: All the discussion in recent years in this House arose out of the Mr. GRAHAM.
expenditure on steel rails, steel or iron bridges. It was not a question of these small things; it was whether the minister of the day was taking advantage of putting in heavier rails to charge the whole of the rails to capital account. He had a sixty-six pound rail in the track already charged to capital account; he removed that and put in an eighty pound rail and he charged the whole eighty pounds to capital. That, we protested against. We said he was obliged to put the sixty-six pounds to maintenance and the fourteen pounds, the difference between the two, to capital. That is a perfectly well known principle.


George Perry Graham: It would be if you threw away the sixty-six pound rail.


Samuel Barker: No, your sixty-six pound rail goes into stores for what it is worth.


George Perry Graham: Well the difficulty in accepting that principle absolutely is that some of the sixty-six pound rails which were replaced by eighty pound rails on the main line were relaid elsewhere and still remain in active service. I agree with my hon. friend that when the sixty-six pound rail is sold, capital should be given credit for what it brings, and I would go even further and say that the difference between what the light rail is worth when it goes out of service and what the new rail costs might be charged to capital. The practice of railways is that every year they set-aside a certain amount for the renewal of rails, just as the Intercolonial railway has done, but they do not actually charge the rail difference to capital account.
Now, I want to point out a few things in reference to the Intercolonial and the amount of money expended on it. A good deal has been said as to the number of locomotives on the railway, and one hon. gentleman in making his criticism lias pointed out that we had so many locomotives last year and the year before and we only have the same number now, so that consequently we have not improved the rolling stock. Well, it is not a question of the number of locomotives or the number of cars. The question is, what the locomotives can haul and what the cars can carry, and if in the renewal of rolling stock the hauling capacity of the engines and the carrying capacity of the cars is increased then the capacity of the railroad is so much greater than it was before, and one need not bother about numbers. One locomotive to-day will haul three or four times as much as it did twenty years - ago, and a 60,000 pound car at the present time will carry twice and sometimes three times as much as a freight car carried fifteen or twenty years ago. Here are some figures extending over the last thirteen years which

will give some interesting details as to the different services of the Intercolonial rail-increases which have taken place in the way:
-	1896.	1909. .	Increase per cent.Length of line	1186'5	1479-13	25Capital invested	$55,277,031.03	$90,994,664.06	65No. of locomotives	204	414	100Tractive power of locomotives, lbs	2,086,725	10,318,716	284Passenger car service, number	270	450	60Freight car service, number	6,067	12,692	90Ploughs, flanges, &c., number	77	103	30Engine mileage.... 	4,714,001	9,208,327	95Car mileage	
. . 	43,005,684	93,374,119	117Train mileage	3,842,502	6.865,204	79No. of passengers	1,471,866	2,933,751	100Tons of freight	1,379,618	3,552,739	160157-25	365 74	132
These figures show improvement all round.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to the question of what the Intercolonial railway has done during the past nine months. This question of the managing board is one which is surrounded with difficulties, and I am in a position to speak as to that with some degree of knowledge. The board has been criticised, sometimes I think severely. With that, however, I have no fault to find because the Intercolonial railway is a public institution and these public-managed and public owned affairs are always liable to criticism by the people who are the owners of the property. The question of appointing a managing board was laid before the House last year and discussed pretty thoroughly, and in the discussion one hon. gentleman told the Minister of Railways that if the minister could come back to the House this session and state that the board had managed the railway without any interference from him he would feel that the Minister of Railways deserved to be complimented. Well, I am prepared to say that such is the state of affairs to-day. This board has managed the Intercolonial railway during the past nine months without any interference from the head of the Railway Department. I need hardly say that it has not been easy for me to take that position, but whether rightly or wrongly, I have taken it and whatever was done on the Intercolonial railway last year is entirely the result of the work of the managing board. Now, Sir, a board was appointed consisting of Mr. Butler, the deputy minister of railways. Mr. Pottinger, Mr. Tiffin, and Mr. Brady. Mr. Pottinger is a man of great experience and knowledge of the road. Mr. Tiffin was the traffic manager, and Mr. Brady the general superintendent. They organized some time in June, but their work really began in Julv, 90i
and they held their meetings regularly and discussed what they thought was in the interest of the Intercolonial railway. They started in to bring about results on the railway and they have worked with that idea in the interests of the Intercolonial railway, treating it as a transportation project belonging to all the people of Canada. As is well known, and as was explained to the House last year, the traffic on all railways, the year previous had dwindled very materially and the receipts on all railways including the Intercolonial railway were much less than they were in the preceding year. There was a deficit for the year ending 31st of March last. A large decrease in the traffic without a corresponding decrease in the number of employees and other expenses, gave us a deficit of approximately $800,000 on the Intercolonial railway last year. The board undertook the work, and wishing to bring about an equilibrium, or to make the receipts balance the expenditures, and put the railway in what they thought ought to be a better shape, they did reduce the staff of the Intercolonial railway, all told, 503 employees were dropped. The railway companies had made greater reductions in their staffs months before. I may say in this connection that as time goes on, men are constantly leaving the employ of the railway, some of these men have been taken back already, and as others leave, I am asking the board of management to give the old employees the preference, so that they may regain their employment on the Intercolonial railway when opportunity serves. I hope m a great measure to meet the difficulties that have arisen by dropping the employees, through no fault of their own, except that the board thought there was too great a number on the line. Now, in order to improve repair work on the Intercolonial railway and to get more work out of the new shops, an

expert was engaged, Mr. McKenna, and he did reorganize the work there with the result that a great deal more work is being turned out by the staff with the new machinery than was turndd out before.


Samuel Hughes: These men were not dropped beforfe the last election.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend refer to the election in Ottawa?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister told us a few minutes ago that he had not interfered -with the management of this railway; but he seems to have interfered as to who should be re-employed.


George Perry Graham: 
George Perry Graham: 2.673 65 3,426 36
2,141 78
9,901 00
2.055 54 1,702 68 2 828 2r 29.150 85 21.977 35 11.102 72
Building and repairing fences.. ..$ 36,408 48
Other heavy repairs	
8,138	43Or in all	
131.507	07Rail renewals	
100,000	00Total	$231,507	07
So we have laid aside for the renewal of rails, $100,000. The American railways, I think, lay aside a certain amount every year for renewal. Now 551 miles of track have been ballasted. I want to call attention to this next item, because it has been stated in the press that no new ties were placed on the Intercolonial this year. I tvant to tell the House that no less than 574,237 new ties were placed on the Intercolonial during the past nine months; 111 miles of track were relaid with 80-pound rails to the yard, new steel rails-I am now speaking altogether of revenue; and 51 miles of track were relaid with 67-pound rails. The maintenance of the track has been generally kept up..
Now, I come to another point which is of interest, and I want to give credit to my predecessor for this improvement. During the last year of his service he inaugurated a system of laying aside each month a certain amount for maintenance of equipment along the line. The policy of charging against revenue a fixed sum per month on account of renewal of equipment was inaugurated in the fiscal year 1907-8. In that year large purchases of equipment were made, and the account stood to debit of the fund on March 31, 1908, $57,755.63. During the fiscal year 1908-9 business was dull; a great many cars were idle; the new shops were nearing completion; work of magnitude could not be satisfactorily done; the equipment was more than ample; accordingly the fund was allowed to accumulate, so that on March 31, 1909, there was a credit of $207,262.20. During the current year $25,000 per month has been credited to this account, so that at the end of December the account amounts to $439,000. The following rolling stock has been contracted for delivery before April 1, 1910, and the amounts I am reading now come out of revenue from the road through this account :
1 Pacific type passenger locomotive. .$ 22,600 00 10 Simple consolidation freight locomotives	 190 000 00
30 50-ton all steel coal cars	 45.480 00
6 box baggage cars for express trains.. 9.804 00
3 first-class sleeping cars	 41.600 00
5 first-class passenger cars	 58.890 00
3 full mail cars	 25.800 00
2	full baggage cars	
13.050 003	colonist cars	
32.700 00Total	$445,924 00
I may at once be asked: Is this a betterment or is this new? Well, there is not
28.33

a cent of it from capital. I have said to the House that $25,000 a month placed to one side will realize an amount sufficiently large to keep our equipment in good shape from year to year. Now during the next three months there will foe_ $25,000 a month placed to the account of this fund, so at the end of the year, after spending the large amount I have mentioned, there will remain in this fund $60,000 as a nucleus to start with next year. Now these thirty 50-ton steel cars, some one will say, have replaced a larger number of cars, and you are not getting as many. That is true; we are replacing 153 wooden cars and 29 20-ton coal cars. The old cars, only had a capacity of 1,498 tons, while the new cars have a capacity of 1,500 tons. There is a benefit to be derived in transportation, because there is much less dead weight to haul with the new cars than with all these others we had on hand before. So there is not only a small gain in the carrying capacity with these new cars, but there is a considerable gain in hauling lighter weight over the dead weight. Nine new locomtives have been bought to replace several old and smaller ones. These nine new locomotives have a traction power of 338,697 pounds, while the locomotives which they replaced had a traction power of 304,681 pounds. I want to point out that in adidtion we have spent during the past year out of revenue for maintenance:
Locomotive repairs	 $553,500
Passenger cars	 194,800
Freight cars	 440,900
The average number of freight cars repaired per month was 1,200, passenger cars and locomotives 10. I had thought of placing upon record some things that have been said by men who have travelled over this line and who know whereof they are speaking, but I shall just quote one and I ask the attention of hon. gentlemen from Ontario to .this one particular question, because it emphasizes the fact that Ontario as well as other provinces get some benefit from the Intercolonial railway as a government road and from the rates which it has always charged. This gentleman has been a shipper of flour over the Intercolonial railway for a good many years and he writes as follows in September:
We must congratulate the Intercolonial railway for the splendid service thev have been giving to the province and are trying to support you hv giving vou everything possible over your line.
I say that the testimony of that kind coming from a business man who uses this line and is going to use it on account of its superior accommodation ought to count for something in sizing up the results of the work of the board of management.


Mr. SPROULE.: Name.


George Perry Graham: I do not think my hon. friend meant that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Oh, indeed I do.


George Perry Graham: Some time I will ask my hon. friend for a* name when I know he will not give it to me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is on the principle of asking your brother if he is a rogue.


George Perry Graham: I take everybody to be honest until he is proven otherwise.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: An anonymous letter has not much weight.


George Perry Graham: This is not an anonymous letter at all. I will give any hon. gentleman the name if he asks me, but I do not want to parade this hon. gentleman's name through the House.


John Graham Haggart: I propose that he lay it on the table.


George Perry Graham: It may not be a public document. Now, I come to the question of the trade of the Intercolonial railway. I could go into that question at some length, but I will just refer to the wheat traffic which is of interest at the present moment and may be of more interest in years to come in dealing with the larger problem of carrying goods from the west to our own sea ports. Through Halifax up to January 4, 1910, we contracted for the transport of 329,699 bushels as against 81,904 bushels last year. Through St. John we contracted, up to January 4, for the transport of 1,165,967 bushels as against 525,753 last year.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: May I ask the hon. gentleman from what source he gets that grain?


George Perry Graham: It is handed over to us by the Grand Trunk.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the rate on that wheat from Montreal io St. John?


George Perry Graham: The rate, if it were just going from Montreal to St. John would be practically the same rate as that of the Canadian Pacific railway-I think the same rate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is where the Intercolonial railway would carry it.


George Perry Graham: The Intercolonial railway carries it there and the Intercolonial has to go 200 miles farther than the Canadian Pacific and carries it for the same rate, which shows one of the difficulties of managing the Intercolonial railway in competition with a line 200 miles shorter to a given point.
A little while ago I mentioned the ques-


William Findlay Maclean: I understand from these figures that state owned railways give much lower freight rates than private owned railways in Great Britain.


George Perry Graham: It would appear from the special returns that their rates are less than the freight rates in Great Britain. But there is this difficulty that we have to figure back and forth to get the result as to railways in Great Britain because they will not and do not give the information and even pass a resolution saying that it is not necessary. It is therefore difficult to get a definite statement of statistics from these lines but we have taken their traffic state-mens and worked the figures out from them.


Samuel Hughes: How do German freight rates compare with freight rates in Canada?


