1910-12-12

MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 48) to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894. He said: The object of the Bill is to correct an error in the description of the boundaries of the harbour. Two years ago, when the change was made in these boundaries, it was stated that a certain line would Teach the southern boundary. This was a mistake; it should have- been the eastern boundary. The object is simply to correct this clerical error.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Will the minister please state whether the provisions of this Bill affect in any way certain litigation now pending before the courts?


Mr. BRODEUR.: It has no reference to that at all; it is merely to correct the clerical error of which I have spoken.


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


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Collingwood Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 43) respecting a patent of Conduits Company, Limited.-Mr. Clarke (Essex.)
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Laehine, Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 45) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.-Mr. Ecrement.
Bill (No. 46) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.- Mr. McGiverin.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 47) to amend the Immigration Act. He said: The Act passed last session has been in operation during the past year. But there are certain passages which have been found to bear a meaning not according to the intent. The purpose of this amending Bill is to provide that the reading in such cases shall be according to the intent. There is no change proposed in any parti-
Mr. MONK.: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I desire to call the attention of the government and of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) to the answer given by that hon. gentleman the other day regarding the ss. ' Rainbow ' and to ask my hon. friend if he will correct that answer. I find that the ' Rainbow ' is mentioned in the Navy List for 1905, at page 410, in the special list of vessels available for subsidiary services, hulks and vessels for sale; also in Navy List for 1908, page 414, in the list of vessels available for subsidiary services, hulks and vessels for sale; also in the Royal Naval List and Naval Recorder for 1909, page 244, in the list of vessels available for subsidiary service, hulks and vessels for sale; and, finally, in 1910, in the Royal Navy List and Naval Recorder, page 218, under No. 396, as proceeding to Canada for transfer to the Canadian government. My hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) surely knows that vessels mentioned in these lists for sale are not mentioned in the list of effective vessels, but are considered to have been removed from the effective list and to be scrapped. Does my hon. friend agree that his answer, in that respect, is erroneous?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It does not mean, I think, that these vessels are scrapped; quite the reverse. But I have an answer to my hon. friend's (Mr. Monk's) question, which will be given later and which tells the whole story. He will see, from that answer, that this naval list from which he is quoting is not an official document.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is the Royal Navy List, an official document.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Naval Annual, I suppose, is Brassey's Naval Annual.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, the official list. [DOT]
Mr. BROpEUR. No, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is mistaken.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY TRAINMEN'S STRIKE.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I desire to ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) what is the present position of matters with respect to the employees of the Grand Trunk railway who have not been reinstated? Several questions have been asked in the House upon the subject, and I gather from an answer of the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) that it was understood that the words ' as soon as possible ' in section 1 of the agreement of settlement means within a period not exceeding three months from the date of the settlement. I would like to know how many men have not been reinstated and how many have been reinstated since the opening of the present session. Also, I would like to know whether the government has made any investigation as to who were guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct. I ask that because the Minister of Labour, on December 1, said that an answer of the company had set forth this contention:
In the opinion of the officers of this company our undertaking to re-employ all who were not found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct has been complied with.
My question is directed to this point as to whether or not the government themselves have made any investigation to learn who were guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct. I would like also to know, if the government have not made any such investigation, whether they propose to make one.
I ask this for the reason that, as the settlement I understood, was brought about through some intervention of ministers of the Crown, it would seem that there is an especial duty cast upon the government to see that the terms of the settlement are fairly carried out.


Mr MONK.: 


Mr. KING.: The situation in regard to the present position of the men on the Grand Trunk railway who have not as yet been restored to the company's service, is as given in the answers to the questions which the leader of the opposition has just referred to. As the hon. gentleman has mentioned the understanding at the time the settlement was reached was that all the men, other than those who had been guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, should be restored to the company's service within a period not exceeding three months. The agreement was made between the two parties, between the Grand Trunk Railway Company on the one side and the representatives of the employees on the other.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the date of that agreement?


George Gerald King: The agreement was signed on July 31. In that agreement the parties agreed to the following as the first clause:
The company will put back as soon as possible the men other than those who have been or may be found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct; the understanding being that there is to be no coercion or intimidation used towards the new men.
As I have just pointed out, this agreement was signed by the company on one side and by the representatives of the men on the other. Then the question arose as to the meaning of the words ' as soon as possible.' For a time it was very difficult to get from the Grand Trunk Railway Company a definite interpretation of the meaning of those words, and during the course of negotiations Mr. Garretson, who was representing part of the men, said that if the company would satisfy Sir Frederick Borden and myself, who were there at the time, as to the meaning ot those words ' as soon as possible,' the assurance given by the company in that respect would be satisfactory to the men; in other words, it would not be necessary for the company to put' in the agreement exactly what it meant by those words, provided they gave some third party a definite statement as to the meaning. The reason of that will be apparent. The company naturally wished to take its time about the reinstatement of the men; the men on their side were anxious that the reinstatement should take place immediately, and that all the men should be reinstated immediately, and there is where the two parties were kept apart for a couple of days. After the settlement had been effected, with the exception of the interpretation to be given those words, Sir Frederick Borden and myself did receive from the company an assurance that those words would mean a time not exceeding three months. Now the Grand Trunk Rail-I way Company does not, as I understand at present, deny having given that assur-

ance. They say that they have fulfilled the terms of the agreement in that regard. The present difference is as to whether the men now out have been guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct.


Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask my hon. friend whv he did not have that very clause embodied in the agreement?


George Gerald King: The agreement was made, as I have just said, between the two parties, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the men. The clause I have read was drafted by the parties themselves. Perhaps I could explain the position better if I were to indicate to the House how the government came to be drawn into the matter at all. In the first instance, when the strike took place, as Minister of Labour I did what I could by way of endeavour to bring the two parties to the point where both would agree to refer any differences they had to a binding arbitration. Neither side at the outset acceded to this. Subsequently the men did accede, but the company refused. Then the men's representatives undertook to negotiate with the company, with the president and other officers, to try and effect a settlement in a voluntary way. They were unable to effect that, and on July 27, I received the following telegram:
Messers. Garretson and Lee held a conference to-day with Mr. Hays without result-May I be permitted on behalf of the men on strike to request that as a minister of the Crown and representative of the people you come to Montreal and by further effort try and arrange an honourable settlement either by arbitration or negotiation.
(Signed) JAMES MURDOCK.
When I received that telegram on behalf of the men I felt that it was my duty to go down to Montreal and do what I could in the way of endeavouring to bring the parties together.


Mr. HUGHES.: Was that the first time in which the minister was brought into the arena?


George Gerald King: I have already mentioned that I had up to that time directed my efforts to trying to bring the parties to their own accord to agree to refer their differences to arbitration, and that w*as the first time I had taken an active intervention in the way of bringing them together. Fortunately, the Minister of Militia was in Montreal at the time. When I went to Montreal I had first to ascertain whether the company would be agreeable to my acting as a conciliator or mediator between the men and themselves. The men had asked me to do this, but I would have had no authority to do it had not the company been also agreeable to my intervening. I spoke to my colleague, Sir Frederick Borden, and asked him to see Mr. Hays and to
find out from Mr. Hays whether he would be agreeable to my intervening in this way. He did so, and later on we saw Mr. Hays and Mr. Fitzhugh, and they each expressed a willingness that whatever could be done through mediation should be done. Then, Sir Frederick Borden remaining in Montreal, the two of us did what we could to bring about a joint meeting between the parties. I think it was Thursday afternoon when we reached Montreal, and by Saturday we had arranged a joint meeting in the company's board room at which Mr. Hays and other officers of the company were present, together with Mr. Garretson and Mr. Lee, representing the men, one or two other representatives were also present. The conference was kept up between the two parties, not between Sir Frederick and myself and the parties to the dispute, but between Mr. Hays on the one side and Messrs. Garretson and Lee on 'the other. I may say that what was done on that occasion was to take the award given by the board of conciliation that had previously inquired into the matter, and to make that the basis of a new agreement to be reached between the parties. That conference lasted from three o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday until about seven in the evening, when it broke up, and was resumed again about nine o'clock and lasted until midnight. By that time the terms which were subsequently accepted as those of a binding agreement had been arrived at between the parties, the one thing that was then keeping the parties apart was the meaning to be given to those words * as s,oon as possible.' The company had wished to leave them just in that way. The men said: Give us an assurance of what you mean by ' as soon as possible ', give that assurance to the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Labour, and that will suffice us, and we will accept the agreement in the words in which it is already drafted. The assurance came to be given in that way, and when received I sent the following wire to Mr. Berry and Mr. Murdock. I had returned to Ottawa on the morning of Tuesday; it was in the afternoon I finally got the assurance, and I sent the following wire to Messrs. Murdock and Berry:
Mr. Hays has given Sir Frederick Borden and myself an undertaking that the men will within three months from this date be taken back into the service and within that time be placed in their former positions. We understand by the men, all men referred to in agreement signed by both parties. In accordance with our understanding with you, I shall expect to hear by wire immediately that the strike has been declared at an end. I will confirm this wire by letter over my own signature.
W. L. MACKENZIE KING, Minister of Labour.

The men had stated before I left Montreal that at any time the company gave this assurance they would be prepared to call the strike off. I asked them, if I were able to send them that assurance by wire, could I rely on the strike being called off as soon as they had received it. What was in my mind was this, that if Mr. Hays had not been willing to give that assurance I, on my patt, was going to give the public of this country the explanation of why that strike could not be settled, and let the country see that the only reason why it could not be settled was that it was impossible to get a definite meaning out of those words ' as soon as possible.' I came to Ottawa to lay the situation in that particular before my colleagues. Mr. Wain-wright, vice-president of the company, followed me to Ottawa, and on behalf of the president, or by authority of the president, gave that assurance. I then wired the men, and the strike was declared off.
The situation is that the company gave an assurance that within three months the men would be returned to work. The company now state that they have carried out that part of their agreement, and that the men who have not been reinstated have been guilty of some acts of violence or disorderly conduct. There were 3,450 men involved in the strike and some 3,200 have been returned to the company's service according to the figures given to me to-day at noon by representatives of the men. I understand that 270 or thereabouts are still out of the company's employ. When representations were made to the government that some of the men had not been reinstated, we immediately took up this matter with the company. I went to Montreal and saw Mr. Hays and the officers tin re. The Prime Minister had Mr. Hays come to Ottawa and confer with him here, we have had several interviews back and forth and we have also had a considerable amount of correspondence. Each case that has been represented to the government by the men of non-compliance by the company with this agreement, has been fully represented to the company and the government has expressed to the company in the strongest terms possible its wish and desire that the agreement should be carried out to the letter.


Mr. HAGGART.: Have you a reply from the company in each individual case as to why they did not employ the men?


George Gerald King: I am coming to that in a moment.


Samuel Hughes: The minister made use of the expression just now, that the government required the company to comply with the agreement to the letter. What [DOT]does the minister mean by ' to the letter '?