George Perry Graham: The German freight rates are much higher. They are nearly three times as high as the rates on the Intercolonial railway and more than double those of other railways. I wish to point out before I leave this subject that the average rate of wages paid to employees on the Intercolonial railway is only exceeded in one instance and that is in the United States. The average wage paid to the employees on the Intercolonial railway is $128 more than the average paid to railway employees in the Dominion of Canada. It is approximately three times as much as the employees are paid in Great Britain and approximately twice as much as is paid to the employees in Germany.
The managing board has adopted the system of a purchasing department, the head of which is in Ottawa, Mr. Lavoie. From the experience I have had of him, Mr. GRAHAM.
and he has been in the service of the railway for several years, he is not only an able and industrious but I believe a thoroughly honest and upright man and a young man who will make good. These purchases are all made and the tenders opened in the department, Mr. Lavoie overseeing them under the supervision of the Deputy Minister. I might intimate that I am so pleased with the arrangement that I think I will add to the staff and have all the purchases of supplies for canals and everything else placed in charge of this department.
I wish to put on record now the average number of employees on the Intercolonial railway during the last nine months, and the wages paid them to show the public and the country and our friends how much money -we are absolutely paying every month to the employees on the Intercolonial railway. This does not mean at all, the amount of money expended for purchases, but the money paid to the men, and I say that the Intercolonial railway will compare favourably in a very bright light with any of the railways in Canada in this matter.
The average number of employees and wages paid for the nine months ending December 31, 1909, were:-
Number Wages of	per
men.	month.
Maintenance of way	2,671	$ 90,804	48Maintenance of equipment.. 2,508	113,699	49Conducting transportation.. 3,213	197,762	98Conducting traffic	
78	5,966	33General expenses	
143	8,449	63Capital account	
133	6,884	97Stores	
88	3,902	98Total	
8,833 $427,470 86
Briefly, the result of the operations of the road for the nine months ending

December 31, 1909, are set forth in the following statement:
The expenditure on capital account for the year will he approximately $1,280,000 against $3,867,232.60 last year.
The gross receipts for the 9 months ending December 31,
1909, amounted to	$7,073,300 97
An increase of $412,154.87 over last year.
The gross working expenses amounted to. $6,310,912 36 A reduction of $757,087.98.
Charged to revenue
for rail renewals.. 100,000 00

 6,410,912 36
Leaving a net revenue on December 31, 1909, of.. .. $ 662,388 61
What the net revenue at the end of the year will be can only be estimated, but we are having a very mild winter, and my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart) knows that that means a great deal along the line. I predict that if no unforeseen or untoward circumstance arises, the surplus on the Intercolonial railway at the close of the fiscal year ending March 31 will amount to at least $662,000, and probably will exceed it by a small amount.
I wish to speak for a moment of the Prince Edward Island railway. The Prince Edward Island railway forms no part of the Intercolonial railway. It is run on Prince Edward Island, some 260 miles. I wish to take the House into my confidence clearly in reference to it and to state that you need not expect, it is not fair fo expect, and nobody does expect, that the Prince Edward Island railway will ever keep even. The traffic is not there to keep it even, and we are prepared and must he prepared to run the Prince Edward Island railway for the accommodation of the people and to take out of the consolidated revenue fund of the Department of Canals whatever deficit there may be, because deficit there will be every year no matter what you do so long as you give the people any service at all. Small boats run around the island carrying a large part of the traffic and the island railway serves the people as best it can. I have a good deal of sympathy with the complaint made on Prince Edward Island that they do not get the passenger service that they might expect, not that they do not get all the passenger service to which they are entitled if you discuss it on the cold calculation of what the revenue would warrant, because on that calculation we might not have any service or not have an efficient service. But it is a matter for serious consideration if we ought not to improve the passenger service on the island a trifle and be prepared,
owing to the difficulties that exist there and the isolation of the people, to take out of the consolidated fund of the Dominion of Canada an amount sufficient to give to the people of that island decent and fair passenger service. The members from the island have been urging strongly the construction of branch lines, and branch lines will probably have to be constructed, but that will be a matter for future consideration. I want, however, to place myself absolutely on record as having great sympathy with the people on the island on account of the conditions that exist and to ask the House that when we come to discuss the railway problem as affecting that island, they will not discuss it along distinctly and absolutely business lines, because if you do you will not serve the people of Prince Edward Island as they ought to be served with railway facilities. The amount expended on capital account on the Prince Edward Island railway during the present year will be approximately $170,000. Last year the amount was $561,206.90. Up to November 30 the deficit on the Prince Edward Island railway amounts to $44,554.45. I expect that by the end of the year it will amount to about $70,000, against $89,010.78 last year.
A great deal has been said as to the rates on the Intercolonial railway. It has been pointed out that the rates of the Intercolonial railway to St. John are the same as those of the Canadian Pacific railway, although the haul is 200 miles longer. The rates to competing points are always the same; but I want to point out that where there is no competition the rates on company owned roads are higher than those on the government road, where there is no competition. Moreover, I want to ask hon. gentlemen from Quebec and Ontario, and especially hon. members from the western part of Canada, if they think, from their experience in the west, that if any private company had had during all these years in the eastern part of Canada the monopoly which the government railway has had, the people would not have paid at least two and a half times as high freight rates as they have been called on to pay on the government road? That means millions in the pockets of the people of the eastern provinces, and millions also in the pockets of the people who have had to transport goods on the government railway when there was no competition. The good which that railway has been to Canada cannot be estimated "by a casual or superficial investigation, but must be estimated by regarding it as a part of the great transportation system of the country and as a regulator of railway rates during the years before we had a railway commission. I believe the Intercol-I onial railway is run as well as any other

railway in this country. For the traffic given,_ I believe it runs a greater number of trains and stops at a greater number of stations and gives greater accommodation to travellers than people could hope to get from any company railway in the world.


John Graham Haggart: How do the passenger and freight rates on the Intercolonial railway compare with the rates on railways in Quebec and Ontario?


George Perry Graham: The freight rates on the Intercolonial railway, where it has no opposition, are much lower than the rates on comnany roads where they have no competition. The passenger rates, I think, approximate those of other railways throughout Canada.


John Graham Haggart: What about freight rates?


George Perry Graham: Where the road has a monopoly, they are less on the Intercolonial railway; but from competing points they are exactly the same.


John Graham Haggart: How do they compare with the rates fixed by the commission?


George Perry Graham: The rates allowed by the commission are higher than the rates on the Intercolonial railway; and if a company had the Intercolonial railway, the commission would allow it to charge higher rates than the Intercolonial railway charges.


William Findlay Maclean: Before the hon. gentleman concludes, he might give us this information. He has narrated his experience of state-owned roads in Europe, and has made some comparisons between them and private-owned roads. He has not told the House what is to be his policy hereafter in regard to the Intercolonial railway. I gather that he is more than half a believer in government _ ownership. In view of the observations he has made in Europe, and in view of the statements going throughout the country that the Intercolonial railway may be abandoned as a state-owned road, what is to be the future of that railway?


George Perry Graham: That is a pretty broad question, and would bring us to a discussion of the policy of public-owned versus private-owned railways. Conditions sometime arise that alter situations, or situations arise that alter conditions. But I may say to my hon. friend that there is no immediate danger of this road going to a private company, for I purpose continuing the .road under the board of management, and I want to tell the House that I intend to appoint another member to that board in the next few weeks, which I think will be in the interest of the public and of the railway.


George Perry Graham: Now, I have detained the House too long, for which I must apologize; but I have endeavoured to place before the House and the country the general position of Canada as regards her canals, her railways and the other great projects which we have in hand. I have devoted particular attention to our public-owned railway, the operation of which during the past nine months has shown good results, and which I believe, with the co-operation of those interested in it, such as we have had during the last nine months, will continue to give the people a first-class service at fair rates, and come out at the end of the twelve months without showing a deficit.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 117) for the relief of Geo. Robert Buttonshaw.-Mr. Campbell.

John Graham Haggart: I propose to follow the Minister of Railways briefly through the various^ points in connection with the Intercolonial railway which he touched on this afternoon. In the compliments which the hon. minister paid his deputy, Mr. Butler, on the retirement of the latter from office, I heartily concur. In anything I have had to do with Mr. Butler, I always found him very kind and obliging and everything that an [DOT] officer of the government ought to be, and I cordially join the minister in wishing him every success in his new employment. Mr. Butler's successor, the hon. minister has told iis, was formerly Deputy Minister of Public Works in Ontario. Mr. Campbell may be very competent for the office, but personally I know nothing of his qualifications, and we have been told by the minister that he intends appointing also a chief engineer who will take the engineering duties off Mr. Campbell's hands.
On the question of transportation, the hon. minister cited the different kinds in which this country is interested, and spoke of some new schemes which he considered were in the public interest. He passed slightly over the Welland canal and had very little to say in favour of what is, flo my mind, a solution of the transportation problem for the Dominion. I refer to the Georgian bay canal. The Hudson Bay railway scheme, he said, the government were committed to, and he believed that great benefit would result from its completion to the people of the Northwest by the saving on the cost of transportation of their produce. He was of the opinion that the large quantities of grain exported from

that country would yield an additional revenue to the farmers, through the construction of this railway, to the extent of five cents per bushel. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Hudson bay railway scheme was one of the first considered when I entered this House some 37 years ago. I am glad to see it become a practical issue at present, for I was one of the promoters of that scheme. There were then two rival schemes. The promoters of the one declared that the only port worth going to was Fort Churchill, and their rivals advocated the claims of Port Nelson. The Hon. Wm. MacDougall was the promoter of one of the schemes, and I was backing the other. After thorJ outghly -considering the wihole question, after reading with interest the accounts of all the voyages made by British officers to Hudson bay, and all the reports of the Hudson bay schooners which had navigated those waters for the last thirty or forty years, we came to the conclusion that the bay was navigable during a certain portion of the year. How long I do not know. The length varied according to the different seasons. I see that the minister quotes in his report a paper by Mr. Armstrong, who advocates Port Nelson as a terminus, much preferring it to Fort Churchill. Mr. Armstrong says that the bay never freezes over at Fort Nelson during the whole season, that the navigation there is a month longer than it is at Fort Churchill, and still another month longer if you go further south. In that connection I would draw the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) to the statement of Mr. Armstrong, who advocates Port Nelson as the terminus, because that statement opens up a beautiful vista of dredging to be required in that section-a veritable elysium of dredging. For five or six miles out of Churchill there is a sand bank, and along the banks of the Nelson river for about ten miles dredging would have to be done in order to afford accommodation to vessels. Another advantage in connection with Port Nelson is shown by Mr. Armstrong in his advocacy of the canal system of transportation. I see that the minister has become a convert to that system since his travels in Germany There he found out that the Germans, who are a practical, common-sense people, are in favour of what is after all the democratic way of -conveying freight and passengers-transportation by water; and one of the advantages of Port Nelson, according to Mr. Armstrong's report, is the possibilities of a canal being built, paralleling the railway, down to Fort Nelson and up to Lake Winnipeg. Well, that is not a possibility in the near futnre, 'but it is a possibility, and we may vet have water communication between Winnipeg and Hudson bay. It has that advantage over the Fort Churchill route, because the river is very tumultuous
and precipitous along its course. But I would like to draw the minister's attention to one thing. Notwithstanding all the reports and notwithstanding all the references to the particular value of this port or that, through its being a month longer open than any other, the period of navigation is not determined at all by the length of open season at any particular port, but by the navigation of the straits. It does not matter if you have a port open the whole year round, if you can only navigate the straits during four months.
The minister talked about a saving of five cents in the transportation of grain. Well, we had that question discussed ad nauseam some 25 years ago, and the statement was made that we could send grain from Winnipeg and most of the points along the Canadian Pacific railway to the head of Lake Superior cheaper than we could send it to Hudson bay. Calculations were made again and again to prove that from the head of Lake Superior to Liverpool grain could be delivered cheaper than from Fort Churchill to Liverpool. -That may seem strange. There are six months' navigation in Lake Superior and the St. Lawrence. The vessels engaged in that trade sail from Montreal and Quebec to Liverpool and have only seven months navigation. But they have this advantage. The other five months of the year they can be employed in other parts of the world. The steamers for the Hudson Bay route must be specially constructed for that service, and so they will be engaged for four months in the year and be obliged to lie idle for the remaining eight months. However, the scheme looks beautiful and no doubt the government will endeavour to carry it out. But, I mention these things to dispel if possible the idea the minister seems to have that five cents per bushel will be saved on northwest grain by sending it via the Hudson bay. From all the information I was able to gather at that time I believe it to be a practical fact that you can take grain from the western country down to Lake Superior and over to Great Britain cheaper than you possibly can byi the Hudson Bay route. If that be so, and I think it is, the necessity for the Hudson Bay railway is not very pressing. I venture to draw the attention of the government, when the Transcontinental railway was proposed to the House, to the mistake made in the estimated cost of that railway and the minister now tells us that it is estimated that the Hudson Bay railway with its terminals, will cost about $18,000,000. Well, even $18,000,000 is a very large expenditure on top of the other enormous expenditures we are now mqking for the building of railways and the improvement of our means of transportation. Let me tell the minister that

if he studies carefully the question he will find that the solution of the transportation problem in this country is the building of the Georgian Bay canal. I have advocated that project for years. God knows I have no personal interest in it, nor have my constituents because we are situated half way between the two charmers1, the St. Lawrence river and the Ottawa river. It may be affectation for me to mention that I speak from the bottom of my heart when I say that the Georgian Bay canal would be the wisest scheme this government could undertake now. Nature has favoured us by placing us in a position geographically to control not only the trade of Canada but the trade of the northern part of the American continent. I am glad that the minister is converted to a certain extent to my views because he has expressed the sentiment which I have just given utterance to, and when he did so I wondered if he had in his eye the Georgian Bay canal. Let me counsel the government: Be economical in all your expenditures, be economical because the country needs economy and because by practising^ it you will teach the people what is right and wrong in the science of government. I have studied the question from my boyhood upwards, I know the geography of the country, and I ask the government to take my word for it that the solution of the transportation problem is the building of the canal along the route followed by the old voyagers, up the Ottawa, across Lake Nipissing and along the northern shore of Lake Superior to the west. Enough upon that question; we have to deal with a good many questions tonight and-1 would like to be brief.
The Minister of Railways directed our attention to the $7,000,000 already expended on the Quebec bridge, and to my mind nothing has happened in -this country so disgraceful as the action of the government in connection with that particular bridge. We were induced to subscribe a lot of money for the purpose of assisting in building that bridge. The bridge belonged to a company; it was assisted not only by the Dominion government but by the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec. When the bridge tumbled down you would have thought that the contractors and the parties who were interested in the corporation building the bridge would have suffered some loss. But no, out of the generosity of our hearts we paid them all the money the members of this company had advanced and we paid them interest upon .it; we paid back all the money contributed by the city of Quebec and by the province of Quebec to aid in its construction, aryl we took the concern over holus-bolus. That was an act of generosity unparalleled in the history of the world.


John Graham Haggart: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Act of generosity; it was more like an act of dishonesty.


John Graham Haggart: I am not saying there is any dishonesty at all about it, It might have been done for state or political reasons. The Prime Minister represents the city of Quebec and he was interested that the city should not suffer, but I do not believe there was anything corrupt about it; if there was I do not know of it nor have I ever heard any authority for it, and I am merely stating the facts I know of. What is the position now? After the bridge fell we employed engineers to devise a scheme for the substructure and the superstructure of the new bridge. The minister tells us to-night that these engineers have agreed upon the plans for the substructure, but they have not yet been able to decide whether it is to be a cantilever or a suspension bridge, and so they will call for tenders for each kind of bridge. And the minister tells us that he will not furnish us with the estimate of the cost. That is curious; it is the first time I ever heard of such a thing in this parliament. When the government comes to parliament for money to build an undertaking the first thing they do is to furnish the plans of the engineers and the estimates of the cost, and then they ask us for the money. But we are told that if that were done in this case it might give an advantage to some contractor. Well, if the minister is in any way afraid of that he could put the estimates pretty low and that would get him out of the difficulty. You remember when the Transcontinental railway was under discussion how the Minister of Finance told us that 'after making a minute calculation and after taking various things into consideration, the whole cost to the country would represent only $13,000,000. I told the minister what I believed would be the cost of the Transcontinental railway, I told him that the cost would be in the neighbourhood of $70,000 per mile from Winnipeg to Moncton, I told him that the statement he made in reference to $13,000,000 would not cover the Quebec bridge alone. We have already lost on that bridge in the neighbourhood of $7,000,000. Will that bridge and the approaches to it ever be completed for less than $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 more? It will cost in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000 to $18,000,000. When the road was under contemplation, I stated that the Quebec bridge alone would cost more than the sum which the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister said would be the cost of the railway; it is turning out to be so now. Let us see what that road is likely to cost. According to the books, the expenditure on the Grand Trunk Pacific up to the end of last year was $53,000,000.


George Perry Graham: I think the figures I gave this afternoon were $67,000,000.


John Graham Haggart: I am basing my statement on the report, not reckoning to the end of the fiscal year. Now, see what an enormous liability will rest upon the country for the cost of the prairie section, 915 miles from Wolf Creek to Winnipeg. That was to cost $13,000 a mile, and we supplemented that by a loan of $10,000,000. The cost of the prairie section, according to Mr. Schreiber, will be $33,007,449. On the eastern section from Moncton to Winnipeg, 1,804 miles, we have spent, up to March 30 last year, $51,950,000. Mr. Lumsden calculated that it would cost $66,427 per mile, making $114,395,765. The interest during construction-I am supposing it will take seven years to construct-will be about $10,000,000. The interest we will have to pay for seven years after construction will be $14,422,000. The terminals at Moncton, Winnipeg and other places will cost $5,600,-
000.	The Quebec bridge, on which we have already spent $7,000,000, will cost at least $8,000,000 to $10,000,000 more. I calculate that the mountain section of the road will cost about $75,000 per mile for somewhat over 800 miles. We have not got from the chief engineer or from the department any information of the actual cost; I am putting it at $75,000 per mile, so that the interest on the total cost will be $10,000,000. We have now reached a grand total of $167,-
716,000.	Then we advance on the prairie section a loan of $11,895,000. Upon the mountain section we guarantee $75,000 a mile, or $62,700,000. Add to the two latter sums the $10,000,000 loan, and we have $84,595,000 to add to the $167,000,000.
Now there is a possibility that that portion of the road from the Pacific to Winnipeg will be paying in a short while, so that it will not be a charge upon the country. It may be worth what has been expended on it. The prairie section must be supplemented by contributing lines of railway; as at present projected, it cannot become a paying concern unless branch lines are built connecting with it. A single line of railway passing through a prairie can only levy for a certain number of miles north and south of it, and from this source it could not derive revenue enough to keep it running. They will have to build lines of railway paralleling the main line for the purpose of assisting the main line. Now there is a possibility that the line to the head of Lake Superior wil never become a charge on the government of the country. What will the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway company do? The moment they find that the road from Winnipeg to Moncton is not a paying road, are they likely to continue running it? What means have you of forcing them to do so? You may say that you have a lien upon the stock. Well, your lien upon the
stock only becomes valid along with the lien held by the parties who bought the stock. What lien have you upon the road that is being built? You had a lien prior to the company borrowing money for the purpose of constructing that road, and you gave it away to the Grand Trunk Pacific. Your lien at the present time runs pari pagsu with that of the parties who have loaned money on the prairie section and the mountain section; and how are you going to enforce it for the benefit of the eastern section? You may say that they owe you the money. You take the road and you work it and run it. But who do you take it and run it for? You work it and run it for the benefit of yourselves and other creditors who have with you a lien upon the road. What means have you to compel the Grand Trunk Railway company, who you say have entered into an engagement with you, to work the eastern section of the road? Supposing you obtained an order from the court that the Grand Trunk railway must work it, what penalty could be imposed on the Grand Trunk for refusing? The franchise of the Grand Trunk railway lies in the common stock, and the common stock is worth little or nothing. It is only worth something for speculative purposes' I am not going to say a word against the Grand Trunk. The Grand Trunk has done a great deal for Canada. The men who put their money into the Grand Trunk have not had the results which they expected from that investment. The people of Canada owe a great deal to the Grand Trunk. I am only pointing out the position of the government with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. If they do not work the road from Winnipeg to Quebec to your satisfaction, what are you going to do? Take over the road, the rolling stock and everything else? You take over, as I say, the western section, subject to the lien upon it held by the parties who have advanced money, subject to the claim on the rolling stock and subject to your own lien. You stand pari passu with the parties who advanced the money for the construction of the road. But, you have no tangible claim whatever for the purpose of enabling you to take the road over. The same is true of the eastern section. You say to the Grand Trunk: Go on and work that road. They say: We have spent money enough on the undertaking, we have found out that it is impossible to operate the road from Winnipeg to Moncton with satisfactory results and -we will not run it; run it yourselves. You have no remedy against the Grand Trunk. The only result will be that you will take possession of it. Fancy the government in possession of a Toad on which they have expended $164,000,000 with no connection at Winnipeg and with no connection with Lake Superior, because the key to the situation, the branch line

from Superior Junction to Lake Superior, is in the hands of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. They refused to mortgage it or give it as a security for this undertaking. The parties who own the road, own that branch independently, and this government has no claim upon it. You have the road on your hands, you have to work it, and you not only lose the interest on the $164,000,000, but you have the road passing through a country not at all comparable with that which the Intercolonial railway passes through. The result will be that you will operate that road at a cost which will make the people very sick of the undertaking. It would be better for them if you had pitched the whole of the money into the sea rather than that you should have invested it in any such undertaking. There are possibilities. Some mineral discoveries may be made in the country. Some bonanza in the shape of a Cobalt, gold mines, or chance development may give an impetus to the Toad which does not exist at the present time. The wildest scheme that was ever propounded to the people of any country was the idea of drawing grain from Winnipeg over the western section of the road down to Quebec, across the bridge, and from there to St. John and Halifax, and establishing an undertaking in competition with other roads. We all know that the cheapest manner of transporting grain or heavy freight of any kind is by water. President Taft of the United States, in making comparisons, says that transport by water can be carried on at one-eighth of what it costs by rail. I think that perhaps he is too low; at any rate, let us say one-quarter. That is the cheapest way of conveying heavy freight. What is the result? Grain from the west to the markets of the east will seek the quickest possible way, and that is by means of water communication. The large carrying companies realize the importance of water carriage. The Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific railway all go to Fort William to take advantage of water transportation. No all-rail communication can compete with water communication from the head of Lake Superior down to the sea. That is one of the reasons why I am an advocate of the Georgian bay canal. It is the cheapest means of transporting the great products of the west to the sea-board. I have shown the enormous expenditure that this country will have to undertake. It will have to pay interest on $164,000,000 plus the cost of the road from Winnipeg to Moncton for the next thirty or forty years. The Grand Trunk is not going to do it. Any one who looks with a prescient eye ahead must say that the results I predict will come. If no other result comes, see rvhat an enormous burden it places upon us. Why did the government not build the line as laid down and Mr. J. G. HAGGART.
advised by the opposition? The opposition were in favour of opening up the west, they stated their plan and showed how the road ought to be built, but I do not believe that the right hon. gentleman could carry out this scheme with the aid of his supporters, unless he agreed that there should be a summer terminus at Quebec and winter termini at St. John and Halifax. Fancy building a road paralleling the Intercolonial railway, our own road, that does not pay at the present moment. They claim that they are shortening the distance by 120 miles. But, does it shorten it any? Sir Sanford Fleming tried to get a better line for the Intercolonial railway, and if such a line could have been obtained, surely he ought to have known it. For years they have been exploring down there. They have their line practically completed, and what do they find? They find that they cannot get a much better line or any shorter line from Levis to Moncton than the old route of the Intercolonial railway. They at present have a railway that they hardly know what' to do with. The Intercolonial railway is a puzzle to them, and there is a deficit on it from year to year except during the last nine months, with which I intend to deal presently. They have built a harbour at Port Colborne at an expenditure of $3,500,000 which has not fulfilled the expectations of hon. gentlemen opposite. Ships were to go down there that would otherwise go to Buffalo; they were to unload a portion of their cargo at Port Colborne, pass through the canal, and go down the St. Lawrence. I told them at the time that if a vessel wanted to load to go to Montreal or Quebec, it was just as easy for it to go to the port of Buffalo, 10 or 15 miles away and get the cargo from a vessel there, instead of spending $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 for the purpose of building this elevator at Port Colborne. They no sooner had it built than the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), in his tour through the west, promised the people in that section the deepening of the Welland canal. What use .would the elevator at Port Colborne be after the deepening of the Welland canal? You have 21-foot navigation in the port, and you will have 21-foot navigation on the canal. Vessels will not stay in the port at all, they will go clear through the canal. It is a useless expenditure of $4,000,000. The hon. minister does not seem to be pleased with the business done by the elevator, but he hopes that in the future it will develop. It has been built now and running for over a year and actually 1,000,000 bushels have gone into that elevator, one of the largest in the country. It has been an entirely useless expenditure.
Let us come to the question immediately before the House, the management of the Intercolonial railway. The people of this country will hardly believe the amount that

Canada has expended on the Intercolonial railway. I suppose very few of them read the blue-books, but if they look at the report issued by the Minister of Railways this year they will find the extraordinary statement that $91,000,000 has been expended on capital account of the Intercolonial railway, and nearly $8,900,000 on the Prince Edward Island railway, and for the nine months, bringing the figures down to the present day, there has been a further expenditure of $1,200,000 on the Intercolonial railway. From 1896 up to the present moment the capital expenditure on the Intercolonial railway and its branches has increased from $49,000,000 up to the neighbourhood of $102,000,000. What benefit has the country got from it? What is the difference whether you charge an amount to ordinary revenue or to capital account? The minister never thinks of paying the interest on his capital account. He makes comparisons between what is charged to capital account by this railway and other railways, but he forgets that the Baltimore and Ohio and the others with which he makes comparisons pay interest on the capital account. How long suffering have the people of Canada been? From mismanagement-and I shall prove the mismanagement out of the evidence produced by the Minister of Railways this year-the debt on the Intercolonial railway, or the capital account, has increased in fourteen years from $50,000,000 to $102,000,000. The hon. gentleman says: Oh, the great benefit the Intercolonial railway is to the people in that section of the country! I would like to see figures in support of the statements of the Minister of Railways that the intercolonial railway carries freight and passengers for less than any other railway. The passenger rate is the same


George Perry Graham: I think I stated that the passenger rates were about the same as on other roads, I think they are; the freight rates are cheaper.


John Graham Haggart: I said that the hon. gentleman stated that the passenger rates were the same on the Intercolonial railway as on other roads. He said that the freight rates were greatly below the freight rates on other roads. The freight paid by the ordinary merchant, farmer or other customer along the Intercolonial railway is, I venture to say, as high as on any road in Ontario or Quebec. I looked into the question and I state that the people of the maritime provinces pay a fair price on all the freight they carry. The average is brought down by the rates on two or three commodities. Coal, lumber, shingles and some other things-and the coal is principally carried out of the maritime provinces-are carried at a ridiculously low rate. But as a general rule the freight rates on the Intercolonial railway are on an average about
the same as in other sections of this country. The passenger rates are the same and the freight rates are the same. Then why is it that it costs so much to run the road? Why i3 it that there is deficit after deficit? Last year I drew the attention of the minister to the enormous number of employees on the road, a number largely in excess of its requirements. He evidently found my complaint to be well founded, for he tells us to-day that the Commission of Management, who were appointed to manage the road have discharged about 600 men. Then last year it cost a greater amount to collect the revenues on the Intercolonial than it did the preceeding year. Last year they collected less and paid more. Something wrong about that, $600,000 less collected and it cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars more. It is an anomaly, and the officers ought to be obliged to explain it.
The appointment of a commission to manage the Intercolonial is a peculiar move. Who are the commissioners? The deputy head of the Railway Department, Mr. Pott-inger, the manager o.f the road; Mr. Brady, Mr. Tiffin, all members of the staff of the Intercolonial. The curiosity is that when they are under the direct direction of the Minister of Railways the affair goes to the devil. Joined together, meeting together for the purpose of managing the road, they do first rate.