George Gerald King: 


George Gerald King: Literally, I mean to carry out the agreement and not evade any feature of it at all. The various cases that have been represented to the government by the men, as I say, have been turned over to the company. Mr. Hays has taken the position that he is guided in his attitude by the reports from the superintendents. The superintendents had given a list of men who have been guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct. Mr. Hays said:	I will take up each case myself
with other officers of the company, but I think the men should make known to me any complaints they have to me in the first instance. I acquainted the men with the position taken by Mr. Hays and I suggested that each man who had not been reinstated should write to the president of the company and ask that his case be considered. They followed that advice. Every man, I think, has written to the president. As near as I can gather each has received a letter to the effect that according to the records of the company he has been guilty of some act of disorderly conduct or violence, and that if he will go before the superintendent, the superintendent will give him a hearing and that he shall try to prove to the satisfaction of the superintendent that he has not been guilty of any such act. The men have followed that course, they have gone before the superintendents, and the superintendents have given them a hearing. Pending the result of the inquiry the government ha3 not felt that it was wise or expedient, in the interest of the men themselves, to take any further steps. There are two ways of doing everything-one by coercion, which might result in nothing, and certainly in this case, would result in nothing, and the other by conciliation, giving the company every opportunity to have these cases looked into and to take what the general public will regard as a fair and proper view of the situation. That is the position to-day. These superintendents are passing upon the cases of the men, but if, as a result of their action and investigation, the outcome is not satisfactory, of .course, the government will reserve to itself the right to take what further step may be deemed expedient and advisable. But, at the present time, in the interest of the men themselves, it would seem in every way desirable that the course which the company has suggested should be followed, and that we should wait and see what the outcome of this may be before deciding on on the next step.


Robert Laird Borden: If I may be permitted an observation, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not stated whether any men have been restored to the service since the opening of the session. I understand that none have been restored.


George Gerald King: I am informed that some have ; how many I cannot say, but they are very few.


Robert Laird Borden: I might suggest to the minister that if any of the men were charged with acts of violence or disorderly conduct that question should have been fairly investigated before the three months were up, and the matter should not have been allowed to stand over until six months had expired. I do not agree with the minister that it is fair to the men that they should be called upon to prove a negative. I would think that the Grand Trunk Railway Company ought to restore the men unless it wras able to prove that they had been guilty of violence or disorderly conduct within the meaning of the agreement. It seems to me that the men are being placed in an unfair and unfortunate position when they are told that- they are to remain out of the service of the company, notwithstanding this agreement, unless they prove that they were not guilty of violence or disorderly conduct. It is rather a new rule that the party against whom a charge is made is obliged to prove himself innocent. The usual rule of English law and fair play is that any of these men would be regarded as innocent until the company had brought forward some evidence to show that he was guilty of the particular offence which would debar him from re-entering the service of the company under the terms of this agreement.


George Gerald King: I may say, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER.: I cannot allow any discussion to crop up at this stage.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I listened very intently to the statement made by the minister, but I am not at all sure that I understand one part of it. I merely desire to ask a question for information. I understood the minister to say that the president of the Grand Trunk Railway Company did not profess himself to know personally of these cases of disorderly conduct on the part of the men, but that he had relied on the statements made to him by superintendents, that these men were not taken back into the employ of the railway because these superintendents had reported that the men had been guilty of disorderly conduct, and that now the men are compelled to go before the very superintendents who found them guilty and who, by their verdict of guilty deprived them of their employment, and prove that the superintendents were wrong when they made such a report. Did I correctly understand the minister?


George Gerald King: That is practically the same question as that put to me by my hon., friend the leader of the opposition. If I may be pardoned answering it in a broad
way I would say that the object that the government have in view is to get the men back if possible. The government have represented the position fully to the company. The government have had the choice of two courses of action; they could start an investigation of their own, or they could allow the company to proceed along the line which appears more likely to lead to a favourable result. To have done other than accept the company's suggestion as to the method of proceeding, would have been to block progress in the interest of the men themselves. I agree with the hon. leader of the opposition that the methods of the company are extraordinary. I think that they might have taken a more liberal way of dealing with the question. But, they manage a railway and understand it and I do not. From their point of view the method of proceeding was to go to the superintendents after having taken matters up with the president. The government thought it would be best to allow the company to follow their own method of proceeding and no investigation of its own has been undertaken up to the present time by the government other than the obtaining of such information as has beetr got by inquiry from the men themselves.


William Barton Northrup: Then no man can be reinstated unless the superintendent advises, that he, the superintendent, previously reported.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Did I understand the minister to say that the men taken back were to be reinstated in the positions they held prior to the strike?


George Gerald King: The understanding given by the company was, that they should get back to their former positions within three months.


John Dowsley Reid: And the minister knows that these gentlemen occupy minor positions now to those which they occupied before the strike.


Mr. MIDDLERBO.: I call the attention of the Minister of Railways to an article which appears in to-day's Ottawa ' Journal ' giving an account of an interview between the trainmen and the government; the article concludes:
It is asserted here that he (the Minister of Railways) has informed the Grand Trunk authorities that he will not put through the Grand Trunk Pacific estimates until they have settled with the men.
I wish to ask whether the Minister of Railways or any member of the government represented or intimated to the de- [DOT] putation in any way that the Grand Trunk Pacific estimates would not be put through or would be delayed until these men had been taken back.


Mr. GEAHAM.: What is the date of the paper and what interview does it refer to.


William Sora Middlebro: It is to-day's Ottawa ' Journal ' and I will read the article:
There arrived in Ottawa yesterday a delegation of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, headed by Messrs. Berry and Murodck. To-day they interviewed Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Graham on the subject of the reinstatement of the striking trainmen. At present 265 of the strikers are still out of employment.
It will be remembered that when, at the end of July, the strikers demurred at the elastic nature of the Grand Trunk authorities promise to replace them ' as fast as possible.' Mr. Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, told them that he had received an assurance that it meant within 90 days.
It now is four months instead of three, and these 285 men are still out of work. The delegation is waiting on the government to see about it.
The matter is serious for Mr. Graham, in whose home town of Brockville some 30 or 35 men are still on the company's black list. The rest of the railway men sympathize with these men, and the matter is of electoral importance to the Minister of Railways.
It is asserted here that he has informed the Grand Trunk authorities that he will not put through the Grand Trunk Pacific estimates till they have settled with the men.


Duncan Graham: I am glad to say, that no matter how gentlemen on the other side may regard this matter, it is a matter of a great deal more than electoral importance to the Minister of Eailways. It is a matter of justice to the men and that is the light in which I have viewed it. A deputation was here to-day and the Minister of Labour and myself went from the deputation to council without luncheon and we came to the House in the same way, I have been interviewed by no newspaper man since I met the deputation and I gave no such assurance and I had no such communication with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Sora Middlebro: I asked the minister whether he had given the alleged assurance, and he has not answered.


Duncan Graham: I answered it absolutely, no.



MINING DISASTEE AT BELLEVUE, ALBEETA.

Mr. JOHN  HEEEON@Macleod: Has the government any further information, beyond what appears in the newspapers, with regard to the mining disaster at Bellevue, Alberta? There is no doubt that where such a sad calamity has occurred there will be a great deal of suffering and I would ask the government to inquire immediately if anything can be done to relieve those in distress. I am sure both sides of the House will concur in extending relief to the bereaved people, if it be needed.


William Sora Middlebro: 


Sir WILFRID LAUEIER.: So far as I know, no information has yet been received officially or otherwise by the government, except what has appeared in the newspapers.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Guelph and Goderich Railway Company.-Mr. Rankin.

[Stage Direction]
(The questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
["But up to the present we have not a very definite understanding on that point, as far as I can judge from the very guarded language of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, who is always sufficiently skilful to leave an opening by which he can, if necessary, avoid the issue. It, therefore, may be just as well for me to say a word or two now, as I am not sure that I will get another opportunity on this motion, notwithstanding the assurance of the Minister of Railways and the very pleasant and smiling way in which my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has accepted his proposal that this debate be adjourned. In the first place, the hon. minister, following the example of some other hon. gentlemen in this House, debated the question of what he calls government ownership, but what I would prefer to call state ownership, because I would like to remind my hon. friend that it is not the government but the country which owns the Intercolonial railway. And indeed I think he did emphasize that idea in his remarks although he spoke of that line as a government owned railway. Now one of the great difficulties with respect to the Intercolonial railway, which has existed since this government took office, is this, that the government has been in a state of uncertainty and vacillation as to whether or not it would give the Intercolonial railway its proper development. That has been the great difficulty. Why the Tight hon. the Prime Minister has himself on several occasions denounced the idea of this country owning the Intercolonial railway. In Toronto, in 1904, I think it was, speaking of the operation of the Intercolonial railway, he said that all the evil results he then pointed out were due to the system. He did not explain clearly what he meant by the system; but as far as I was able to apprehend his remarks, taken in connection with other speeches made by him here and elsewhere, he thought that the\n\ndifficulties which had overtaken the country in connection with the Intercolonial railway were due to the fact that that railway was owned by the state and he despaired of any effective or proper operation so long as it continued to belong to the state. Well, I have never shared that view. The railways in Australia have been pointed to, but we need not go so far as Australia. I can point to the operation of the government railways in the province of Ontario. It may be that the government railways in Ontario have been operated during the past six or eight years under very favourable conditions, but we should also bear in mind that they have given exceedingly favourable results. Taking last year, 1 find that their total operating revenue was $1,361,224.80, that their operating expenses were $794,796.88, and that the net operating revenue was no less than $566,428. And that does not include the ore royalties and other items of that kind which ought not properly to be taken into consideration in comparing these railways -with the Intercolonial railway. So that for the last year for which we have anj return, the Ontario government railways paid into the treasury of Ontario no less than a sum of $550,000 which was added to the consolidated revenue fund of that province. The Ontario government railways were subject to all the disadvantages pointed out by the Minister of Railways. These disadvantages I do not wish to minimize, but I want to tell my hon. friend that the Intercolonial railway runs through a country in the maritime provinces with equally great resources. I have declared often that the little province of Nova Scotia, in proportion to its size, has as splendid natural resources, a great many of which are still undeveloped, as any equal area in the Dominion. There can be no doubt about that. And those resources, as they continue to be developed, will give the Intercolonial railway the opportunity of adding to its revenue from that province, so that I agree entirely in what my hon. friend from Bictou (Mr. Macdonald) said with regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway iH that province. I believe that were it not for the splendid revenue the Intercolonial railway does draw from Nova Scotia, its showing would be infinitely worse than it has been during the recent or any years. There are great natural resources in that province, some of them developed and some undeveloped; and I understand the motion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton and North Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) was designed-if it had any object at all-to take the Intercolonial railway within the province of Nova Scotia into those parts of that province where natural resources are -waiting to be developed; and the same principle should also apply elsewhere. Something has been said about other counties of Nova Scotia, and I would like to say a word or two on behalf of the county I represent. Until the Halifax and Southwestern railway was built, the county of Halifax-having a coast line of 140 miles and a width of from 25 to 50 miles had not within its limits more than 30 or 40 miles of railway. East of the city of Halifax and within the limits of the county, there are at least 100 miles, stretching to the limits of the county of Guysborough, where there is absolutely no railway accommodation whatever. A part of that district is a splendid agricultural section where the people have to haul their products from 25 to 40 miles to a railway station. There are plenty of timber lands in that section, there is opportunity for great mineral developments, there is great natural wealth; and although, as my colleague from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) has said, a railway from Halifax to Guysborough will not pay in the very first instance, there is reason to believe that it would pay before being in operation many years. I passed along the shore of the county of Halifax to the county of Guysborough last summer. i travelled altogether about 500 miles through districts not served by railways at all, and -Where railway development would mean a great deal to the people and lead to considerable development in that little province.\nI can tell -the Minister of Railways a great many things I saw, I could speak of a great many districts where railway facilities might mean a great deal to the people, and might lead to very great progress and advancement in that little province.\nI saw, in the county of Guysborough, just across the line from the county of Halifax, one of the most splendid harbours that can toe found anywhere in the world-Country Harbour. This harbour stretches back ten miles from its mouth, with water close up to the shore everywhere from forty-five to sixty feet in depth, landlocked twice, and with a splendid roadstead outside, where, in almost any weather, ships can ride in safety-and have ridden in safety-without going inside. And in what condition did I find the place ? Not more than a dozen families are living around that harbour. There was no railway development, no opportunity for commerce, and the fishermen had gone to the adjoining Isaac's Harbour or Fishermen's Harbour, for the reason that -these smaller harbours would subserve theiT purposes better than this magnificent Country Harbour of which I have spoken. All along that shore are opportunities of development. The people of Halifax county, as well as those of Guysborough county, and those of other coun", '\n\nties in the province of Nova Scotia to which allusion has been made, have, it seems to me, fairly good reason to complain that their interests in respect of railway development, have not been properly attended to in the past. And especially is this true of the last fourteen years, when the coffers of this country have been filled to overflowing, according to the boasts of hon. gentlemen on the other side, and when huge projects of development have been undertaken. The Minister of Railways and Canals say that great projects have been undertaken and are being undertaken to-day. In that connection, I have just this "word to say: If the resources and revenues of this country are great enough to build 1,400 miles of railway through a practically uninhabited country between the city of Quebec and the city of Winnipeg, it seems to me, there is good reason for complaint on the part of the people of at least half a dozen counties in the province of Nova Scotia, that the Intercolonial railway has not been developed and carried into these counties. It seems to me that, where these people have been living for a hundred years-as, in many counties of Nova Scotia they have been-without opportunity: for railway communication, we might well have had a little regard for them before we commenced to build 1,400 miles of railway through a country with absolutely no population and of the resources of which we have no adequate knowledge, though, at this moment, the railway is now perhaps, more than half constructed. It comes down simply to this: Does the government of this country propose to maintain the Intercolonial railway of Canada as a state-owned railway, or is it vacillating and hesitating, unable to make up its mind as to whether that road is to be a state-owned railway or is to be handed over to some private corporation for operation? I will assume for the moment that it is the intention of the government, as I believe it is the will of the people of Canada, that ithe Intercolonial shall still continue to be owned by the people of this country. Then, I say, it is the duty of the government, under these conditions, to give to the Intercolonial railway, not only in the province of Nova Scotia, but in every province of Canada, that development and that extension which a private corporation would give to that road, should it pass into the ownership of such a corporation. This is no time for hesitation and vacillation. Make up your mind -and "I hope you have made it up in the direction I have indicated ; then, give to the Intercolonial the branches, feeders, extensions which would be given if it were owned by any of the great railway corporations.\nI had intended to devote some attention Mr. BORDEN Halifax).\nto certain of the observations made in the course of this debate. But the hour is late, and I have given to the House and to the Minister of Railways the idea that is in my mind as to the proper course of the government in this matter. I trust the debate will not be allowed to come to a conclusion without a full and definite statement from the government, as to its policy on this subject; and I trust that the policy, when announced, will be in the way of extension and development of the people\'s great railway, which has done so much- whatever may be said against it-to bind together in one united whole, the various provinces of this Dominion of Canada.']
Wilfrid Laurier: I would suggest that all the questions be called whether they are marked with an asterisk or not, and then the minister in charge may say what disposition has been made of them.