George Perry Graham: That is a good idea.


John Graham Haggart: I know Mr. Pottinger, the manager of the road, perfectly well. Give him his instructions and lie will carry them out. It is a difficult thing for the manager of the road, when he knows there are a lot of incapables or old men on the road not fitted for their positions and not able to do their work. He does not like to discharge them-it is human nature. He has a kind heart like the Minister of Railways, who interested himself with the commissioners on behalf of a lot of the employees. Mr. Pottinger is a good and efficient manager of the railroad. Give him his instructions, and he will carry them out. Take him to your office, and say to him: Here are the mistakes and faults in the management of the road; you have too many men; make a comparison of the freight rates on your road and those on other roads-why cannot you manage and give as good results as they can? And he will say:	Give
me a free hand;	get rid of the
political influences that are tempting me or making me do otherwise; let there be no political influence in the management of the road, and I will manage it as economically and as well as any other manager in Canada can. I had occasion to test this matter when I was Minister of Railways. I found a similar state of affairs to -what the hon. gentleman found when

he came into office. I sent for Mr. Pottin-ger and Mr. Schreiber, both capable men. I said to Mr. Pottinger: I want such and such results. It can be done, but you must discharge such a number of men. Is it possible to do it without degrading the character of the road, impairing the rolling stock or lowering the standard below what it is at present? I want the rails, the stations and the rolling stock all kept up; can you do it and give me such results? And he said:	I can if you give me
a free hand. He was given a free hand. He found that he had 1,200 men on the road more than were necessary, placed there through political influences. I am not accusing one political party of being worse than the other in this respect; but the minister can keep control, even with the commission that exists at present, though it may act as a go-between between himself and his political supporters in the House. But if he insists on a satisfactory result, it can be got, and it can be got only from a minister who does not represent the maritime provinces. It is a good selection to take a Minister of Eail-way-s from another province. If he exercises the power and the honesty which I believe' from the bottom of my heart he has, though I differ from him politically,
. he can manage the affairs of that department so that it will be an honour and credit to the country, and there is no man on this side of the House who would not be proud to see him do it. There is no trouble in doing it. It is just as easy to have a million dollars of revenue from the Intercolonial railway, with the freight and passenger rates as they are at present, as to have the present state of affairs. There has been a saving of over $700,000 in the last nine months under the commission. That looks hopeful of a saving of nearly $1,000,000 a year; and $1,500,000 or perhaps $2,000,000 could be saved as easily. When I was Minister of Railways the Intercolonial railway was a little affair. The total receipts and expenditures were in the neighbourhood of $3,000,000 a year. Now the receipts and expenditures are over $9,000,000 a year, which shows that either the population or the business of the maritime provinces during the last fourteen years has wonderfully increased. There is three times the business done now on the Intercolonial railway that there was in 1896. Why is it that every railway of any enterprise in Canada is paying well except the Intercolonial?
Now, let me criticise the statement furnished by the commissioners. The expenditure on capital account for the year will be approximately $1,280,000, against $3,867,232 for the previous year. But the extraordinary thing is that the Prince Edward Island railway, with receipts of Mr. J. G. HAGGART.
about $200,000 and an expenditure of nearly $300,000, had a capital expenditure last year of about $500,000.


George Perry Graham: Not all on the railway-proper.


John Graham Haggart: It was for enlarged accommodation at stations, sidings and a lot of other things, among them a judgment against the railway obtained by a man who was building a bridge down there. The gross receipts on the Intercolonial for the nine months ending December 31 amounted to $7,073,300, an increase of $442,154 over the corresponding nine months of the previous year. The gross working expenses for the nine months amounted to $6,310,912, a reduction of $757,087. What I want to draw the attention of the minister to is this:	He
collected during the nine months of this year $442,000 more than he did during the same period last year, and yet he expended $750,000 less in that same period. That is an extraordinary statement. You have an increased revenue of $442,000 in the nine months and a decreased expenditure _ of $757,000. There must have been a startling condition of affairs in the preceding year when such a reduction in expenditure and increase in revenue were possible, or there must have been a considerable charging up of ordinary expenditure against capital account. I want to draw the attention of the House to the enormous capital account on the Intercolonial railway. We hope for better days, but we have a deficit now which will amount this year to about $800,000.


George Perry Graham: A surplus.


John Graham Haggart: No, a deficit. The $1,200,000 charged to capital account ought to be charged to ordinary expenditure, and I so stated w-hen that amount was voted for particular expenditures. You can never have an honest statement from the officials of any railway when they have the right to manipulate their capital account just as they please. There ought to be no such thing as a capital account in a railway belonging to a government. It is not an account on which we expect any interest to be paid, and consequently should be wiped out altogether. In saying this I am not merely expressing my own opinion, but I am repeating the statement made again and again by the right hon. gentleman who leads the House when he used to attack the late Sir John Macdonald and the Conservative party for having a capital account on the Intercolonial railway and concealing extravagant expenditures under that head. The right hon. gentleman said: You can have no honest, no trustworthy management of the Intercolonial or any other government enterprise until the cap-

ital account is wiped out altogether. So it should be because there is no need for it. There would not be any such capital account in any other country in the world. We charge a lot of expenditure in this country to capital which is not done in other countries. When we build fortifications, we charge them to capital account as well as a lot of expenditure from one end of the country to the other. Just fancy a Dreadnought being built by the British government and charged to capital account or a dock at Malta or Gibraltar. There is no such thingt as capital account in the British public accounts, and there ought to be none here. Let us have a plain statement of the expenditure on the road and let us form our own conclusions as to whether that expenditure was judicious or not. The minister has no basis for making a comparison between the Intercolonial and company owned railways in this connection. The directors of railway companies have to provide an income out of which to pay interest on the capital, but there is no interest paid on the Intercolonial and never will be. I am hoping for better tilings. There has been a little better management than in the past. I believe the hon. gentleman is trying to do something. Let him bend all his energy to obtaining an honest administration of his department, either by a commission or something else. I have no faith myself in commissions, and the hon. gentleman had very little when he appointed this one. The suggestion came from my leader (Mr. Borden), who drew a comparison between the Intercolonial railway and the government railways in Australia and other places, which are managed by commissions and gave good results. He thought that the government railway in this country might be managed by a commission with like good results. Of course we know that the * people of the maritime provinces will not allow what they consider a peculiarly maritime interest to be owned by. any railway company, but some other method of management might be devised. It might be run in the interests of the three railwav companies which connect with it. Or there might be a joint stock arrangement, in which the three different railways interested would pool, each its share" of the earnings, and share each the cost of the management. I thought, that perhaps something of that kind might be possible, but we should always have a string to that railway. Should Lloyd George's theories prevail in the old country, should the theory of my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) on municipal or state ownership of railways and other public utilities take root in this country, it is possible that the day may come when we might take a new departure along those lines. Let us
then keep control of something we own, and if we should part with the management ourselves, let us always have a string to bring it back to the people. I hope for better things in the future. I see a bright future because the maritime provinces are progressing wonderfully. They are progressing more than the old provinces of Ontario and Quebec, if we can judge by the amount of freight and passengers carried on the different lines in the provinces by the sea. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick particularly are doing three times the business they formerly did. May that business continue to flourish is the wish of every one on this side no matter to what portion of the Dominion he may belong. That these little provinces down by the sea-that portion of the Dominion of which we are so proud-may prosper and flourish and that the peopled railway may be a success is what none desire more ardently than hon. gentlemen on this side.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Before proceeding with the few observations I have to make on the subject under discussion, let me congratulate the hon. minister (Mr. Graham) on the most admirable statement he has given us this afternoon. And let me also felicitate my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Haggart) on the kindly manner of his criticism and, let me assure him that we deeply appreciate the generous sentiments he has uttered and which are all the more welcome, coming from so old a parliamentarian, one whom we mav call the father of the House. I would like at the outset to express the hope that now, when we are about to rebuild the Quebec bridge, the government may see its way to put its construction .in the hands of some of our Canadian bridge builders and artisans. If it be possible to find among them men able to construct that work, the government should take every opportunity to give them the preference and entrust to them this great national undertaking. If they should do this, I am sure that there will be much greater satisfaction among our own people than if they entrusted this enterprise to outsiders. Might I also be permitted to remark that while we hear great solicitude expressed by hon. members from all parts of the country regarding the Intercolonial railway, yet in the maritime provinces where we have to use that railway, we may be admitted to have a greater personal interest in its successful operation than can possibly be felt by hon. gentlemen from other sections.
May I be permitted to say that I do not think that the fact that the Minister of Railways was able to announce a surplus this afternoon is any special reason for

congratulation. I do not know whether my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) who is the apostle of public operation in this country believes that it is the duty of a government which is operating a public utility to milk it to the greatest possible extent. If he does, then I am afraid the admiration for public ownership in any portion of the country that had practical experience of it would speedily fade away. There is one thing about this question which most hon. gentlemen forget, and that is that while it is a most desirable thing to make both ends meet, yet, this year when you have a surplus of $600,000 or $700,000 that surplus becomes of no value to the future of that enterprise. It is not like the balance in the profit and loss account of a company operating a railroad, because under the book-keeping system of the government, when there is a surplus at the end of the financial year that money goes into the^ general revenue of the country, ceases to be available for any purpose whatever in connection with the operation of the road. Hon. gentlemen opposite sometimes complain that expenditures are made on capital account, while on the other hand they insist that the Intercolonial railway should have a surplus. But, the moment a surplus is obtained it is appropriated out of the resources for operating the road and disappears altogether as a factor in the management of that railway. Howr are you going to provide for capital expenditure? how are you going to provide for these accretions which necessarily must be made to any great public work, unless you resort to capital expenditure? I, therefore, say that the fact that we have a surplus of $600,000 or $700,000 this year has no significance from the standpoint of government operation of railways. If for instance this year you have not done as much track repairing as you might have done if you did not put in as many ties as you might have put in, if as much ballasting was not done this year as the year before, it simply means that next year you will have to provide for what you failed to do this year, and when you come to provide for it instead of having the surplus in the treasury as a company would have, your surplus from the year before has disappeared. If, for instance, there should be a falling off in passengers and freight, where is the government going to get the money to make up the deficit. There will be a deficit, the surplus of the preceding year will have vanished from the transactions of the Intercolonial railway, and those gentlemen who have such great solicitude for the Intercolonial railway, but who never travel over it and know nothing about it, will hold up their hands in holy horror. It seems to me that instead of having large surpluses it would be much better if the country would begin to realize Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
what is the real position of affairs in regard to the public operation of this public utility. It seems to me it would be much better that you should endeavour to provide for the running of your railway, to make both ends meet each year, and to operate it in such a way that deficits would not occur. Referring again to my hon. friend from York (Mr. Maclean) and his pet theories, I would like to know from him whether or not this beautiful system of government operation or government ownership of public utilities that he advocates, means that in the operating of the utility there is to ' be any advantage to the people who are living in the community where the utility is operated?


William Findlay Maclean: I will answer my hon. friend in a moment-public ownership means absolutely giving service to the people and not realizing profit on capital, and public ownership is to be judged by the service it gives and nothing else.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At better rates?


William Findlay Maclean: At better rates, and public ownership will give a better service and better rates if it is efficiently administered, but there must be efficiency of administration.


George Perry Graham: And my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) holds up Germany as an example of public ownership, and yet Germany took out of the people rates sufficient to pay six per cent on capital, and in addition to that a certain stated amount every year.


William Findlay Maclean: And under public ownership in Germany they have the best express service in the world.


George Perry Graham: But not the best freight service.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, I will tell you about the freight service later on.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I should have known that if my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) got started on his pet theory I would never be able to get a look in at all, and now I hope to be permitted to com tinue my remarks. What I desired to know from my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) was whether one of his theories that the people who were to be served by the utility should have the advantage of better rates than if the utility were operated by a private company. If I underestand my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) aright that is his idea. But some of his friends are fond of complaining that lower rates of freight are obtainable on this public utility, the Intercolonial railway, and, therefore, I am at a loss to understand the position of some gentlemen from this larger province who

are such strong apostles of public ownership, but who at the same time are always wanting the Minister of Railways of the day to extract a surplus out of this public utility. It seems to me that when we come to discuss the Intercolonial in this House we forget a good many things. The people of the maritime provinces, at all events those of them whom I represent, are not asking for any exceptional consideration that is not extended to any other portion of Canada, but surely we ought to remember that the Intercolonial railway was constructed for the purpose of promoting trade between the maritime provinces and central Canada. When Canada stretched out towards the Pacific and absorbed the western provinces, Canada pledged her treasury and her public lands for the purpose of providing an interprovincial railway which would reach to the Pacific coast. Canada spent more money on that railway, and it is spending more money from year to year in providing interprovincial communication between the western provinces, than ever Canada dreamt of spending, even comparatively speaking, in the maritime provinces. Therefore, this question should not be regarded in any sectional way, nor should it be considered that those of us who live in the maritime provinces are asking for sectional consideration. We are asking for nothing of the sort. In this connection, let me tell some of these hon. gentlemen some reasons why the Intercolonial does not pay. If a private company were operating the Intercolonial railway to the port of Halifax, whence immigrants come from all countries in Europe, you would have agents of that railway soliciting these people to travel over the Intercolonial railway when they reached Canada. But, is the Intercolonial railway doing that? Is there a single attempt made by passenger agents of the Intercolonial on the continent of Europe or the British isles to sell a single ticket to an immigrant coming to Canada? No. Every other railway is doing it, but yet this Intercolonial railway, which controls the front door of this Dominion for six months in the year through a port which is open all the year around for the arrival of passengers, does not attempt to induce a single emigrant leaving for Canada to utilize that railway. Now, I do not blame the Intercolonial for not doing that; the fault lies ill the inherent difficulty in the operation bWythe government of public utilities which toy hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is so fond of advocating.