[Stage Direction]
* Mr. PAQUET:
1.	On what date did England withdraw her
warships from Canadian waters?	_
2.	What were the names of these warships?
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 1 and 2. The dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt were closed about the year 19041905, when Halifax ceased to be the secondary base for the fleet which it formerly was.	.
The headquarters of the North American squadron then changed from Bermuda to Devonport, England.
This squadron is now principally employed in home and West Indian waters, with the exception of the ' Brilliant,' which is employed on the Newfoundland fishery patrol.
On the Pacific station the admiralty had been for some time reducing the squadron, and, when Esquimalt yard was closed, only one ship remained.
The two small sloops, the ' Algerine,' of 1,050 tons, and ' Shearwater,' of 980 tons, employed on the Behring sea patrol, are now on the Pacific coast, and still make Esquimalt their headquarters.
Previous to that date the following ships were on the North American station:-
Tons.
Ariadne (sister ship to Niobe)	 11,000
Indefatigable (sister ship to Rainbow) 3,600
Charybdis	 4,360
Pelorus	 2,335
Prometheus	 2,135
Pallas	 2,575
Fantome	 1,070
Alert	 960
On the Pacific station were:-
Grafton	 7,350
Flora	 4,360
Bonaventure	 4,360
Shearwater	 980


H. M. C. S. ' RAINBOW.'
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MONK:
1.	Was the government aware when it purchased the ' Rainbow ' that that vessel had been struck off the effective list of 3rd class cruisers, or scrapped, as stated in the ' Naval Annual' of 1907? page 227.
2.	At what date was the keel of the ' Rainbow ' laid ?
3.	At what date was it scrapped?
4.	For what reason was it struck off the effective list ?
5.	What repairs did it undergo after the purchase by the government of Canada, and what was the cost of said repairs ?
6.	What was the price paid for such vessel?
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 1	and 4. The 'Naval Annual' for 1907 does not refer at all to the ' Rainbow ' at page 227, but on page 207 it states that certain vessels ' have been struck off the effective list, but the armaments have not m every case been removed,' and it includes amongst those vessels the ' Rainbow, but the 'Annual* nowhere states that the Ram-bow ' had been scrapped.
The 'Naval Annual' is not an official publication.	... ,
In the official publications of the British Admiralty there are four lists of vessels enumerated as in the imperial service:
1st. Royal Navy list.	.
2nd. Fleet Auxiliary _ list.
3rd. Subsidiary Service list.
4th. Harbour Service list.
In 1905 the following ships of the ' Rainbow ' class were placed on the Subsidiary Service list: ' Andromache,' ' Apollo,' ' Intrepid,' ' Melampus,' ' Naiad,' ' Pique,'
' Rainbow,' ' Retribution,' ' Spartan,' ' Tribune ' (10 ships). Of these ships, the following have been restored to the Royal Navv list: ' Andromache,' ' Apollo,' ' Intrepid,' 'Naiad,' 'Rainbow' (5 ships).
2	25th March, 1891.
3.	She was not scrapped.
5.	The arrangement with the admiralty was that the purchase price included the preparation of the ship for sea service; the admiralty have not supplied details of any repairs, nor of their cost. Certain additional expenses' were incurred by the High Commissioner to fit the vessel as a training ship. A statement of the cost is not available at present, no reports having yet been received from the High Commissioner.
6.	$243,333.33.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not catch the minister's answer as to when the ' Rainbow ' was moved from the effective list.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The list I have given my hon. friend is taken from the official publication. There is no such list as the effective list.


VOTING IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. AMES :
1.	What taxes do the people of the North Shore between Natashquan and Belle Isle pay to the Dominion government?
2	Is ,this part pf the coast electorally organized, that is to say, do the above mentioned taxpayers have the facilities for voting in federal elections?
3.	What is the government intending to do regarding this case of taxation without representation ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER :: 1.	The people of the North Shore pay the Dominion taxes as do all the other citizens of Canada.
2.	I am not aware that this part of the coast is electorally organized, but I undem stand that it has been recently organized municipally, and if so the taxpayers, according to the laws of the province of Quebec, come within the electoral list for the federal elections.
3.	The government of Canada has nothing to do with this question.


JAMES SMITH INDIAN RESERVE.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. LAKE:
1.	Has the government's attention been called to reports appearing in the public press of the burning to death of two Indian children near Kinistino on 24th April last, by a prairie fire; to the fact that the father of the children had his hands and feet burned off, but received no medical assistance until four days after; and that the mother, herself fatally burned, rode two miles to a halfbreed s camp for assistance for the burned husband and children, and died four days later without receiving medical assistance?
2.	Was any inquest held into the cause of the death of the four Indians?
3.	At what distance from the James Smith reserve at La Corne, did the burning take place?
4.	Who was the medical officer -for the James Smith reserve, where did he live and at what distance from the reserve, at what time was he first notified of the terrible occurrence, and when did he first render medical relief?
5.	Assuming the press accounts to be substantially correct, upon whom does the govern" ment place responsibility for delay in rendering medical relief, and what action have they taken in consequence?
6.	For what reason and on whose recommendation was Dr. W. A. Stewart released from his services as physician to the James Smith reserve?
7.	On whose recommendation was Dr. Hawke appointed physician to the James Smith reserve, and what were his qualifications, was he a licensed physician when appointed, and how long had he been practising medicine?
8.	Were there at the time other qualified physicians residing closer to the James Smith reserve than Melfort?
9.	Did the Indians, at any time, during the last five years petition the department for any particular physician to be appointed? If so, was the petition acted upon? If not. why not?
Mr. OLIVER :: 1.	Yes. The facts are as follows :	The
family of an Indian named Nanequane-num, of James Smith's reserve, was hunting rats ai Basin Lake, 40 miles south of the reser/e. They were overtaken by a prairie fire or Sunday, the 24th of April. In an endeavour to escape, the father started a fire but too late-and a gale of wind swept down upon them and their escape was cut off. The growth of grass and of pea-vine was very neavy and the ground was covered with dry dead wood. When the fire passed, the nuy was dead and the others fearfully burned. The mother crawled to one of the horses and returned to camp, where there was another family. On her return with an Indian from camp the girl was still living, but expired almost immediately. This Indian, whose name is Bighead, brought the two bodies to the reserve Monday morning but did not tell Mr. J. C. Tennant, who was the farming instructor on the reserve, of the occurrence. He told a half-breed named Cooke who promised that he would wire Dr. Hawke, of Melfort. He attempted to telegraph, but, as he had no money to pay for the telegram, the telegraph agent refused to send it unless it was prepaid. The first attempt to reach any official of the Indian Department with the news was a telegram sent from Kinistino to Indian Agent James Macarthur, at Duck Lake, on Monday. Mr. Macarthur was then on a visit to John Smith's reserve, distant about twenty miles from James Smith's reserve. In the ordinary discharge of his duties, Mr. Macarthur reached the north end of James Smith's reserve on Tuesday evening. He travelled to the south end and on Kinistino without receiving further information. He immediately wired Dr. Hawke at Melfort, the medical attendant to the Indians, but Dr. Hawke was away from home and would not be back until the next day. As soon as Mr. Macarthur heard this, he called in Dr. Stewart, of Kinistino. Dr. Stewart left at once, but returned, having met Dr. Hawke who started the same night, with a team and driver, for the camp. When 15 miles out he was informed that he had missed the Indians who were on their way to Kinistino. On Thursday morning Mr. Macarthur drove out and met them ten miles from Kinistino. The woman had just died and the doctor stated that if Nanequanenum lived he would lose both of his hands and at least his toes. The agent wanted to send him to the hospital at Melfort, but the Indian refused to go. He was taken on to James Smith's reserve and placed under the care of Miss Hawley, the trained nurse who has charge of the north reserve. Everything was done by her to relieve his sufferings, but he died on the 1st of May.


Mr. LAKE.: 2.	No.
3.	About 60 miles.
4.	M. S. Hawke, M.D., Melfort, Sask., distant 26 miles from the reserve. Under the above circumstances, he was first notified on Wednesday, the 27th of April, and rendered first medical aid on Thursday.
5.	As will be seen, a series of untoward circumstances led to delay in rendering medical relief. A certain measure of responsibility lies with Indian, Bighead, who did not inform any government officer, and considerable measure of responsibility lies with the telegraph operator who refused to send a message unless it was prepaid. The department has instructed Indian Agent Macarthur to report him to his superior officer, or, if that could not be done, to advise the department of his name and the station of which he is in charge, in order that he might be reported.
6.	Dr. W. A. Stewart had been appointed provisionally, until permanent arrangements could be made, in March of 1907. When a permanent officer was appointed he was relieved from duty.
7.	Dr. M. S. Hawke was appointed in December of 1908. So far as known he was a licensed physician. It is not known how long he has been practising medicine.
8.	Kinistino, where another qualified physician resides, is hardly more convenient to James Smith's reserve than Melfort.
9.	No.