William Findlay Maclean: Let me tell my hon. friend that Switzerland has its agents in America soliciting passengers for the state-owned roads in Switzerland, and there 91
is an answer to his question. What Switzerland does could be done by Canada if we believed in the principle.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) is unfortunately not able to speak for all of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House.


William Findlay Maclean: I do not profess to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If a proposition had been made to this House at any time to appoint agents of the Intercolonial railway in Europe, we would have a loud wail from hon. gentlemen opposite about the extravagance of spending money in Europe on account of the Intercolonial railway. What is the result? The result is that the Canadian Bacific railway takes practically every immigrant that comes into this country from the east. It takes him at St. John and runs him to Montreal and other points west. If they arrive at Halifax, it brings them to St. John over the Intercolonial, and then they get the long haul on the through ticket to all points in the west. That is one point that hon. gentlemen forget in discussing the Intercolonial. Look at the immigration that is coming into Canada. Every week thousands of people have been coming in during the winter time, landing at our seaports, but the Intercolonial does not get any advantage from them. That is one of the reasons why the Intercolonial does not pay. But there is another reason. If a company were in the position in which the government of this country is in at present, they would long ago have imposed upon goods coming from the mother country under the preference, a restriction that they must come into Canada through Canadian ports. So during particularly six months of the year when these goods come to Canada, the railway would have the opportunity to haul them from the eastern ports under that restriction. But that is not done. The fact is that the Canadian Pacific has the full advantage of that preference in hauling the goods. The Grand Trunk runs from Montreal to Portland, and the goods that come to Portland during the winter under the preference, are brought to Montreal by the Grand Trunk, the Intercolonial gets no advantage from them. Yet hon. gentlemen who want this road to show a surplus, who want it crippled by dismissing its employees, will stand up in this House, as I have heard them in the' last parliament, and object to the proposition that there should be put in force a restriction that the preference should only apply to goods which come in through Canadian ports.
Then look at another difficulty. This railway was originally constructed as an interprovincial railway and it stopped at Riviere



du Loup. But as the march of commerce proceeded towards the west it was extended. Consider in what an isolated position were the whole of the maritime provinces when that railway terminated at Riviere du Loup. So hon. gentlemen opposite purchased a piece of railway, and purchased the St. Charles branch in addition, and extended the Intercolonial railway to Levis, joining it with the Grand Trunk at Chaudiere. Still every part of the maritime provinces was 400 or 500 miles away from the great metropolis of Canada, it had no connection with Ontario, it had no connection with the west, and it was handicapped to a degree that hon. gentlemen can hardly imagine. Where would we have been to-day if this government had not in 1897, purchased the Drummond County railway'and extended it to Montreal? It purchased these two pieces of railway, involving a capital expenditure which helped to increase if to the large figure which the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has spoken of. Yet with even all these expenditures, and with the extension of the Intercolonial railway to Montreal, that road is not to-day a transcontinental line, it is solely a local line. Why? I suppose that there has been no industry in late years that has attracted so much attention as has the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and along with it the Nova Scotia Steel Company, in which a great many people in this part of Canada are interested. These two large industries manufacture in different lines probably more iron and steel products than all the other iron and steel industries of Canada put together. Yet for nearly six months of the year only a small portion of the product of either of these industries passed beyond the city of Montreal. This country imposes upon these products a tax which interfers with their competing in Ontario and points west with products from the United States. When hon. gentlemen complain about the low rates, let me say that while I agree with the minister that in certain schedules the rates are lower for short hauls than they are on company roads, yet in the .majority of the schedules the rates for one hundred miles haul and over are as great and when you come to make a comparison in regard to long hauls, the Intercolonial railway charges just as much as do the company roads in this country. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite wish to continue this impost upon our industries in the maritime provinces. We in Nova Scotia are the only people who produce coal east of the Rocky Mountains, but we cannot send a pound of coal west of the city of Montreal and compete with the Americans. Hon. gentlemen talk about Canada for Canadians, about protecting home industries and all that Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
kind of thing, and they want the people of the maritime provinces to be screwed down so that the Intercolonial railway may show a surplus. These are things that ought not to be forgotten in discussing a question of this kind, these are some of the difficulties under which we labour.
But there is another thing. Talk about the advantage of the Intercolonial railway! What would my hon. friends think if the Minister of Railways were to come down with a proposition empowering him to develop industries along the line of the Intercolonial railway? All the other big companies do it. Everybody recognizes that that is one of the advantages of company ownership and operation, that companies are able, by virtue of the facility with which the directors can deal with problems of that kind, to develop natural industries along the line of their railway. The Intercolonial railway cannot do that. So I say that hon. gentlemen opposite do not appreciate the difficulties under which we labour, and which I have indicated. Every session hon. gentlemen hold up their hands in horror because my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has not extracted a surplus from the people who use that railway. If he had extracted a surplus, it could only be by injuring and crippling that railroad for the future. I say that for these reasons the minister has no right to have a surplus of $700,000. All that this country has a right to expect of him, seeing that this road was a special feature of confederation, is that he should make both ends meet, and that the interest of the people who live along that line of railway should have his first consideration. You talk about this being a road in which everybody in Canada is interested; of course it is. But, what would my hon. friends from the further west say if we were to criticise railway development and railway problems up there? They would tell us that they ought to have the first say about their own railways.
Now, I do not think every one was satisfied to hear my hon. friend assure the House that he had not interfered with these gentlemen who compose the Board of Management of the Intercolonial. Down in our country we learned long ago, perhaps before some hon. gentlemen in other parts of Canada did, the advantages of responsible government; and the people expect that when you have a minister of the Crovrn entrusted with the the operation of a great public utility, he must be held responsible therefpr. And my hon. friend is responsible for it, and I do not think that he is assuming his full responsibility unless he intimates to this Board of Management what hi3 ideas are as to how they should act. In a free country like this it is impossible to get rid

of ministerial or governmental responsibility. My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. John Haggart) tells us that he thinks he is getting on all right, but unfortunately for the minister, in the constituency from which I come and in the constituencies of other hon. gentlemen along the line of the Intercolonial railroad, it will not do for us to say that the minister never spoke to these commissioners, because they have learned the lesson of responsibility, they know that the representatives of the people and the government are responsible at all times for the proper carrying out of this public utility, and that they have the right to interfere in the best interests of the people. 'I know the motives that animate my hon. friend in dealing with these matters in that way, but it will not in the slightest degree protect him from the attacks of hon. gentlemen opposite for him to say that he has nothing to do with this Board of Commissioners. I think the minister has the right to interfere with the Board of Management. He has the right to direct the policy of the board, he has the right to say, when they undertake to infringe upon the rights of the people, that these rights must be respected.
The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. John Haggart) intimates that the way to fix the Intercolonial is to dismiss a great army of people. I think that the action of this board, where they dismissed 503 employees and where, I am free to say, they exercised their judgment to the fullest extent that my hon. friend from Lanark could have wished, was not justified by the circumstances. I think that they could have worked out just the same results without making these dismissals. As a matter of fact the lure of the west is calling from our eastern provinces numerous men and they are going to the railways of the west and of central Canada. Hundreds of men every year are going west and it would not have taken very long to have reduced the staff of the Intercolonial railway without dismissing these men. It must be remembered that in 1908 the Intercolonial railway began to feel the effect of the bad times which the great central railways had endured for the two previous years. Every one knows of the lack of prosperity that existed on the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific railway in 1908. We began to feel that down there and my hon. friend's board, dealing with this question, summarily dismissed these men. I have no objection to the greatest possible economy being exercised in the operation of the road." I quite agree that there have been abuses in the past- abuses that have come down from the time when my hon. friend the member for Lanark was Minister of Railways and Canals. While he endeavoured in his own way to check the demands that were being made 91*
upon him by his political friends in the maritime provinces, he left a condition of affairs that fortunately is gradually disappearing. And, there is no representative of the people of the maritime provinces who would not stand by the minister in every effort he would make to apply the principles of economy to the management of the road by getting rid of unnecessary officials, and so operating the road that the people of the country will have the best service and under conditions where they will be able to do the business in the best possible way.
It will not do to point to some local rates, as the hon. member for Kings-Albert (Mr. McAllister) did the other day. The Intercolonial railway was not built for the purpose of giving a man a local rate on this or that little product to he carried 15 or 20 miles; it was built as a great Canadian enterprise to connect the different provinces of the Dominion together, and the service which it ought to render to this country is that it should break down the barriers which lie between the provinces of the east and the provinces of the west, so that the products of the east may go to the west and the products of the west may be carried to the east. That is what the country expected when it constructed this" road, and that is what it ought to get no matter who directs or controls the road. Unfortunately, this problem of the Intercolonial railway which has been so much discussed in this House, comes back to this difficulty to-day that it is purely a local line. We do not share in the great transportation development of the west, in the great prosperity that has come to Saskatchewan and Alberta, with their influx of population, with their increase in grain production and with all the great accretions which have come to this country. The great product of the west is brought down, as far as transportation goes, over the great trunk systems until it reaches the city of Montreal. A little bit of that pro-duct trickles down to Nova Scotia and the seaports of Canada, but the great proportion of it switches off at Montreal and goes down to Boston, Portland and other American cities. We only ask that this Intercolonial railway should be regarded as a national work, and that it should be so utilized, either by absorption with the great transcontinental railways or otherwise, that every paft of Canada shall share in the development which has come of late years to the western portion of our country. My hon. friend from Lanark need not think that our people 'by the sea are so wedded to the theory of this railway that we would forego absolutely whatever rights we may have to prevent parliament from making it part of the Transcontinental lines. This rail-

way belongs to the Dominion of Canada, it is owned by the people and apparently it cannot be alienated, But what is this country going to do when the Grand Trunk Pacific comes to Moncton? Inside of two years it will be in operation there. Are you going to let the Grand Trunk Pacific go down to the sea? If you are you must utilize the Intercolonial railway or build a new line to reach the seaports. If the Grand Trunk railway goes there, why should not the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian Northern go there, and why should not the Intercolonial railway be utilized so that in our maritime part of the Dominion we should have centred the national termini of the great transcontinental railways? We would have a oneness and connection that we could not get otherwise. We are apt to regard this question upon narrow lines, to look at it from a contracted view point. We would like the Minister of Railways to exercise his full responsibility and to realize that he must be responsible to the people if he is to act in the best interests not only of the maritime provinces, but of the whole of Canada. Let the whole Dominion of Ganada realize that a miserable surplus of a few hundred thousand dollars is no advantage compared with the development of trade routes throughout this country, and if by absorption or connection with other lines the whole of the Dominion can be rounded out as far as trade is concerned in connection with the three great transcontinental lines, you will be doing something which will not only be for the good of Canada, tout will to a great degree obliterate these little local distinctions and local discussions which now characterize the consideration of this question.
I have had repeated occasions to speak to the minister in regard to the method of dealing with claims made to the Railway Department from people living along the line of the Intercolonial for damages by fire, accidents to animals and injuries in various other ways. I say to the minister in all frankness and kindliness, and I know that he will appreciate my attitude in that regard, that this part of his administration of the Intercolonial calls for some remedy. It is a difficulty that has always existed in the past, but if there are advantages in government operation, as the hon. member for York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) thinks there is, I wish to tell him that there is one phase of government operation which presses very hardly upon the good people who live along the line of this public utility, and that is the recovery of damages in such cases as I have spoken of. A few years ago a statute was passed providing that if a man's property is destroyed by fire from a railway, the company is prima facie Mr. B. M. MACDONALD.
liable, the onus is thrown on the company to show that it is not liable, and claims of that kind can be easily settled in a court of law. I ventured to introduce a Bill and it was carried through parliament, which attempted to apply to the government railway the same extent of liability as other railways, but somehow the claims department of the Intercolonial railway has never discovered this on the statutes, and so far as I have been able to discover since that time, although not only in my own constituency but all along the Intercolonial railway, fires have occurred and the liability prima facie existed under the statute, some one connected with the department or somewhere else solemnly undertook to judge the liability and the evidence and the law and decided that the railway was not negligent. While that is a small matter it causes great difficulty and dissatisfaction to people living along the Intercolonial railway. A rule has been put in force of late that when an investigation is held in regard to the merits of a claim the parties having a claim cannot employ a solicitor to come and see that the claim is properly presented. While we have great public questions to deal with, while I have myself ventured to suggest that we should look at this whole problem from a broad view point, here is a matter of detail by satisfactorily adjusting which the minister will render himself and his management very popular along the line of the Intercolonial railway.


George Perry Graham: I have been for four weeks trying to work out something along that line, and if I am successful, as I think I will be, my hon. friend will be perfectly satisfied.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is satisfactory to find that my hon. friend is responding so quickly to my suggestion of improvement in this regard. I am sure we will appreciate it. If my hon. friend will realize that it is his duty to tell these commissioners once in a while what they should do and what they should not do, and that he would be really deserving of condemnation instead of praise if he failed to do that, and if he will also realize the importance of the difficulties I have pointed out, and if he does not make the surplus too large next year, I think the whole House will be satisfied because the hen. member for Lanark (Mr. J. Haggart) was especially satisfied to-night.