UXBRIDGE POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):
1.	When was it first decided to build a post office in the town of Uxbridge?
2.	When was the site purchased, and what was the price paid?
3.	Have the plans been approved, and when is it expected to complete the building?
4.	When was it first decided to erect a public building in Drummond and Arthabaska?
5.	When was the site purchased, and what was the price paid?
6.	Have the plans been approved, and when is it expected to complete the building?
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	First vote in supplementary estimates 1908-09.
2.	Order in council to purchase site, January 22, 1909 for $1,200; paid April 28, 1909.
3.	The necessary information has been received from the different departments as to requirements and is under consideration with a view to preparing plans as soon as they can be reached.
4.	First vote in supplementary estimates 1908-09.
5.	Order in co'uncil to purchase site April 2, 1909, for $2,500; paid April 29, 1909.
6.	Plans approved June 16, 1910. - Work now under contract; to be completed April 15, 1912.


HOUSE OF COMMONS EMPLOYEES.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):
1.	What number of employees, permanent and sessional, are employed in the parliamentary restaurant?
2.	What number of similar employees are employed in Mr. Speaker's rooms?
3.	What are their names, and what their pay in each case?
Wilfrid Laurier: I am informed by the Clerk of the House as follows:
1 and 2. There are three employees in the parliamentary restaurant, one permanent and two sessional, and ten in the Speaker's rooms, five of the latter being permanent.
3. The names and pay in each case are as follows:	In restaurant-Charles George,
steward, $1,150 per year; Mrs. Halpenny, ladies' maid, $40 per month; Mrs. LaRoque, ladies' maid, $40 per month. The other sessional or temporary employees of the restaurant are paid out of the receipts of the restaurant.
In Mr. Speaker's rooms, permanent.- G. A. Boudreault, doorkeeper, $800 per annum; E. Morin, acting steward, $800 per annum.
Sessional.-Alfred Pearson, doorkeeper, $3 per day; J. A. LaCavalier, waiter, $3 per day.
Charwomen.-Mrs. Croteau, permanent, $1 per day; Mrs. LaCelle, permanent, $1 per day; Mrs. Beaubien, permanent, 75 cents per day; Mrs. Roy, sessional, $1 per dav; Mrs. Paquet, sessional, $1 per day.
Ladies' maid.-Miss A. Gauthier, sessional, $1 per day.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. HUGHES:
Referring to' an extract from the Glasgow 'Herald' of Wednesday, November 16, 1910, as follows:-

[Stage Direction]
The annual prize meeting of the National Rifle Association held at Bisley in July last brought prominently into notice the necessity for reform if the Bisley meeting was to continue in existence. It may be recalled that the scoring was phenomenally high despite the introduction of the figure target at 500 yards, and in some cases men who made the highest possible score were counted out of the prize list as the result of tie shooting. The council of the National Rifle Association seem to have been fully alive to the need for a thorough re-organization of the Bisley programme in order to revive popularity in the meeting, which last year must have resulted in considerable financial loss owing to the falling-off in the attendance of marksmen and the decreased revenue from unlimited entry events owing to the high standard of shooting with the use of the aperture sight.
We have received from Colonel Crosse, the secretary of the National Rifle Association a summary of resolutions that have been adopted by the council. From these the drastic
nature of the proposed changes will be realized by marksmen who are familiar with Bisley programmes.
The next Bisley meeting will commence on Monday, July 10, and it has been decided to approach the War Office authorities with the view to greater encouragement being given to members of the territorial force to attend the meeting.
The service rifle programme of the Bisley meeting will be divided into two parts-'expert' and 'non-expert'-to be called Class 'A' and Class 'B' respectively, the 'expert' meeting to consist of the principal service rifle competitions as at present, reduced in length so that the 'expert' competitions all take place in the second week of the meeting.
In each of the principal competitions in the 'A' Class some prizes will be reserved at the bottom of the list for 'B' Class home territorial competitors.
The 'B' Class competitions will occupy the days immediately preceding the 'A' Class competitions. Shooting in the 'B' territorial class will be on the lines of the standard test.
'B' Class competitors are to be defined as being those who have not won a prize of £5 or upwards in any service rifle competition at a National Rifle Association meeting during the last five years, and, for the territorial competitions, are home territorials actually serving or in the first-class territorial reserve; and, for the all-comers' competitions, the allcomers must be permanently resident in the British Isles.
In the 'B' Class territorial competitions rifles (rack or government viewed) and sights as issued must be used-orthoptics not allowed.
In the 'B' Class all-comers' competitions rifles, must be of the British service rifle pattern, but slings and aperture sights may be used as allowed for Class 'A.'
The 500 and 600, yards targets are to remain as at present, but a figure target is to be adopted at 200 yards, with rings for scoring purposes. The following will be the dimensions of the scoring rings on targets at 200, 300, 500 and 600 yards in 1911
Bull's-eye. Inner. Magpie.	Outer
In. dia. In. dia. In. dia.
Yds. 200	5	12	21	Remainder of tar-300	8	17	26	get, 4 ft. x 4 ft. Circular, 48 in.500	18	30	46	dia. Remainder of tar-600	18	30	46	get, 6 ft. x 6 ft. Circular, 72 in.
dia.
The charges for hut accommodation at the next Bisley meeting will be considerably reduced, and the charges for ground space in the bazaar will vary according to the amount of space occupied.
Major C.   B.@: Collard, late R.M.L.I., has been invited to become a co-opted member of the Rifle Clubs and Associations Committee.
It is proposed to hold miniature meetings under the auspices of the National Rifle Asso-siation at Birmingham and Gloucester in 1911.
His Majesty the King has graciously consented to become the patron of the National Rifle Association.
1.	Are tyros or class ' B ' riflemen from Great Britain and Ireland eligible to compete in the Dominion of Canada rifle matches at

Ottawa? If so, are they required to use the service rifle of Great Britain?
2.	As under the new Bisley rules no class ' B ' riflemen will be permitted to use a Ross rifle, and no Canadian can compete therein, is it the intention of the government to endeavour to have it so arranged that the Ross rifle may be used, and Canadian tyros may compete in the class ' B ' matches at Bisley?
3.	In view of the imperial character of the Bisley rifle matches, and to place the territorial 'and other forces of the mother country and other colonies on an equality with Canadians in the matches, has the government considered the propriety of annually loaning to the British government for the use of the non-Canadian competitors, a sufficient number, say a few thousand, of long Ross rifles, so that all competitors from any part of the empire may have the advantage of using a long Ross rifle for the Bisley matches?
4.	If the British government or the National Rifle Association, through the British government, requested such a loan of long Ross rifles, would the Canadian government accede to the request?
5.	If such loan of rifles were made, and all other competitors thus placed on an equality with the Canadians, would the government of Canada feel justified in seeking to have Canadian tyros using the long Ross Rifle, allowed to shoot in class ' B ' matches ?
6.	Have long Ross rifles ever been loaned by Canada to competitors from Great Britain at Bisley ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	This is a matter which is under the control of the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association. It is, however understood that Tyros or Class ' B * riflemen from Great Britain and Ireland would be eligible to compete at the Dominion of Canada Rifle matches at Ottawa, and that they would be permitted to use the service rifle of Great Britain.
2.	This is, also, a matter for the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, but the denaTtment will be only too glad to co-operate in any effort to promote the interests of rifle shooting.
3	and 4. Should such a request be made, it would, of course, be acceded to.
5.	This is a matter for the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, but the department will be only too glad to co-operate in any effort to promote the interests of rifle shooting.
6.	Yes. Twelve Ross rifles were loaned to the captain of the mother country Kola-pore cup team in June last.
* Mr. HUGHES:
Referring to the following extract from the London 'Mail,' dated London, September 12. 1910
' I found the Canadians and their chums, the Buffs, as usual, cheek by jowl. The Canadians had entrenched themselves, and in consequence proved, with the remainder of the brigade, a terribly tough nut to,crack. They had opposed to them the 3rd Rifles, the 1st Mr. HUGHES.
Worcesters, and the 1st East Yorkshires. The latter suffered overwhelming disaster. Whether they presumed on assumed innocence or not is not clear, but they advanced recklessly against the Canadians, moving down a long slope under heavy fire, dipping into a hollow and then coming up a rise.
' They did it under the eyes of General Sir Horace Smith Dorrien, who sent a staff officer to the umpire, and the Yorkshire men were ordered by the half-dozen to hoist the little yellow screens which indicated our casualties are heavy. It nearly came to blows. Some of the East Yorkshires crept up through a high hedge, and the Canadians and they exchanged shot so closely that faces were stung by the explosion. The East Yorkshires were annihilated and could do no more, because they were against an entrenched position, but they retired like all British soldiers, happily for the nation, sulkily and unwillingly. Many were wiping the Canadian ammunition out of their eyes, and using bitter words, but the Canadians said, wliy did they butt into us? We were not moving, they need not have come so close.'
1.	Are the Canadians referred to the Queen's Own Rifles of Toronto, who visited Great Britain last summer?
2.	Were they armed with the Ross rifle?
3.	Were these rifles found unserviceable?
4.	Did they block and become useless on account of sand or for other cause?
5.	Were those rifles that did such splendid execution in the action referred to, Ross rifles ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Undoubtedly, as this was the only Canadian corps taking part in the English manoeuvres in September, 1910.
2.	The Queen's Own Rifles were armed with the Ross rifle.
3	and 4. No adverse report of any description has been received by this department. On the contrary entire satisfaction has been expressed by the commanding officer.
5. Yes.


IMPERIAL REALTY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):
1.	Has the government cancelled the contract for heating the Woods and the Canadian buildings leased by the government from the Imperial Realty Company, Limited?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the government to have the lighting done by contract, or does the government purpose doing the lighting itself ?
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A contract for the lighting has been made with the Municipal Electric Company of Ottawa.
TnEFTS FROM GOVERNMENT SHOPS, SOREL.
*	Mr. MONK:
1.	Has the government received complaints of depredations committed in the Marine Department at Sorel?

2.	What was the nature of these complaints, and has an inquiry been made?
3.	By whom has this inquiry been made, has the report been furnished to the department, and when will it be laid on the table of the House?
4.	Is it true that a considerable quantity of brass and copper has been stolen from the department at Sorel, and who are_ the parties who committed these depredations?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. The director of the government shipyard reported to the Department of Marine and Fisheries that brass articles of the value of about $60 had been stolen from the government vessels and shops at Sorel.
The director was authorized to prosecute the guilty parties. The parties were brought before the courts. Gailloux and Albert were convicted, and the other named Gerard was acquitted.


ADMINISTRATOR OF GOVERNMENT.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. DANIEL:
1.	Does the chief justice, or other senior justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, when acting as administrator of the government, receive extra pay or emolument for that service? If so, what emolument does he receive?
2.	Did Mr. Justice Girouard receive any pay as administrator of the government during August last or any part of that month?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes, when His Excellency the Governor General of Canada has been absent from Canada for a period exceeding 29 days the administrator receives one quarter of his salary for the time he acts in excess of the 29 days.
2.	No.


GRANTS TO VETERANS.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. MIDDLEBRO:
Does the government intend during the present session bringing down any legislation with reference to the grant of lands or money to the veterans of 1866 and 1870?
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The government has come to the conclusion that it is not in the public interest to grant public lands except as provided by law upon conditions of residence and settlement.
It is not intended to recommend a grant of money in view of the fact that pensions were granted at the time to the wounded and to the families of those who were killed in the Fenian Raid engagements.