Mr.  J. W.@: MADDIN (Cape Breton South.) Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great pleasure of the annual philippic of the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals in bringing down his statement of the report of the board of management of the

Intercolonial railway. I shall deal with but a few of the points in that address. Until a few years ago, up to the time of my election to represent the county of Cape Breton, we enjoyed on the eastern end of the island of Cape Breton, two trains per day from the capital of Cape Breton to the capital of the province, we had what we called the express and the fast express or flier. Within the last four years during the winter months the fast express was taken off the Halifax-Sydney route and a great deal of agitation took place in the eastern part of the province. It was a matter which affected not only the county of Cape Breton but all the counties from Sydney to Halifax, and it also affected the people of the whole province as well as the people of the upper provinces with regard to mail matter and travel. A great deal of agitation was started with a view to having this train put back on the road and one year ago last month on coming up to the House of Commons here, I spoke to the Minister of Railways in the hope that as there was a pronouncement made at that time that even during the summer months a second train would not be put on the Intercolonial railway from Sydney to Halifax, some arrangement might be made for the benefit of the people in the province of Nova Scotia. There was a freight train leaving the city of Sydney at about six o'clock in the evening which was due at Fort Tupper on the Intercolonial railway somewhere about 11 or 12 o'clock at night. An express train left the town of New Glasgow every morning at about 7 o'clock for Halifax, and I suggested to the minister that a sleeping car should be attached to this freight train which would run on schedule to Point Tupper and that one of the numerous freights between Point Tupper and New Glasgow should be run on schedule to connect with the expiess from New Glasgow to Halifax. The Minister of Railways stated to me at that time that it was his intention to make some change in connection with the Intercolonial railway, and that as this change would be taking place very shortly he did not deem it wise to put on another train or make any alteration in connection with the administration of the affairs of the road. Some time subsequent to this the new board of railway management and control was appointed. I called on one of the members of the board and submitted the proposition to him. He said that in all probability the proper thing would be to have a regular express train. He said to me: Mr. Maddin that end of the road does not pay. Here I would like to recall a question which 1 asked the Minister of Railways on the 5th of May, last:


Mr. MADDIN:: 1. Wliat were the earnings from freight shipped from the Island of Cape Breton over the Intercolonial railway in 1908?
2. What were the earnings from freight shipped to the Island of Cape Breton over the Intercolonial railway in 1908?
3.	What was the revenue from the sale of passenger tickets to passengers going to and coming from the Island of Cape Breton for the year 1908, on the said railway?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Separate accounts iare not kept for this portion of the Intercolonial railway.
2.	Answered by number one.
3.	Answered by number one.
I was told by the board of control that this end of the railway did not pay, and that consequently it was not desirable that another train should be put on lov the convenience of the public. I submit that until the Minister of Railways adopts a system of book-keeping which will show what the earning capacity of the eastern end. of the Intercolonial is, he is not in a position to tell us that the road does not pay. In discussing the freight earnings of the eastern end *of the road with this member of the board of control, I forget whether it was Mr. Butler or Mr. Brady, I pointed out the enormous freights carried for the Nova Scotia Steel Company and the Dominion Iron and Steel Company. That gentleman told me that these freights were hauled at practically a loss-that there was a very heavy grade at George's river, and that in order to haul heavy trains over that grade, it was necessary to cut them up into short trains, so that the freight could not he hauled profitably at the rates charged to those industries. He also said, what was quite proper, that it was not the policy of the Intercolonial to increase the rates for moving steel billets from those works, in view of the fact that they received bounties fr'em the government, and it would not be right for the federal treasury to pay bounties for the production of steel and take them away by charging high rates of freight on the product. That is a view which I think all members of this House will readily agree with. But just before this government went to the country in 1908, a pledge was given to the people of Cape Breton that the grades at George's river would be reduced, and the sum of $350,000, if I remember rightly, was placed in the estimates for that purpose. During the passage of the estimates last session, I pointed out to the Minister of Railways and Canals that there was in the estimates a sum of only $50,000, which he said was there for the purpose of purchasing a right of way for the proposed reduction of grades, and owing to the depression of trade in the country he did not deem it expedient to place a sum in the estimates last year for

the work. But in view of the fact that the Minister of Railways and Canals has assured this House that in the supplementary estimates to be brought down at a subsequent date, the sum of $16,000,000 will be placed for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, and in view of the further fact that a surplus of $666,388.67 has been declared for a period of nine months operation of the Intercolonial railway, a surplus which the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) said the minister should not have declared, it is due to the people at the eastern end of the Intercolonial that a sum be placed in the supplementary estimates for the completion of the promised survey and reduction of grades at George's river in the county of Cape Breton; and I -wish to ask the Minister of' Railways and Canals now if it is his intention to place in the supplementary estimates a sum to be applied for that purpose?


George Perry Graham: Is there not a sum for it' in the main estimates?


Mr. MADDIN.: No.


George Perry Graham: Look again, my hon. friend must be mistaken.


James William Maddin: Last year the estimated cost of the reduction of the grade, as given to us by the Minister of Railways and Canals, was a sum exceeding $400,000. I took the ground then that the sum of $50,000 was not adequate. I was told that it was placed there only for the purpose of purchasing the right of way, and that it was not proposed to take any active steps in connection with the matter. In the estimates for this year there is the sum of $100,000; but in view of the statement of the minister that $400,000 will be required, that sum is not adequate for the carrying on of this work, and I ask the minister if it is intended to place a sum in the supplementary estimates sufficient for the carrying out of this work?


George Perry Graham: The work cannot all be done in one season. We are doing with this work what we are doing with every work, placing in the estimates an adequate amount for the work to be done this season.


James William Maddin: What work was done for the $50,000 which was in the estimates last year?


George Perry Graham: There was considerable work done.


James William Maddin: Well, it seems to me that the Department of Railways and Canals are not exhibiting the same anxiety for the reduction of grades at George's river in the years 1009 and 1910 that they exhibited in 1908, before the elections. In answer to a question put last session, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals said that the engineer had gone down to make the surveys Mr. MADDIN.
for the reduction of these grades as promptly as he could after the House closed. Although he hastened down and made the surveys after the House closed in 1908, there has been no actual work done there from that time to the present.
Now, the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals has told us with some assurance that there has been no interference from him with the administration of the railway under the board of control. I admire the courage of the hon. member for Pictou, who took the minister to task and told him what his responsibilities in connection with the administration of that railway really are. If the hon. member for Pictou demonstrated anything this evening, it was that he, and not the present incumbent of that portfolio, should be administering the railway in the maritime provinces. I doubt if any hon. member on either side of the House has much ground to complain of interference on the part of the Minister of Railways,' either the present incumbent of that office or any of his predecessors. I think the railway has suffered much more from the lack of interference- than from interference on the part of the minister. Last year, when the Railway Board was appointed, we were given the strongest assurance through the Liberal press of the country that the railway was now brought out of the range of politics, and that from now, henceforth and for ever, there would be no interference from politicians with the administration of the affairs of the road. People imagined that this was actually the fact, for it was only a short time after the appointment of the new board that 503 heads fell into the basket, the result of the over-manning of the road during the general elections in the fall of 1908. While the Minister of Railways plumes himself on not having interfered with the road, I think it would be much more to the credit of himself and his administration if he could have assured us that there had been no interference with the affairs of the road by men of lesser responsibility than himself.
I wish to point out that in the month of June last, when these 503 men were dismissed, a gentleman by the name of James Edwards, a boilermaker in Sydney, was suspended in the mechanical department at that end of the road. He was told by the foreman that he need not take his tool box away, that he was not dismissed but merely suspended, and that if an opening should occur in that line of work, his serviced would be required again. But permit me? to diverge for a moment to "something that took place previous to this. In the fall of 1908, about a week before the general elec-1 t.ions in Cape Breton, Mr. Edwards, the boilermaker, was sent for by Alexander Johnson, the Liberal candidate in Cape Breton South, and was invited by him to

the office of the * Daily Record.' On entering Mr. Johnson's presence, he was addressed as follows:
So you are the man who was cheering for Maddin out in ward 4. You ought to take a tumble to yourself. See if Maddin can get you a job.
This was in the fall of 1908. In June, 1909, this man was suspended along with others. But his tool box remained in the shop, and he was told that when a vacancy occurred and his services would be required he would be sent for. Being aware that there was a vacancy, he went down and sought for re-employment, but his employer said to him: You will have,do make your peace with the Liberal party. Edwards said:	I thought the commissioners said
there was to be no politics or seniority on the Intercolonial. His boss replied: Do you think if I wanted to hire ten mechanics I could go and hire ten of the best men to be found regardless of their politics? No, I would have to go to Mr. Johnson or Dr. Kendall for every one of them. Mr. Edwards then called on Dr. Kendall, the local member, and complained of unfair treatment, and the doctor promised to make inquiries. He met the doctor on the street a couple of days afterwards, and the doctor said to him: Edwards, I understand how it is about your job. You were working for Maddin against Mr. Johnson. See if Mr. Maddin can get you a job. Edwards said: I thought politics and seniority had nothing to do with the railway, that it would be run on a new principle, _ independent of politics. He said: We will let you see that. And Edwards is still unemployed. If the road were purged of the_ administration of its affairs by politicians and ex-politicians, those who have graduated from this House, and are taking a post graduate course in journalism and provincial politics-if this road were purged of the operations of these ex-politicians, and a little more attention paid by the Minister of Railways, who is really the one responsible for its administration, there would be fewer complaints.
Something has been said with regard to the Hudson Bay railway, and we are, given to understand that this railway is to be taken up by the government and completed. Well, we have had reports to the effect that there is only navigation in that bay for some two months in the year and that in the straits there is navigation for less than two months. As every one is aware, the class of vessel required to go through the drifting ice are vessels of slow speed, high power, sheathed in wood to resist the ice jam. These vessels have to be specially constructed and are unfit for other traffic. If this railway is completed and is going to remove the crop of the west, it will only defer the building of the Georgian
Bay canal. The hou. member for Pictou has pointed out that we are only able to ship our coal from the province of Nova Scotia up to Montreal, and cannot ship it beyond that point. But if the Georgian Bay canal were completed, I submit that coal could be shipped from Cape Breton to Port Arthur as cheaply, if not cheaper than it can be landed at Montreal to-day. A great drawback with regard to getting coal into the upper Canadian market is the question of transportation. The vessels built for carrying coal to Montreal are obliged to come back in water ballast, but if the Georgian Bay canal were built they would carry coal to Port Arthur and get return freight so that coal could be landed at Port Arthur as cheaply, if not cheaper, than at Montreal at present. But if this government is going to experiment in millions of dollars expenditure on the Hudson Bay railway, in order to have shipments for a couple of months, that will only delay the construction of the Georgian Bay canal.
The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said that my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr. John Haggart) was opposed to the government rates charged on the Intercolonial railway on traffic coming east or going west. I would like to point out that the hon. gentleman was not complaining about the dearness' of the rate, but what he did complain of was that the railway did not pay, although there was no reason why, with the passenger and freight rates that were being charged it should not.
In his address to the House this afternoon, the Minister of Railways dealt with the different canal projects and western railway and finally wound up with a report of the Intercolonial. He went into the expenditure and revenue of this road and took a good deal of time to point out that this year in particular, there was a surplus, instead of a deficit. I submit that there should not be exhibited this undue anxiety on the part of the minister in his annual presentation, because the Intercolonial railway was never intended to be a revenue earning railway. The hon. minister has told us that he has great faith in the future of this country. He believes that in the course of the next twenty-five years all the great public works now projected will be completed and that even then we will not have more highway than we require for our freight and passengers. Let me tell him that the Intercolonial railway was projected and built at a period of our history when' it required more faith than is required to-day to foresee the benefits bound to arise to this country from its construction. In the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, men were not lacking before confederation who would undertake to build the Intercolonial railway as far as Riviere du Loup. It was not built for the

purpose of earning revenue, but for the purpose of developing the resources of our country down by the sea. It was constructed for the purpose of carrying products of the mines, the forests, the fisheries and the farms to the different markets of the world and to bring in to those provinces the imports required for their development and maintenance.
It was assumed by those who brought this railway into existence that it possibly might be run at a loss; it certainly never was expected that it would be made a revenue paying concern. Let me ask if the Minister of Railways exhibits any very great anxiety year after year because the canals in Upper Canada, which cost the country over $100,000,000, and through which the people of Nova Scotia cannot ship a single ton of coal, are not paying dividends, and yet we all know that the canals were made free and that they were rot even expected to pay their way. This $100,000,000 expenditure of canals is practically of no use to the people of the maritime provinces, but do we raise an annual vail because the canals don't pay? No. We realize that our canal system in Upper Canada is necessary to the development of that part of the Dominion, and might we not with some reason be allowed to hope that the railway system in the maritime provinces should be looked upon in somewhat the same light. The Intercolonial railway is to some extent looked upon by the people of the maritime provinces as more particularly an asset of these provinces, just as the canals may be looked upon as an asset of the1 people of western Canada. Do we hear the members from the maritime provinces complaining about the employment of too many men on the canals or the dismissal of men on the canals? Oh, no, but year after year the government is asked: Are they going to sell the Intercolonial, or are they going to lease it, or are they going to put it under a Royal Commission, or are they going to get rid of the incubus in some way. I submit. Sir, that if the Intercolonial were freed from political influences which yet characterize its management there would be less complaint about it. I shall not draw any comparison between the administration under Conservative rule and under Liberal rule, I am not going to say that political influence did not exist in the days of the Conservative administration, but we all know it is a recognized fact that at the present time political influence is exercised in connection with everything appertaining to the Intercolonial, from the hiring of a common labourer to buying of stores and the making of contracts. It was recognized 'that patronage and partyism permeated the management of the l'oa'd throughout, and when the board of management was


James William Maddin: appointed we were promised that these influences would be got rid of. But let me say, Sir, that so far from this board being now free from external political influences that is not the case, and in that respect their administration has been a failure. Now, coming more particularly to details, I trust the minister will see that the grades on the Intercolonial railway at George's river will be reduced immediately. The minister has now a surplus which is more than sufficient to pay for this work, and the excuse that he made a year ago that the financial conditions of the country do not warrant the expenditure has now disappeared. I trust he will in the near future carry to completion the reduction of the grades at George's river, which will be a great improvement to the system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.
Railways and canals-capital-Intercolonial Railway-Beresford subway, $6,000.
George Perry Graham: This is to remove a dangerous crossing and build a subway. The cost is estimated at $6,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the government follow the rule laid down as to the distribution of cost and ask the municipality to pay a share of this amount?