POSTMASTER AT ST. JOHNS, P.Q.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. AMES:
Has the undermentioned correspondence, which appears in the front page of 'Le Devoir' of December 1, 1910, been brought to the attention of the acting Postmaster General? If so, what action has been taken thereon, and who was the employee responsible for the action ?
Montreal, November 29, 1910. Mr. George Fortin,
St. John, Province of Quebec.
Dear Sir,-
Your postmaster advises us that you refuse our paper which appears on our books as paid for up to January 10, 1910. I do not want to drop your name from our list of subscribers until you personally notify us to that effect. I beg you to be good enough to confirm this.
Yours truly,
L. P. DESLONGCHAMPS, Manager, ' Le Devoir.' Mr. L. P. Deslongchamps,
' Le Devoir, Montreal.
Dear sir,-
I have just read your letter under date of November 29, 1910, informing me that you have been notified by the postmaster of St. John that I refuse your paper. This is absolutely untrue; I know nothing of this matter. Some days ago I failed to find ' Le Devoir ' in my post office box to my great annoyance. Ail the same I have read it every day for I procure the paper from your agent in St. John. I was just on the point of asking you for explanations. Our postmaster must tell me without delay why he, all of a sudden, ceased to deliver my paper. Rest assured that I am and will continue to be not only a subscriber and a reader of your paper but an admirer as long as the paper continues to be what it is to-day. I am greatly obliged to you for having taken the trouble of bringing the facts to my notice.
Yours truly, GEORGE FORTIN.
Wilfrid Laurier: The correspondence has not been brought to the attention of the acting Postmaster General nor of the department, but the subject referred to will be inquired into.


MILITIA DEPARTMENT.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. CAMPBELL:
By what authority has a member of parliament to produce a pass before he can enter the offices of the Department of Militia?
Frederick William Borden: Members of parliament are not required to produce passes; but passes have been sent to them to facilitate their entry to the department.


PEMBINA RIVER FISH LADDER.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar):
1. Has the government done anything during the past six months towards getting a fish ladder put in the dam in the Pembina river at North Dakota? If not, does the government intend doing anything in this matter?
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. A sub-committee of the Manitoba Fisheries Commission visited the dam. The



question will be dealt with in the final report of the Commission, which it is expected will be submitted this month.


BANK OF MONTREAL AND THE GOVERNMENT.
Mr. SHARPE. (Ontario):: '
1.	Have any disputes arisen between the Bank of Montreal on the one hand and any department of the government on the other, which were referred to the Department of Justice for advice and for a report?
2.	If so, to what official of the Justice Department were the disputes referred?
3.	If any reports were made by the official or officials were these in writing, and are they private or open for inspection?


Wilfrid Laurier: No disputes have arisen between the Bank of Montreal and the Department of Finance which were referred to .the Department of Justice for advice or for report.


CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	How many battleships or. cruisers have been withdrawn from Canada by Great Britain during the past five years?
2.	What are the names, dates when withdrawn, and the weight of ordnance of each, and where located when withdrawn?
_Mr. BRODEUR:
1 and 2. The Imperial government withdrew the majority of ships from Canadian waters about five years ago. The dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt were closed about the year 1905.
Previous to this the following ships were stationed on the North American and Pacific stations respectively.
Ship.
Tonnage.
Armament.
North Amer ica.
Ariadne	
Indefatigable
11,000 16-6" Q.F. 12-12 pdr. Q.F. 3-3 pdr. Q.F. 3,600 2-6" Q,F. 0-4 7" Q.F. 8-6 pdr. Q.F	
Chary bd is	
Pelorus	
Prometheus	
Pallas	
Fantome	
Alert	
Pacific.
Grafton	
Flora	
Bonaventure	
Shearwater	
4,360
2.135
2.135 2,575 1,070
2-6" Q.F. 8-47" Q.F. 8-6 pdr. Q.F	
8-*-*"	' * I! "" 11 III IIII"
8-3 pdr. Q.F	
4-4" Q.F	
4-3 pdr. Q.F	
7,350
4.360
4.360 980
2-9-2" B.L., 10-6" Q.F., 4-6 pdr. Q.F....
2-6" Q.F., 8-4 7 Q.F., 8-6 pdr. Q.F....
2-6" Q.F., 8-4-7 Q.F., 8-6 pdr. Q.F....
6-4" Q.F., 4-3 pdr. Q.F	
Located on withdrawal.
North Atlantic (Devonport). Home for refit and then West Indies.
Home fleet.
Cape of Good Hope station. ' Australia.
Laid up at Bermuda.
Laid up at Bermuda and then employed as a surveying ship. Laid up at Bermuda and then employed on East Indian station.
Home fleet.
Home fleet.
China.
Not withdrawn.
Mr. REID, (Grenville):
1.	From what port and on what date did the ' Niobe ' leave for Canada, and on what date did she reach Halifax?
2.	From what port and on what date did the ' Rainbow ' leave for Victoria, British Columbia, and on what date did she reach Victoria?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Sailed from Plymouth 10th October, 1910.
Arrived at Halifax 21st October, 1910.
2.	Sailed from Portsmouth 18th August, 1910.
Arrived at Esquimalt 7th November, 1910.
These two ships had received instructions before leaving England not to go at a greater speed than about 264 knots per day.


SIGNAL STATIONS AT WESTPORT.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	When were the meteorological and signal stations at Westport, Nova Scotia, erected?


Mr. BRODEUR.: 2.	How much land is occupied for such pur pose?
3.	Were said stations erected upon public or private property?
4.	If on public property, when, from whom was it purchased and what price was paid?
5.	If on private property, was there a lease entered into?
6.	If so, what is the date of such lease, who is the lessor, what is the term of the lease, and what the annual rental?
7.	What rental, if any, has been paid, and to whom ?
8.	What rental, if any, is owing, and to
whom ?	*


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	The signal station was established in 1897.
The meteorological station in 1898.
2.	The land used by the signal and meteorological service is sufficient to contain a small shed and signal mast.
3.	Private property.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Yes.

6.	April 5, 1897, Mr. Frank Morrell, 5 years. No annual rental, original consideration $1.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	The lessor being the officer in charge of the signal and meteorological stations, it was not considered necessary to renew the lease.


THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Is there any provision in the contract which enables the government to compel the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to take over completed sections of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway, from time to time, as they are completed?
2.	Is the Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction completed? If so, has it been taken over by the company? If not completed, why not? If completed, and not taken over by the company why not?
3.	If taken over or being operated by the company, upon what terms and at what rental?


Mr. GRAHAM:: The following information is furnished by the Board of National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners:

1.	The agreement between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company confirmed by the National Transcontinental Railway Act speaks for itself in this regard.
2.	Not so as to discharge the contractor, but the section referred to has been under operation by the company since October last, under an agreement between the-commissioners, the company and the contractor, J. D. McArthur.
3.	This question can be best answered* by submitting a copy of the agreement..
Copy of agreement hereto attached.,


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	On the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway, what was the estimated mileage of fencing and estimated cost, at contract rate, under each contract, at the time the contract was let?
2.	What is the actual mileage and actual cost where the whole contract, or the whole contract for the fencing, is completed, and when not completed, what percentage of the fencing has been done and what sums have been paid and reserved?


George Perry Graham: The following informal tion is furnished by the National Transcontinental Railway Commission:
I and 2.
Contract No.	Name of Contractor.	Estimated Mileage and Cost at time Contract was let.	Mileage actually built, Oct. 31, 1910, and co3t of same.	Percent- age Complete Oct. 31, 1910.Miles.	Cost.	Miles.	Cost.	$ cts.	$ cts.	i	Grand Trunk Pac. Con. Co	50 10	32,256 00	40-47	26,368 88	98-592	J. W. McManus & Co. Ltd	830	6,047 20	595	4,292 23	69-533	Grand Trunk Pac. Con. Co	9 45	7,647 00	1548	12,197 50	75 244	H II II	O'07	4,695 75	8-59	6,352 45	17295	W. Kitchen Co. Ltd	32'46	24,354 70	19 80	14,743 20	47-286	Lyons & White	62 00	46,101 00	5082	39,793 60	92 217	M. P. & J. T. Davis	52 95	38,119 00	8	n i. ii (East)	150 00	124,904 00	83-98	69,647 80	54-609	44 82	35,510 80	61 [DOT] 5010	Macdonnell & O'Brien	100 00	79,808 00	40-62	30^582 20	65 0011	5'00	3,500 00	12	13	14	Grand Trunk Pac. Con. Co	100	700 00	15	095	650 00	16	M. P. & J. T. Davis	047	17	18	E. E. & G. E. Fauquier	19	O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall Bros..	14'69	10,700 00 1,124 00	20	1-56	21	J. D. McArthur	79'25	55j816 00	56 05	38,514 68	63 66
35i

The reserve on fencing is included in the total reserve on each contract. The amount reserved is not divided into separate amounts for each item.
Gates are included in the cost of fencing in all cases. A fence both sides of the road is included in a mile of fencing.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Have contracts for construction of the whole line of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway been let, and if any sections have not been let where are they, of what extent, and what is the cause of delay ?
2.	Commencing at Moncton, what are the names of the contractors, the number of ths contract, the district and through mileage, the estimated cost, at date of contract, the percentage of work done, and the amount paid and reserved to date in each case?
3.	What is the number of completed contracts and the actual total cost under these, separately ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The following information was furnished by the Transcontinental Railway Commission:


George Perry Graham: 
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	When is it expected that the section of the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway east of the Quebec bridge and west of the Quebec bridge will be completed?
2.	When is it expected that the Quebec bridge will be completed?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	If nothing unforeseen happens these two sections will be completed by January 1, 1913.
2.	As approximate dates for completion are mentioned in the various tenders, it would not be in the public interest to answer this question till the contract is awarded; which it is hoped will he done shortly.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Referring to the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway, what is a section house and to what purposes is it applied?
2.	What is the estimated number of these houses required upon the said eastern division?


George Perry Graham: The following information is furnished by the Board of National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners:
1.	It is a dwelling house erected for the use of the sectionmen in districts where lodgings or dwelling houses cannot be obtained within convenient distance of the line.
2.	220. -


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Were tenders for 7,513 tons of rails and necessary fastenings for the National Transcontinental railway advertised for on or about the 23rd August, 1910?
2.	If so, how many days were allowed between the date of the award of contract and that required for delivery of goods at Cochrane, Ontario?
3.	What tenders were received, and to whom was the contract awarded?
4.	Were all the rails and fastenings delivered at Cochrane on or before the 1st October, 1910? If not, how much of the order remained unfilled on October 1?


George Perry Graham: The following information is furnished by the Board of National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners:
1. Yes.
2 and 3. Tenders were received from the following:	For rails-Dominion Iron and
Steel Company, Limited; The Algoma Steel Company, Limited. For rail fastenings- The Steel Company of Canada; The Algoma Steel Company, Limited; Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Limited.
Contracts were awarded as follows:	For


George Perry Graham: rails-The Algoma Steel Company, Limited, dated September 22, 1910, delivery to be made during December, 1910, and January, 1911. For rail fastenings-Angle bars-The Steel Company of Canada, Limited, dated September 22, 1910, delivery to be made on or before November 1, 1910. Bolts and nuts -The Steel Company of Canada, Limited, dated September 22, 1910, delivery to be made on or before November 1, 1910.
4.	No part of this material has been delivered up to October 1, 1910. No rails delivered to date. First shipment of rail fastenings was forwarded last week.