George Perry Graham: This, will be all paid by the government. The Intercolonial railway pays no taxes to the municipalities as the other railways do.


Haughton Lennox: Having regard to the fact that this railway does not pay taxes, and probably for other reasons, you do not propose to ask the municipalities to contribute anything?


George Perry Graham: We do not.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Does the Intercolonial pay a frontage sewerage tax to the municipalities as all other land owners do?


George Perry Graham: My information is that the Intercolonial railway pays no taxes of that kind.
To strengthen bridges, $61,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for strengthening bridges on the line to accommodate the heavier rolling stock.


George Eulas Foster: Is the whole cost of the strengthening of these bridges charged against capital or against revenue?


George Perry Graham: The amount charged up to capital would be, less the amount realized on the material in these bridges.


George Eulas Foster: But suppose you have a wooden bridge which has done service up

to the present you could not tear it up and get anything for it. If you are putting in a steel bridge to replace a wooden bridge it seems to me that at least the service cost of the wooden bridge should be contributed from revenue. What is the general principle upon which the strengthening is proceeded with, in other words, what is the total cost of strengthening all the bridges to which you are going to appropriate this money. Is it $61,000 or is it $120,000, the other half being appropriated from current revenue?


George Perry Graham: This is all being taken out of capital. For instance, if the old rolling stock had remained, very few of these bridges would have needed to be strengthened, unless one of them was worn out entirely, in which case we might have replaced it out of revenue. But where, on account of heavier rolling stock, we have to do away with an old bridge, the bridge becomes useless altogether. It is worth nothing for present use, because heavier rolling stock demands a heavier bridge. It is not like a rail. When you take up a 67-lb. rail you have the rail, but when one of these bridges is removed, it becomes of no value, and I do not see how you could well credit it to anything. It is the common practice of company railways to do that.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to know the principle upon which roads in the United States, under the commission, operate. There must be some statement of the methods of their operation, which the minister could lay on the table of the House for our information.


George Perry Graham: I will get the principle. If it is not in a concrete form, I will work it out and lay it on the table of the House.


Mr. BLAIN.: This is an item that appears every year, and I presume will appear for many years to come. May I ask what proportion of the bridges on the Intercolonial have already been strengthened, and how many does he expect to strengthen the coming year?


George Perry Graham: My information is that the present amount will nearly complete the work this year. If the rolling stock on the line is practically doubled in weight, it will mean that every bridge must be strengthened. There may be two or three bridges in addition to these, but no more. Then if they are renewed afterwards, the cost will come out of revenue.
Chaudiere	Junction-engine house, &c.,


George Perry Graham: The item has been reduced from $20,000 to $6,000, because we have abandoned the idea of building -a new
engine house. This is to complete the tracks and signals, fire pumps, &c., which are accessories to the round house.
Diversion of line at Chatham, and branch to wharf, $150,000.


George Perry Graham: This is a large* item. The estimated cost was about $440,000 for building this diversion. I suppose it will be about eight and a half miles. It gets over a heavy grade between Nelson and Loggieville, it shortens the line, and it opens up and gives access to the harbour at Chatham. As a matter of fact, the station is a long way from the harbour, and quite a distance from the town itself.
I visited the place, and was much impressed with the fact that there ought to be some means of getting nearer to the harbour. Everything had to be hauled a long distance. It was represented to me by the Board of Trade, by the council and by a large meeting of citizens, that they had in view some great new industries which they would undertake if they could get the railway nearer deep water. I think, in the interest of the road, that would be one consideration. But there was another thing, and that was getting rid of a very heavy grade and shortening the line. We decided to undertake this work about a year ago. The estimated cost is $440,000, of which we have spent about ' $3,000 on surveys. I have a full estimate of the work in its details. The old road would be abandoned.


George Eulas Foster: What you are really doing is to build the old railway into the city?


George Perry Graham: To get down into the heart of traffic, and we expect a larger traffic on account of reaching deep water.


John Stanfield: Why not take the original route?


George Perry Graham: The old Canada Eastern did that, but they did not pay much attention to grades. This is bringing the old Canada Eastern railway down into the town of Chatham. At present, it is not on the Intercolonial proper.


Haughton Lennox: This is on a line that we acquired a few years ago, and when this is done will you be right down to the harbour? What is the nature of the work that is going to be done now for this estimated expenditure of $150,000?


George Perry Graham: We have to get the right of way, grading, ballasting and track laying. We expect to run along the harbour for one or two miles.


Haughton Lennox: Does the $440,000 include anything for harbour improvement, or is it all for railway construction?


Duncan Graham: It is merely for the railway. I suppose it will include a station. It will necessitate the removal of the station from its present location to a location in the town.
Mr. J1ENNOX. Has the minister at hand a summary of what amount has been spent under the head of capital expenditure on the Canada Eastern railway since we acquired it?


Duncan Graham: I will get that information for my hon. friend, if possible; it is quite a large amount. There has been ballasting, new bridges and that kind of thing. I think last session I gave the full capital expenditure.


George Eulas Foster: What is the opinion of the minister as to the increase in traffic that you are going to get by adding nearly half a million of expenditure on this branch road?


Duncan Graham: There seems to be a prospect for a good traffic in lumber and pulp wood. Strong representations were made that a very large mill would probably be erected at that point if they had proper railway facilities.


John Stanfield: They have a pulp mill there now.


Duncan Graham: Yes, they have, I know but it is working under a great disadvantage.


George Eulas Foster: Are they going to build another?


Duncan Graham: Mv information is that another pulp mill and perhaps a paper mill would be erected there. But, no matter how good the port facilities are the distance that they have to haul of a mile or a mile and a half between the station and the port is an obstacle. If the possibilities are to be developed at all this is the only way in which we can do it. In addition the heavy graue we have there has made it almost impossible to do any business over that line.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is incurring a very large expenditure on very airy grounds. He has no real certainty of anything. Pulp has been remotely considered or suggested. A paper mill may follow. It does not seem to me that we are justified in doubling the amount that we originally paid for the road and which we were told bought a road which was reasonably well constructed and well equipped. We pay out half as much more and there is no certainty at all that the development and extra business which the minister refers to will result. Eailways do not build unless there is some reasonable certainty of securing extra business. We are going to


Haughton Lennox: put into a road that we were told would cost us $800,000 something in the neighbourhood of $2,000,000.


Duncan Graham: There is a good deal of truth in what my hon. friend says. But in the province of Ontario a great deal of the difficulty that we have had with some of our company railways has been that they have built half a mile or so from the town and if it is possible to give any other railway the business we always do it. It is in the interest of the railway that we should develop the traffic there. You cannot have any guarantee at any of those places. You have to look at the possibility of the trade and overcome one of the charges which have been made against this government road that it will not assist the industries of the maritime provinces as other railways would do. In a port like this it is wise to get to the water front so as to get whatever traffic may be there. In addition we make a great reduction in the grade which has been a handicap in attempting to do any business there.


George Eulas Foster: What service does the Intercolonial railway give to Chatham?


Duncan Graham: We have a branch line from Chatham Junction, but the station is a mile or a mile and a half away from the the town.


Haughton Lennox: I did not get an answer explicitly from the minister. The minister will furnish us with the total amount which has been expended upon capital account on that eastern railway since we acquired it?


Duncan Graham: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: I recollect there was a great deal of criticism as to the wisdom of acquiring this railway at the time we did acquire it. It was the Gibson line and it was represented to us that it was in good working condition, would be a very valuable line and that we would not have to expend any considerable sum of money in order to begin immediately to derive a benefit from it. I think it will be found that we have already expended a large sum upon capital, here is an item of $440,000 and we can assume that it will reach half a million or more before it is finished. There is a good deal in the suggestion that there is a very airy possibility of any considerable advantage to be derived from the expenditure on this line. Although I dislike always to speak of the Newmarket canal it is a good deal on the same line as the construction of that expensive work for the purpose of building up one possible industry. It was said that the Kane Bros., would probably leave Newmarket if we did not build that canal and $200,000

or $300,000 was going to do the whole thing. Now we find that it is running into a very large amount of money. I do not want to obstruct the minister in any of these items, but I think we ought to have pretty full information as to what is contemplated as well as what has been done in connection with this Canada Eastern railway.


George Perry Graham: I will bring all the information down.


George Eulas Foster: Maybe the minister would do just as well to let this item stand and go on with other items, because I think this is rather too important to pass with the information that we have.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will tell me what he wants I will try to get it. There is no information as to the trade except that a man with practical ideas looks over the ground and comes to the conclusion that there is a possibility of very large development there. The other advantage is that we are getting rid of a grade and bringing down to the sea-board a railway that is a mile or a mile and a half away.


Haughton Lennox: We find $440,000 as one item of proposed expenditure. Is this the total or will we be confronted with other items as we go along?


George Perry Graham: I do not know but that there may be on this whole length of railway, but this covers everything at Chatham. Anything new that has to be done must be charged to capital account.


Haughton Lennox: Here is a railway that cost us $800,000, and here is one spot on that railway that is to cost more than half a million in addition to what we paid for the railway. What are we to expect in reference to the rest of it? What was suggested by the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was that the minister should let this item stand until we get the information spoken of, and then the minister will probably indicate what other items of capital expenditure are for the construction of this. Of course the minister must know what he contemplates, in addition to this, off-hand.


Mt. RHODES.: As I understand the Minister of Railways, this expenditure isjusti-fied on the ground that the branch line will increase in efficiency, whereby its earning power will increase so that you can haul more cheaply.


George Perry Graham: That is one of the great reasons.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then how does the minister reconcile this with the line of policy laid down in connection with the Branch
Lines Bill, not to take over any branch lines reported to be not in a good and safe condition? In other words, not to take over a railway that requires expenditure on it.


George Perry Graham: This railway has been taken over and this is absolutely a new road that we are constructing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I quite understand that, but the principle is there just the same, you are expending money on a road that has been acquired. I am not speaking in a critical way, because in connection with the Branch Lines Bill I believe that the government should take over a railway even if it is only a rattle-trap road if, after it is placed in proper condition, it will be a paying asset to the government. But I ask if, while you are making an expenditure on this branch line to increase its efficiency, you should not do so in reference to any future road acquired under the Branch Lines Bill?


George Perry Graham: We are criticised now for taking over a Toad on which we will have to spSnd money, and the Branch Lines Act Tather protects us in the future against that criticism. This road has already been purchased and we want to get the best possible results from it. We want to get down into the town of Chatham, where there is a chance not only of decreasing the grade, but of getting more goods to haul.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose it had been left entirely to this managing board or to the chief engineer just on the ground of the traffic necessities of the road, would they have recommended an expenditure of $400,000 or $500,000 in order to improve the road for the sake of the haulage over it? Is it not a fact that this is another method of paying respect to very strong party jpres-sure which has been made at certain times? This road was acquired in the first place as a result of a political promise. The House was misled, because we were told we were getting a road well worth the money and in a reasonable state of repair and efficiency. I think that from the debates in this House we could show that the minister became sponsor to the House that it would not land us into very much greater expenditures. Here we are increasing the cost price in one little instance by one-half the whole price.


George Perry Graham: But we are getting a good deal more by the expenditure. This was no political promise, I can assure my hon. friend. If it had been it would have been made to one political party. I visited Chatham and spent some hours there. I met the citizens, I do not know who were Liberals and who were Conservatives. I met the board of trade, the council and citizens generally and I was strongly cen-

sured by the Conservative press there because I did not absolutely promise on the spot that I would do this. I considered it carefully, I had a talk with the chief engineer and the deputy, and while in answer to my hon. friend's question, I think if it were only to improve the haulage for the goods we now have, we would not go to this very large expenditure, it would be worth a large proportion of the expenditure to do that. But, taking into consideration the possibilities of the place, the fact that we are trying to assist the development where we can without too much expense to the railway, feeling that we get a return, I undertook, after full consideration, not as a political promise but as a promise to the citizens and in the interest of transportation and development, to do this work. It is not a political promise in any sense.


John Stanfield: What are the freight earnings for Chatham?


George Perry Graham: I have not those figures with me, there is considerable, freight.