IMPROVEMENTS IN SENATE CHAMBER.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	What amount has been expended since the last session of parliament for decorating, altering and improving the appearance of the Senate Chamber ?
2.	Upon whose authority and under whose direction was the expenditure made, and at whose instance ?
3.	In a general way, what was the nature and extent of the work done?
4.	Were tenders asked for by advertisements in the press, and was the work done by contract ?
5.	By whom was the work executed?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$8,920.46.
2.	The hon. Minister of Public Works and the hon. the Speaker of the Senate.
3.	The interior walls were cleaned and the panels covered with canvas. Various designs were prepared and different colour schemes suggested and tested until a final selection was made and carried out. The throne was re-upholstered, regilded and new draperies provided. The chairs and seats were restuffed and re-covered, and all woodwork varnished. In the lower panels, the design of Her Royal Highness, the Princess Louise, was retained and carried out in rich and harmonious colourings, with a border surrounding same, introducing various designs of crowns. The spandrils of the arches were entirely filled with ornaments the Coats of Arms were placed in the lower portion of spandrils over columns at the north end, on the right of the Speaker the Royal Coat of Arms, and at the left the Canadian Coat of Arms, at the south end Ontario and Quebec, and on the sides the Coats of Arms of the provinces. The whole was carried out in a Gothic spirit in keeping with the architectural lines of the building and in rich but subdued colours in harmony with the lower walls.
4.	(a) No. (b) Owing to the nature of the work, it is not usual and almost impossible to have this class of work done by contract.

5.	The decorating was done by Thornton, Smith & Company, of Toronto, the upholstering of chairs bv the public works staff, and the draneries and upholstering of throne by Messrs. Harris & Barry, Ottawa.


WALLACE PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. RHODES:: Has the government of Nova Scotia made any application or applications for the use of wharfs or piers at Wallace, N.S., for the construction of a bridge across Wallace Harbour3 If so, when, and w-liat answer was given ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes, application made on 11th August, 1910 for approval of plans of a bridge to connect the federal government wharfs at South Wallace and North Wallace.
2.	The provincial government was asked to purchase the piers, but replied1 that as the piers would be of as much use to the government after the construction of the bridge as before, it could not see its way to purchasing them. Inquiry was made and the district engineer reported that the bridge would not interfere with the use of the wharfs by vessels accustomed to moor there. The department has now under consideration a modification of its request, whereby the provincial government would be allowed to use the piers in constructing the proposed bridge provided an undertaking is given to maintain in proper condition those portions of the wharfs which would be used for the foundations of the bridge.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: What firm prints the money order supplies for the Post Office Department?


Mr. MURPHY:: The Perrault Printing Company, of Montreal, prints Money Orders, Books and Pads for the Post Office Department.


DREDGING AT PORT DALHOUSIE.
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Has the government, or any department thereof, made any engagement for dredging at Port Dalhousie, New Brunswick, since March 31, 1910?
2.	Were tenders called for this work? If so, who were the tenderers, and what was the price of each tender?
3.	Who was the successful tenderer, if any, and was the contract given to the lowest tenderer ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.


A. B. C.
[Stage Direction]
(1)	General Construction and
Dredging Co., Ltd...$ 8 00 $6 00 -29J
(2)	The General Construction
Co., Ltd	
2	65	38	-38(3)	A. & R. Loggie	
15	00	6 00	-44£(4)	Frs. Lemoine	
4	00	3 00	-50(5)	Eastern Dredging Co.,Ltd	
15	00	6 00	-50
As the department was of opinion that the two lowest tenderers had been awarded all the dredging contracts which they could satisfactorily carry out, the contract was awarded to A. & R. Loggie, who offered to perform the work for the following prices: $5.00 for rock drilled and blasted, and .291c. for all materials.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many experimental farms are operated by the Dominion government in Canada, and what is the cost of operating same per annum?


Mr. FISHER:: During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1910, there were nine experimental farms and stations operated by the Dominion government, and the expenditure in connection with each was as follows:-
Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, (including all expenses incurred in distributing seed grain for test throughout the
Dominion	      $53,785.63
Nappan	 8,572.98
Brandon	 12,473.73
Indian Head	 10,314.79
Agassiz	 6,917.17


Lacombe ..: ,	 6,993,72
Lethbridge	 9,821.76
Rosthern	 7,634.67
Charlottetown	 4,198.55


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many experimental farms are owned and operated by the Dominion?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nine Experimental Farms and stations.


MILITARY SURVEYS.
Mr. NANTEL:: What has the expenditure amounted to annually in each of the five years to the 31st March last, for the prosecution of surveys for militia purposes in each of the provinces?


Frederick William Borden: 1905-	6	$15,517	661906-	7 (9 months)	
17,759	911907-	8	
23,715	651908-	9	
28,414	451909-	10	
23,140	14
The above figures represent the total expenditure for military surveys in each of the last five fiscal years. Surveys were confined to the provinces of Ontario and Que-

beo and, because the men employed were interchanged from one province to the other, often working on the boundaries, it would be impossible to give exact figures. It is estimated, however, that about the same amount of work has been done in each province.


RAILWAY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	Has the government appointed a French speaking Canadian on the administrative commission of government railways? If so, what is his name?
2.	If not, when does the government intend to make such appointment?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The government has the matter still under consideration.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


WESTBROOK MAIL CONTRACT.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	When, to whom and at what price was the contract awarded for carrying the mail to and from Westbrook post office in Fron-tenac?
2.	Were tenders called for more than one? If so, when and from whom were tenders received, and what was the amount of each tender ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	The contract for the performance of the mail service to and from Westbrook post office was awarded to James R. Smith on the 28th October, 1910, at 68 cents per trip.
2.	Public tenders were only invited once, but the tenders received in response to such advertisement being considered too high, the matter was referred to the inspector for the district, who afforded each tenderer an opportunity, if so desired, of reducing his tender, and the lowest amended-offer thus received was accepted.


CHINESE AND JAPANESE NATURALIZED.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: How many Chinese and Japanese, respectively, were registered as naturalized in Canada during each year from 1900 to 1909, inclusive ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Chinese.	Japanese.
1900 	
218	1,1181901	
135	2381902 	
194	1671903 	
458	2791904 	
378	861905 	
271	411906 	
229	1461907 	
192	2121908 	4391909 	
241	3412,671	3,067


Frederick William Borden: 


TRANSPORTATION OF LETTER CARRIERS.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: 1.	Is any allowance made for transportation of letter carriers in cities having tramway systems? If so, what allowance is made for each city ?
2.	Are there any cities for which such allowance is not made? If so, what cities and why ?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1. Yes:
Brantford	$	200 00	per annum.Calgary	
Fort William.. ..	300 0J	(( K


Port Arthur .   . . .@: 150 00	ft tt
Halifax	390 00	It ttHamilton	1,000 00	" ttKingston	150 00	tt ttLondon	1,000 00	tC ttMontreal	8,000 00	Quebec	1,500 00	St. John	650 00	ft ftSarnia	150 00	tt ftToronto	4,800 00	tt ttVancouver	30 00	per carrier.Victoria	30 00	Winnipeg	2,053 12	" annum.Ottawa	8,091 00	tt tt(including' mail and wharf.)	service	to station2. Yes:	Berlin, Chatham, Edmonton,
Guelph, Hull, New Westminster, Peterboro, St. Catharines, St. Thomas, Sherbrooke, Sydney, Windsor. (b) Because in the majority of cases the town is not large enough, nor the walks long enough to demand that the department go to the extra expense of having the letter carriers conveyed on the street cars, and in many instances the street railway instead of circling through the town, simply run along one street which would be of comparatively little use to the department. In one or two instances on the list which have not this privilege owing to representations that special circumstances exist, further inquiry is being made.


POSTAL CONVENTION WITH SPAIN.
Mr. GERVAIS:: 1.	Where are the postal conventions between Canada and Spain with regard to money orders or payment of moneys between the two countries?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to have the present conventions between the said countries altered so as to make them similar to those existing between Canada and France or Germany?


Wilfrid Laurier: 1 and 2. There is no convention.


FISHERY OVERSEER AT MORYEN.
Mr. WILSON (Lennox):: 1. Has W. R. Purdy been appointed fishery overseer at Morven in the county of Lennox ?

If so, what was the date of his appointment, what are his duties, and what salary does he receive ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. That appointment is under consideration.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY TRAINMEN'S STRIKE.
Mr. MACDONELL:: What telegram did the Minister of Labour send to S. N. Berry and James Murdock, or either of them, at Montreal on the 2nd August last, and to which the said S. N. Berry and James Murdock, or one of them, is said to have replied as follows, or substantially as follows:-
Your telegram received and we already sent the advice necessary to call strike off, and have instructed all men who went on strike to report for duty at once? '


George Gerald King: Ottawa, August 2, 1910.
S.	N. Berry,
Vice-President Order of Railway Conductors, Windsor Hotel,
Montreal, Que.
(Confidential.)
Mr. Hays has given Sir Frederick Borden and myself an understanding that the men will within three months from this date be taken back into service, and within that time he placed in their former positions. We understand by the men, all men referred to in agreement signed by both parties. In accordance with our understanding with you I shall expect to hear by wire immediately that the strike has been declared at an end. I will confirm this wire by letter over my own signature.
W. L. MACKENZIE KING, Minister of Labour.


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. SCHAFFNER:: How many rural free mail delivery routes are in operation in the province of Manitoba, and how many people are being served by said delivery ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Twenty-four routes, 229 patrons.
AVERAGE RATE OF DUTY, 1896 and 1910.


Robert Laird Borden: For a return showing the average valuc-for duty in 1896 and 1910, respectively, of the unit of each article of commodity enumerated in the schedules of the Customs Act, on which in both years an ad valorem duty was payable.
.Mr. PATERSON. I am afraid I shall not be able to give as satisfactory an answer as my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) would desire, but I will do the best I can. There have been changes in the way of levying duties,-specific in some cases and
ad valorem in others. But we will do our best.


Robert Laird Borden: I quite understand that. It is apparent there may be difficulty in working out the answer with respect to some articles, but I suppose that in the case of the majority some statement might be made. I am satisfied that the officers should do their best to work it out.


INTERCOLONIAL-PROPOSED EXTENSION IN EASTERN NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (North Cape Breton and Victoria) moved:: Thai, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived in the commercial and industrial development of the province of Nova Scotia when the Intercolonial railway bf Canada should be extended into the nonrailway counties of the eastern section of that province.
He said: This is not at all a new subject to this House, nor to certain sections of the country; still it is so important, particularly to the part of the country from which 1 come, that it is desirable, in my judgment, to bring it once more to the attention of the government and of hon. members of this House. To a person as well acquainted with the circumstances and conditions in the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia as I am myself, the proposition contained in this resolution is self-evident, that is, that the time has arrived when this great railway, the Intercolonial, should extend itself into the portions of the province of Nova Scotia which now have no railway lacilities. It is also self-evident to every business man, and particularly so to the business man of to-day, that railway transportation which is, perhaps, the only up-to-date method of transportation, is essential to the very life and proper development of any country. That is particularly the case in a province like Nova Scotia, or any other country where we have not water carriage all the time. It may be said that, in countries where transportation by water is open at all times of the year, railway facilities are not so essential; but to us jn the province of Nova Scotia where we can carry goods by water only for half of the year, railway facilities are indispensable to the success of the country. The use that people make of these facilities when placed at their disposal is entirely for themselves, that is the way in which the people husband and improve the facilities within their reach is entirely a matter for themselves. But while that is the case, there are some responsibilities devolving upon the government of the day as to what facilities, what improvements shall be placed within the reach of the people. I am satisfied that

this government has not lost sight of this responsibility. The government of the day has done much to place these facilities within the reach of the people and to improve the country's methods of transportation. As to the Intercolonial railway itself, which is the great avenue of trade for the province of Nova Scotia, nearly everybody knows that great improvements have been made by the government of the day in its condition and in its connections. It is a well known fact that, for the long term of office of our Conservative friends administration they were content to leave the terminus of that great railway at Levis, in fields disconnected and separated from any other railway whatever and without any proper communication with any other railway. That, of course, was a great drawback to the road. It is also a well known fact that, very shortly after this government came into power, a great improvement was made by the extension of that road to the heart of the great metropolis of Canada, the city of Montreal. And hon. gentlemen who are familiar with the conditions at the other end of the line, at the town of North Sydney from which I come, are well aware that, for ten long years of the regime of the Conservative government, the terminus of the road there was left at the rear of the town, within half or three quarters of a mile from tidal waters on the beautiful harbour of North Sydney, without any communication whatever with the shipping that frequented that port.
It is also a well known fact to the people of that neighbourhood that the authorities of the town to which I belong were so anxious for the trade of that town and for the trade of the road that they themselves for years paid for the transportation of freight, from tidal water to the railwav station. It is pleasing to the friends of this government to know that they were only one year in power when these conditions at the town of North Sydney were changed, the railway was extended to tide water, a first class wharf was built, a line of steamers has been established plying between North Sydney and Newfoundland, and by the traffic created in that direction the Intercolonial railway has prospered in every part of its course from Montreal to North Sydney. These are a few of the benefits which the present administration has secured, and in respect of which it has added to the usefulness of that road. It shows that this government has not been slow to observe the necessity of putting the facilities of commerce within reach of the people at different points where it was the duty of the government to do so.
I propose to show some other ways in which the present government has done much towards the advancement of those facilities, and after showing that they have Mr. McKENZIE.
done so many things, I propose to ask them to go further and do something more, and to complete in Nova Scotia tne undertakings they have already commenced. I have spoken in reference to that great avenue of commerce, the Intercolonial railway; I wish also to point out some improvements which have been wrought by the Departments _ of Public Works and of Marine and Fisheries in that great system of navigation, the St. Lawrence river. That great course of navigation has been very much improved. We know what it was fourteen years ago and we know what it is to-day. In the maritime provinces we profit equallv as much by those improvements as do the people of Montreal and surrounding districts. We profit from them because navigation is made safer, a better class of shipping can pass up that river, insurance is cheaper, and everything is facilitated by the splendid improvements that are made in that river. We believe that something more is necessary, we believe that millions of dollars more must be expended to complete that highway. In Nova Scotia we consent to the expenditure of these moneys, because, as citizens of Canada, since we share in the development and in the profits which will follow from the improvements, we also consent to share in paying the expenses. We profit largely because of the reduction of freight rates in consequence of these improvements. Freight rates have been reduced from the former figure of $3.50 and $2.50 a ton of 15 or 20 years ago to a minimum of 80 or 90 cents a ton, all owing to the improvements in the navigation of the St, Lawrence river and to a better class of shipping which is enabled to navigate that river. This has done more for the development of the coal trade in Nova Scotia than anything else that has taken place. But this is not the only thing that stands to the credit of the present government. They have also deepened the canals through different parts of the province of Ontario, and wherever else canals have been built, and have made them as free as the waters of the Atlantic. By the construction of that great undertaking, the Grand Trunk Pacific, that masterly stroke of policy will open a tremendous area to settlement, possibly a stretch of country 100 miles wide by 3,000 miles long, which has been thrown open to development to become the homes of happy and prosperous millions. The people who will make their homes in Canada by reason of that grand stroke of policy will not only bring other people into this country, but will bring utilities to the doors of those who have had courage to settle in those parts of the country before that road was built. Many other improvements could be mentioned as results of the labour and wisdom of this government ; these are but a few peaks of


what might be called a mountain range of benefits bestowed upon this country by the wise and beneficient government who have ruled over the destinies of Canada for the last 14 or 15 years. It is pleasing and encouraging to the government, and to those who support the government, to know that as their revenues increase they spread their benefits to different parts of the country, in conjunction with what the great architect and a wise providence have done, as evidenced by the abundance with which this country has been blessed in every respect. When this government came into power we had coming into the strong box of Canada $36,500,000 or thereabouts. We were told then by our friends of the Conservative party that such a revenue was something that was never heard of before, that it showed a remarkable development, that it would be disastrous and destructive for the people of Canada to interfere with this great project of the National Policy, and that the Conservative party, who had brought it into existence, were the men who should carry it forward. But, Sir, the people of Canada did not believe that statement, and they gave the present government an opportunity of showing what they could do. Consequently, we have in Canada to-day, not $36,500,000 of an income, not twice $36,500,000, not three times $36,500,000, but something over $120,000,000 of income coming into the strong box of Canada; and that, no doubt, encourages the First Minister and those who sit around him to spend freely so long as the expenditure is in the best interest of the people of Canada. We find in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific magnificent development at Port Arthur, Fort William and other points on the Great Lakes, and what might be called magnificent developments and expenditures, all in the best interests of the people. No person on the opposite side of this House, no matter how eager he might be to criticise the expenditures of this government, can say that their policy has been other than a masterful and magnificent policy. These, Sir, are but few of the things that might be mentioned that have passed the prospective stage, that are matters upon which we can place our hands.
But we find, Sir, in line with what I have mentioned, that as our income is getting larger, as our abundance increases, as our opportunities develop, the government regards that only as a signal to go/ forward to greater things. We are pleased to find that there is great prospect of further development in matters of great concern to the people of Canada. For instance, there is that magnificent project of the Georgian Bay canal. Of course what I say on this point will not in any way involve the government, of which I
am a supporter, I am merely saying what' people generally are well aware of. From' what has already occurred we may conclude that this project of the Georgian Bay canal is receiving a great deal of attention at the hands of those who are responsible for the destinies of Canada today. We have reason to believe that if this project is carried through it will mean a great many things to Canada, and will realize without doubt most of the benefits which its advocates claim for it. To-day we have strong prospects of deepening the ,/Welland canal, building the Hudson Bay railway and all that follows incidental to these works. With these prospects in view, with these great developments which4 we hope for and expect,1 is it too much for a man who comes from the older part of Canada, from that great little province of Nova Scotia down by the sea, where we have by nature a great many things that require development, to ask that the people of the county he represents shall be placed within easy reach of such facilities as other people in Canada enjoy. Is it too much for a Nova Scotian to ask that people who have been in Canada for perhaps a hundred years should be placed in as good a position as the people of Ontario and the far west? I submit that it is not asking too much and that in asking for it we are not asking for anything but what is a business proposition. In the non-railway counties of eastern Nova Scotia it is well known to the government, at all events, to certain members of the government, that we have ai great many of nature's endowments. We have an abundance of coal, iron, limestone, gypsum, farm and field products and the most magnificent fisheries known to the world. Those are along the sea coast in the non-railway counties, Is it too much to ask that these non-railway counties should be opened so as to put the fisherman and the farmer in touch with proper means of communicating with tliq outside world? I make the statement here, Mr. Speaker, without fear of contradiction, that the farmer, in Ontario, in Manitoba, in Quebec, in Prince Edward Island and in New Brunswick, is in a better position to compete in the markets of Sydney than the farmer of certain sections of my own county and the county of Cape Breton. It is an extraordinary statement to make, but it is true, because when you put your goods on board a car in this province they are landed in Sydney safe and secure and placed in competition with the market. In certain sections of my own county and in the county of Cape Breton, I know farmers, 70, 75, and 80 miles away from the railway without any means of com-

munication whatever, better than a truck wagon, and with this the farmer is not in a position to compete with water and railway-borne goods coming into the market of Sydney.
We are not asking the government to create a market for us. We have it. We have one of the finest markets in the world at Sydney, Sydney Mines, North Sydney and the surrounding country. We have a great iron-producing country, we have a great coal-producing country, we have a fish-producing country, and we have a large and growing population. What we want, Sir, is to be recognized by the government and given such facilities as will enable our people to develop such resources as they have. What we want the Intercolonial railway to do, is to extend its lines into these sections of the country where there is no railway. I think we are not asking too much when we ask that and I, for myself, am not taking too much responsibility, when I tell the Minister of Railways that these branches will pay. When we say that these branches will pay, we have nothing perhaps to go upon but the extensions that have already taken place. The Intercolonial railway has been extended into the island of Cape Breton. If stopped for years and years at the Strait of Canso, and it was extended beyond the strait into the Island af Cape Bieton. We were told in those days that the extension of the railway into the island of Cape Breton would not pay for the grease for the wheels of the cars. That, of course, was, to a certain extent, believed, and for many years the extension of the road into that beautiful island was deterred. But what is the result to-day? I have here some figures. It is not easy to get detailed figures of the earnings of the Intercolonial railway, because a separate account is not kept of the earnings at different stages. But the total earnings of the Intercolonial railway for the year ending the last of March, 1910, were $9,268,239.99. I am pleased to say that for the year, they had a balance on the right side of $623,164.66, a veTy excellent showing for the road. With respect to those earnings what do you think has happened in the island of Cape Breton where they said that we were not going to give them enough to earn grease for the axles? Two concerns in the island of Cape Breton have given the road $989,095. The Dominion Coal Company has given them $739,095, and the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company has given them $250,000 of hard cash in earnings. These are only two concerns in the island of Cape Breton. I might have included its earnings from the Inverness railway, which is quite a concern, the Mac-Kay Mining Company, the Port Hood Company and several other concerns, but these Mr. McKenzie.
are only two from which I received reliable figures. That is only freight. When you come down to the question of freight you will find that these companies have contributed more than one-sixth of the total freight earnings of the Intercolonial railway. This is the freight, of course, collected from these two companies, which is small in comparison with all the freight charges that were paid by Sydney, Glace Bay, North Sydney, Sydney Mines and other large towns which are receiving enormous quantities of freight over this road. The merchants are too numerous to go to them and ascertain how much each contributed. I have simply asked these two companies what their freight contributions were, and I have given them here. The road which is now operating between Sydney and Louisburg is a splendid paying proposition. Of course, I may be told that this is a company road. So it is, but it is a company road that is doing business that it does not want to do. It wants to carry its own coal and any other business it handles is forced upon it. If the Intercolonial railway were extended to Louisburg, it would be a paying proposition. The statement that the extension of the Intercolonial Railway into sections of the island of Cape Breton would not pay, does not bear the test of examination, because we have proven beyond peradventure, that such extensions pay well.


Richard Blain: How many non-railway counties are there in Nova Scotia?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The county represented by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), may be well called a non-railway county. I do not believe there is more than one single mile of railway in that whole county. Then, the county of Richmond represented by Mr. Kyte, has only a short piece of road, which is practically no use to them at all. Then, the southern part of Cape Breton county has no railway. The Intercolonial railway enters at the end of it, going into Sydney, but the greatest part of the county may be called a non-railway county. I do not complain about north Cape Breton, which I represent, because we have the Intercolonial railway traversing a fair portion of it, but the county of Victoria which is over 105 miles long and 25 or 30 miles wide, has no railway at all, and is certainly a nonrailway county. I have enumerated for my hon. friend the non-railway counties namely: Inverness, Victoria, Cape Breton, Richmond, and Guysborough, and I think they may very well be described as such. These counties are wealthy in mineral resources, wealthy in their fisheries, wealthy in the products of the farm, but they are hampered and retarded by want of railway facilities.