John Stanfield: I do not object to having the line put into, the town but it seems a large expenditure, for the exports of Chatham are nearly all lumber and you will not haul lumber over your road, it has to go by water as they have a good harbour and the same thing is true of pulp.


George Perry Graham: It was not so outlined to us by the prominent business men there. They felt that a great deal of traffic would be developed by the road going to the harbour.


George Eulas Foster: What kind of traffic? They must have told the minister.


George Perry Graham: It does not follow as a fact that because some hon. gentleman is of opinion that certain traffic will not go by the route, it will not go, because possibly a good deal will be carried.


George Eulas Foster: You must exercise your judgment.
^ Mr. GRAHAM. It is a matter of opinion, that is all. The men of the city were positive that a great deal of traffic would be done on this railway if it got down to the harbour, and a great deal of traffic and merchandise would go to the harbour that does not now go there because the railway is so far off they cannot make connection.


George Eulas Foster: This is a road from Fredericton to Chatham. Wre know the nature of the country through which it runs. It is not a country calculated to throw much traffic into the town of Chatham. What will go to Chatham? The lumber along the streams is taken down the streams to Gibson or Marysville and from there it is shipped on the St. John river. Will this road Mr. GRAHAM.
divert that traffic from that old and cheap route? Most of the lumber must take that route, and will not be shipped on your line even when you add this extra $500,000. Is there much agriculture produce, &c., which will run to the town of Chatham and bring you a return in freightage on that road? That traffic will be very small. What is there in Chatham, now or, to come which will find its outlet by way of Chatham over this Canada Eastern to Fredericton and what is to become of it there?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend forgets that this road will work in connection with the Intercolonial railway. It does not necessarily go to Fredericton at all. Traffic goes east and west on the Intercolonial railway. It is a mistake to say that all lumber is shipped by water. A large quantity of the sawn lumber there goes by rail.


George Eulas Foster: W7il] it go by rail from Chatham over this road in the direction of Fredericton?


George Perry Graham: A large share of it will go to Chatham junction and be shipped on the Intercolonial railway east and west from there.


George Eulas Foster: Over how many miles of road will that accretion go? What will be the haulage you get?


George Perry Graham: The Intercolonial railway will get all the haulage when it strikes that line. We get it at the junction and by getting to the harbour it is represented we will get a larger trade than we do now. It does not need to go to Fredericton, it goes to the junction and then to St. John by the Intercolonial railway. It is true that we do not get all the haulage on the Canada Eastern branch. While this is a part of the Canada Eastern branch, it will also be a feeder to the Intercolonial railway at the junction point and the Intercolonial railway will take charge of the traffic there.


Haughton Lennox: What has been the net revenue from this Gibson road, say for the last year? That information might enable us to judge how this matter will work out. Is the minister of the opinion that this addition of $440,000 would result in a proportionate net increase of revenue or in a deficit?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend must know that this question cannot be answered. In any transportation problem you cannot guarantee that you would get any stated revenue. You look over the ground and hope you will.


Haughton Lennox: What revenue have we been getting in the past from this road?


George Perry Graham: I answered that question as fully as possible last year, in reply to the hon. member for St. Antoine division,

Montreal. I have not the figures with me at present.


Haughton Lennox: What was the general result-considerable profit?


George Perry Graham: No, I think not. This year, when the year is up, it may be different.


Haughton Lennox: It would be unfortunate if, with an increase in the expenditure, we had a proportionate increase in the deficit.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I happen to know very well the situation of affairs at Chatham, and I can assure the committee that it would be impossible to project any extension of the railway which is more likely to add to the business of the main line.


George Eulas Foster: In the whole wide world?


William Pugsley: Yes, relatively to the business of the main line. As my hon. friend knows, the Miramichi is a very important river, navigable up to Chatham, and even beyond Newcastle. There are important industries there, and the people of Chatham are unanimously of the opinion that this extension along the water front will lead to the establishment of a number of very important industries. They believe that it will give new life to the town, tend to develop large industries and bring to the railroad a great traffic which it could not possibly get unless this connection were made between the water and the railway.


George Eulas Foster: All of which was said by another gentleman, at a different time, and in almost the same words, with reference to the Newmarket canal.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. On the Miramichi there is 20 feet of water.


George Eulas Foster: Well, that is an advantage; there is water there. But there is no plan of this proposed extension; we are entirely in the dark with reference to it. If the minister will gather up some of the information asked for and bring a plan of it when we come to the estimates tomorrow, I think we shall make mpre progress.


George Perry Graham: I will bring a plan and lay it on the table to-morrow, although I do not think my hon. friend can form much of an idea from an engineer's plan.
Air-brakes to freight cars, $10,000.


Haughton Lennox: How many cars is it expected this will equip?


George Perry Graham: About 200. We have a total of 12,779 cars, of which we have equipped 10,801, leaving 1,978 tp be equipped. Our cars cannot go across the line if they [DOT]are not equipped with air brakes, even if we did not have them as a measure of .safety.


Haughton Lennox: I suppose the minister intends to have all the freight cars equipped with air brakes?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Stanfield: Why does not the minister have the work pushed through? In the different carshops at Moncton, Stel-larton and Halifax, men were laid off. Why were these men not kept at this work?


George Perry Graham: We are getting along pretty rapidly, having equipped already 10,801 cars.
To exchange drawbars of freight cars, $10,COO.


Haughton Lennox: How many cars will this amount equip?


George Perry Graham: About 200 cars, which will leave a balance of about 493.


George Eulas Foster: Is this work done in the carshops?


George Perry Graham: Yes, in our own shops.


Haughton Lennox: What is the reason for exchanging the drawbars?


George Perry Graham: We have to have a standard drawbar, or no other road will accept our cars. On the old-fashioned car there was a link coupling, which is obsolete and only good for scrap.
General protection of highways - Intercolonial railway, $10,000.


Haughton Lennox: What policy does the minister propose to adopt as regards protection of highways?


George Perry Graham: This is to place bells for the protection of highways at level cross-ways-either bells or gates. Year by year we are taking a moderate amount and are setting the other railways a good example. We are eliminating some level crossings altogether every year and in other places there will be something for overhead bridges.


Haughton Lennox: I hope the minister will adopt some relative basis as regards protection by gates and bells and overhead crossings and subways. I think the minister will be justified in making to some extent the Intercolonial railway an object lesson to the other railways, especially, in connection with the safety of the public.


John Stanfield: Does this include the vote passed last year for the protection of the crossing at Londonderry?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is my duty to brinfe to the minister's attention the bad condition of the roadway and also the station yards at Amherst. Amherst is a town of some 9,000 population. The railway track

divides the town in two. There is a level crossing at Main street, which is guarded in the daytime by an old pensioner, who is away at meal hours and at night time leaves altogether. There is a very large block between the main street and Christie's crossing, about half a mile. On the south side of the highway are a number of factories, employing some 1,600 men, most of whom live on the north side of the track, and their only way to reach their homes is to cross the railway. During the past three or four years, there have been a large number of accidents and several losses of life. Only in December last, a twelve-year-old girl was killed. With the shunting and moving about constantly of the trains the cars are not separated, so that there is no passage way and the result is the children crawl underneath, and in doing so this girl was killed. I would urge that an item be placed in the estimates for the building there of an overhead bridge. In the case of the Chatham branch, we are spending $450,000 to improve the line of railway and the station, and the freight and passenger earnings of that branch only amount to $163,000. In the case of Amherst, the total receipts from freight and passenger earnings, as shown by the Auditor General's Report, amount to $563,000, so that on the basis of dollars and cents, the minister should consider this case. But from the standpoint of human life, there is very great need for an overhead bridge.


George Perry Graham: An overhead bridge might be built, but as the place is practically level, it would have to be so high that in nine cases out of ten, people would still cross beneath the bridge. At least that is my experience in western towns.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: You could build a subway more cheaply, perhaps. Between Christie street crossing and Victoria street crossing, there is a _ street known as Station street. At that point a subway could be continued to opposite the car works and enable the operators to pass back and forth in comparative safety. I know that three or four losses of life have occurred there in the last three or four years. I think a subway could be built there quite cheaply, as there is no rock and the drainage is good. The subway is not only needed for the employees but for their children who live on the south and go to school on the north.
Halifax-increased accommodation, $52,650.


George Perry Graham: This has been going on for a long while. It is for additional tracks in the yard on the west side of Water street and also for removing buildings in Richmond yard. It is estimated that the pavements will cost $11,500, and the wiring of buildings $5,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 


Haughton Lennox: There was $180,000 voted last year. That will be all spent by the end of the present year too, I presume, and $52,000 more is wanted. Will those- two complete the work?


George Perry Graham: It would not be honest for me to say that there would not be any more expenditure at a terminal like Halifax, because expenditures will constantly be going on there.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are all the works included in this $52,000, under contract?


George Perry Graham: Yes, except the track laying, which is done by ourselves.
Indiantown and Blackville-to put line into condition for operation, $2,000.


George Eulas Foster: What do you mean by putting the line into condition for operation; is it not running now?


George Perry Graham: There has 'been an expenditure of $168,000 on this Indiantown branch, which includes the building of quite a large 'bridge, and we have it now in practical running order, and this $2,000 will finish the job. It was not in good running order when we got it.


George Eulas Foster: What is the length of the line?


George Perry Graham: About eight miles.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will trains be run regularly this year to connect with the trains on the Fredericton and Chatham branch?


George Perry Graham: I think there is a regular' train connection there now, but I would not. be sure without looking at the time table.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There was some interest in the question as to whether, when the Indiantown branch was open, a traveller from Fredericton to Montreal might go by way of Blackville and Newcastle, instead of by Chatham Junction.


George Perry Graham: I rather- think the through connection would still be made by Chatham Junction.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this the last of this expenditure?


George Perry Graham: Yes.
Lac au Saumon-overhead crossing, $1,400.


Haughton Lennox: Does this represent the total cost of this bridge?


George Perry Graham: Yes, the contour of the land there renders it cheap and convenient to erect this bridge.


Haughton Lennox: This is an instance of what I have advocated, that where the formation of the land lent itself to an over-

head bridge like this, a bridge should be erected.


George Perry Graham: I think so myself.


Haughton Lennox: Thq interest uipon this expenditure is a mere trifle, and it is much better than to employ a watchman.


George Perry Graham: It is better than a bell and much safer.


Haughton Lennox: It is an illustration of what I have been contending for.
Loggieville-improvements, $12,000.


George Perry Graham: This is for improvements at the station.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What will be the total cost of these works?


George Perry Graham: The total estimated cost is $32,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it the intention to include in the supplementary estimates this year an appropriation for the station at Fredericton? There was an initial vote of $10,000 put in the estimates for 1908, but that vote was dropped from the estimates last year, and it is not included in the main estimates this year. The minister has been to Fredericton and he has recognized the absolute necessity for a new station. The present building is a disgrace to the railway and an eyesore in the community. The board of trade and the city council of Fredericton have taken the matter up, and I would like to hear from the minister if it is the intention to put a vote for a new station at Fredericton in the supplementary estimates?


George Perry Graham: I would not like to say that. But I agree with my hon. friend that the station at Fredericton is not fit for that city. I may go further, and say that I do not think the station at Truro is fit either. But we are going along gradually. There is some question about our property at Fredericton that has been bothering us considerably, and it is not quite clear yet. I would not like to say that I will put an item in the estimates. But every word my hon. friend says about the station at Fredericton is absolutely true; we must have, before long, a new station at Fredericton.


Oswald Smith Crocket: An initial appropriation was made a year ago. Why was that dropped?


George Perry Graham: I did not know certain things about the property there that I have found out since, and which it would not be wise perhaps to reveal. But the hon. gentleman will not have to wait long for a station. Last vear I hoped to make some arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway, and join them, but unfortunately we cannot do that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Can the minister say whether a site has been decided upon? Because I may say that some of the gentlemen who figure prominently in the Liberal organization there are buying up land, and purchases have been made within a week or two by the gentleman who has the patronage of the Liberal party. I would call the attention of the minister to that fact, so that if they have any particular location in view, they may make their purchase of land from the present owners, and not be called upon to pay large profits and rake-offs1 to middlemen.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend can rest assured that we will guard against that. If we were to give an intimation of where we wished to purchase, I imagine the price would immediately go up. I have not heard the circumstances which my hon. friend has outlined, but he can rest assured that we will buy the land at the lowest possible price, and if we cannot get it at a price which we think reasonable, there is a process by which we can get it at a fair valuation.


John Stanfield: Ever since I have been in the House I have advocated a new station at Truro. That station is a disgrace to the road. Amherst has had two new stations since that was built, Pic-tou has had a good station, Stellarton has had one, Antigonish and some other places. I would like the minister to give me some kind of a promise that we will get that station. I feel sure that if the present deputy had remained-I am sorry to see him going-we would have had an item in the estimates for next year.


George Perry Graham: I know that my present deputy has been studying the question of a station at Truro. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I say something that may sound a little blunt. I think we have designed stations along the Intercolonial, I will not say extravagant but sometimes out of proportion to the needs. My hon. friend has spoken to me about the station at Truro, and we need a new station there. We are studying the question, and it cannot be very long before we shall have to have a new station there, even in our own interest.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to say to the minister in connection with the diversion of the line at Chatham, that if he has not got the information now, I would like him to state, when we return to the item, just what negotiations have taken place with reference to the acquisition of

the right of way, what properties have been purchased, if any, and from whom, and at what prices.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.

Wednesday, February 2, 1910.