Frederick William Borden: And a large part of Halifax county also.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, that of course, is on the same stretch as Guysborough. I do not want to take up the time of the House at too great length upon this subject, but I want to impress on hon. members the disadvantages which the fishermen along the coast of my own county labour under. Every fish-buyer naturally wants to get the fish as cheaply as he can, and when the buyer comes_ along in the county of Victoria, any time before the close of navigation my constituent must sell his fish no matter what price he has to take, because if he does not sell it before navigation closes there is no means of getting it out for six months and he cannot sell it at all. In the same way, he must get in his supplies before navigation closes and while the vessels are plying to the different ports. Every fish-buyer understands the conditions down there and the poor fisherman is thus taken advantage of to his detriment and loss. But, had he a railway station within a fair distance from him, he could sell his fish and ship it whenever the market was favourable, and he could buy his supplies as cheaply as possible when he needed them. Under these circumstances we in that part of the country have the right as citizens of Canada, as men who are entitled to the benefits of the great development tnat is now going on this country, to come to this progressive government and ask them to extend the Intercolonial, which is the only road within reach of us now7, into these non-railway sections. We need not expect private companies to build these lines because it may not pay such companies to build them, while it might pay very well to build them as feeders of the Intercolonial. Every- railway man knows that a short railway connected with a trunk line may pay as a feeder to that trunk line, while as an independent road it could not live on the bare pittance it would get as* its pro rata of the freight rates, i may say, however, that while there is considerable talk about other companies coming to Nova Scotia and building roads, we are not looking for them. At least, Iy speaking for myself and for my people say, that we prefer to deal with the devil we know than the devil we dont know. That is what I say. We prefer to deal with the Intercolonial which we have and with which we have been dealing for the last forty years, than to start in a new partnership with some concern we know nothing about. Some of those companies are holding out to us every promise they can think of ; they say : Take us in and we will do everything for you. Well, we know that they are not coming their for their health, they are coming there to make
money, and if the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian Northern railway or any of these companies can afford to build private lines in Nova Scotia and majket money, I can see no logical reason why the government, under proper management, cannot do the same thing and do it easier. That being so, and feeling that we have a fair proposition to submit to the government we make this appeal. We ask, as our friends of the opposition asked when the navy resolution was first before the House; that it be done speedily. We heard some criticism some time ago that the good natured Minister of Public Works was toG apt to be granting favours and building public works where they were not asked for and that no petitions had come to him showing the necessity for some of these works. Now, I have here a resolution passed by the Board of Trade of the shire town of Baddeck, county of Victoria, which after setting forth certain facts says :
Therefore resolved, that this meeting would desire to call to remembrance this promise of a railway to Baddeck and would urge upon the government the building of a spur road from the main line to Baddeck, by the government, the same to be from some part of the Intercolonial system, and that the same be built as soon as can be.
I might explain what is meant by the promise of a railway referred to in the resolution. Those of us who were in political life in 1887 will remember that there was a great strife in the island of Cape Breton as" to whether this present railroad would go by the central route, or by St. Peters which was called the southern route. At last it was agreed that the road should go by the central route, but this was only conceded-according to the men who were then representing the island-on the promise being made that branch lines would be built to different parts of the island. That fact is recited as a preamble to this resolution and that is what is meant by the promise that was made in 1887. It was promised that if the counties of Richmond, Victoria, Inverness and Cape Breton would agree to the central route, that afterwards they would receive the benefit of branch lines and that the central route would only be a main trunk line of the Intercolonial for the county of Cape Breton. Last year when the board of management of the Intercolonial were on the island of Cape Breton, I took pains personally to point out to them that it was impossible to serve the island of Cane Breton with one railway. Any person who knows the River St. Lawrence will understand that both sides of that river could not be served by one railway and that is all the more true of Cape Breton which-except for a little connection at St. PeteTS canal-is practically split in two by a salt water lake twenty miles wide at some point. This shows how impossible it is to

serve these two sections of that island by the one railway. That being the case, as I have pointed out to the management of the Intercolonial railway, we are here asking that the different sections of the island shall have better communication, and we believe that when these railways are built there will be plenty of traffic for them. I may sav that the municipal council of my own county of Victoria passed a resolution in almost similar words to the resolution passed by the board of trade of Baddeck, but I shall not delay the House by reading it now. I have already pointed out that one of the great things which they expect to follow the granting of these Tailway facilities will be the development of industries along these lines of railway. We expect the fishermen to produce more fish, we expect the farmers to produce more produce, we exoect the limestone quarries and other things that are essential to the making of iron and steel in our counties to be more easily produced and to make the production of iron and steel cheaper. All in all, we expect to contribute to the alleviation of the conditions which in our country and elsewhere cause the very high cost of living, and to make our workmen comfortable-, haopy and contented. I think there is nothing that would go further in that direction than a reduction in the cost of living. I do not know that the pressure is felt any more keenly in the Island of Cape Breton than in other parts of the continent. Our workmen are well housed, well fed, and generally comfortable; but if we can bring about a condition of things under which they will be able to live less expensively to themselves, I think it would be well worth the attempt, and it would be appreciated by our people, both those who must be fed by the productions and those who produce the commodities which are essential to that purpose. Now, I have presented the facts at my disposal to the best of my ability. I am here, not for the purpose of making a speech, but for the purpose of bringing these facts to the notice of the government, particularly the Minister of Railways, in the full hope and confidence that they will be taken into consideration, and that the necessities of the people whom I have the honour to represent will be looked after in this recard.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough).: I wish to congratulate my hon. friend on the able presentation he has made of the case, for the construction of additional branch lines to the Intercolonial. The question is one of such special importance to the county which I have the honour to represent, and to the province from which I come, that I would not feel that I was doing my duty as a representative unless I endeavoured to impress the House and the government with its im-Mr. McKenzie.
portance. It is not a new question. It has been up in this House on various occasions, I suppose, ever since confederation, and it will come up again until it is settled, and settled right. It is of course satisfactory to know that all the discussions which we have had of late years on this question have not been fruitless. The government have taken one step, and a very important step, in deciding to lease certain branch lines along the line of the Intercolonial railway. In this resolution we are asking the government to go a step further, and construct branch lines in those sections of the country where no railways have been built.
Every member of this House is well aware that the construction of the Intercolonial railway was one of the conditions of confederation. Without the Intercolonial railway there would have been no Dominion of Canada. The maritime provinces would not have come into the confederation unless they were assured of its construction. [ wish to quote the section of the British North America Act which refers to this matter:
Inasmuch as the provinces of Canada. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have joined in a declaration that the construction of the Intercolonial railway is essential to the consolidation of the Union of British North America, and to the assent thereto of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and have consequently agreed that provision should be made for its immediate construction by the government of Canada. Therefore, in order to give effect to that agreement, it shall be the duty of the government and parliament of Canada to provide for the commencement, within six months after the union, of a railway connecting the River St. Lawrence with the city of Halifax in Nova Scotia, and for the construction thereof without intermission, and the completion thereof with all practicable speed.
Now, it will be noticed that branch lines are not mentioned in that clause at all; and if we are to confine ourselves to the letter of the language, it may be said that the government of Canada never agreed to build any branch lines along the main line of the Intercolonial. But if you look closely at the clause, you will see that rolling stock is not mentioned, that repair shops are not mentioned, that the operation of the road itself is not mentioned. If we are to take that view of the question, then the government would have fulfilled its engagement if it had s'imply graded the road, put down the sleepers, laid the rails, and then said to the maritime provinces, there is your railway, and refused to put rolling stock on or run it at all. If you were to hold to the strict letter of the agreement, that would seem to fulfil it; but would any hon. gentleman say that that was the agreement, or that the Intercolonial or any other railway of a thousand miles in length can be said

to be complete without branch lines?
I think that will not be contended by any one. The system of doing without branch lines has been in vogue on the Intercolonial since its commencement, and it has done more to injure this great enterprise than anything else. Every man who studies this question will know that it is impossible to make any great railway successful without branches to collect the traffic; and the Intercolonial has for forty years persistently thrown away every opportunity of constructing branches which would "have produced traffic for the main line. This unprogressive policy has retarded the progress of the maritime provinces for a generation; and what we want to know is, is it to go on forever? Is there never to be any change? If we are not to have any change, and if the government is not to run the railway on business principles, then it would be better that it should be turned over to one of the great railway corporations.
It has to be admitted that the Intercolonial railway has not been a financial success; it has not paid dividends; but I do not know that we should spend too much time in bemoaning that fact. Those who are familiar with the history of this road from its inception, will know that it was never intended that the Intercolonial railway should pay dividends. When the people of Ontario embarked on this enterprise, they knew very well that it would not pay dividends. If you look over the press of Ontario at that time, you will find that the prevailing opinion was that they were going into an enterprise that would not pay, but would be a constant drain upon the country. They did not expect any dividends, any. more than the people of the maritime provinces are expecting dividends for the $100,000,000 which we have invested in canals in the two upper provinces. It was a contribution to the transportation of the country, and was intended to be so. The Toronto ' Globe ' of the 22nd of December, 1865, just about the time this question was first mooted, expressed the opinion that we were opening an account that would never be closed, that year after year, period after period, more money would be wanted, for it. The Toronto ' Globe ' was right. When we opened the account of the Intercolonial railway, it never was intended that it should be closed. No great railway account is ever closed, because branches have to be built, heavier rails have to be laid, better rolling stock is always required, and in order to get all these things it is necessary to add to the capital of the road. The Toronto ' Globe ' was quite correct when it made that statement. It will not be denied that the Hon. George Brown was an exponent of public opinion in Ontario at that date and he said, in the Ontario legislature, in 1865 :
As a commercial enterprise the Intercolonial has not, I apprehend, any considerable merit. As a work of defence it has, however, many advocates, but if the union of the provinces is to go on, it is an absolute necessity and as the price of the union, were there no other arguments in its favour, I heartily go for it.
The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, in this House, in a discussion on the Intercolonial railway in 1870, made the following statement :-
Everybody knows that the Intercolonial railway would be utterly valueless in a commercial point of view. It was to be built because they had bargained to build it and they should keep to their bargain.
Mr. Walter Shanly, member for Grenville in 1870, spoke in this House as follows:-
The railway project by itself was not popular in Upper Canada. But when the greater question assumed shape and form after the conference at Quebec, and when it became apparent that in order to bring about the confederation of the British North American provinces each of the parties to the compact would be called upon to make some sacrifice of local prejudice or local interest, then Upper Canada accepted of the railway part of the project as a political and social necessity. A leading politician of Upper Canada, generally recognized as an exponent of the public opinion of the day had said ' Rather than not have confederation be would agree to build ten Intercolonial railways/ That very fairly expressed the sentiment of Upper Canada.
Just let me speak for a moment of the condition of the maritime provinces at that time. Prior to confederation their trade was with the United States. These provinces had then enjoyed a period of reciprocity, and that period had been a prosperous one. They had found a ready market for their products in the New England States, and bought goods from these states in return. They had free entry into the New England States for their fish, butter, poultry, eggs, cheese, animals of all kinds, coal and lumber. All these things, the staple products of the maritime provinces, were admitted free into the United States and there found a good market. Not only that, but the coal trade grew very rapidly, and as ships were required to carry that coal, the Nova Scotia ship yards were busy building them. In this way a large trade grew up between the maritime provinces and the United States which was of great advantage to them. They were then asked to turn their trade into another direction, and it was with that object the Intercolonial railway was built. It was not built to make dividends for anybody, but to change the whole trade of the maritime provinces from the United States to Upper and Lower Canada.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: I submit that the Intercolonial railway has accomplished that purpose, and has not therefore been a failure. While it has not paid dividends, it has done the work intended ; it has turned the whole trade of the maritime provinces into the factories and shops of Quebec and Ontario, and has shut the New England States out of our market.
There were certain things which we expected of the Intercolonial railway. First, it was expected to bind the provinces together into one great Dominion. Second, it was expected that the maritime provinces would become a profitable market for the manufactures of Ontario and Quebec. Third, it was expected that the New England manafacturers would be driven from the maritime provinces and be there replaced by the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec. Fourth, it was expected that the maritime provinces would be able to sell their coal and iron and fish to the people of the upper provinces. Fifth, we expected that the ports of the maritime provinces would be used instead of those of the United States in the shipment of goods from the western provinces.
I submit that these things have, to a very large extent, been accomplished and have been of greater value to the people than would have been dividends. We have, as every one will admit, one Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific consolidated into one great country. We could not have had that without confederation, and we could not have had confederation without the Intercolonial railway. The maritime provinces have become a market for the factories of Ontario and Quebec, and the New England manufacturers have been driven from the field. We have a market in Montreal and some of the cities of the upper provinces for our steel, our fish, and to some extent for our coal. I regret, so far as the maritime ports are concerned, that we have been to some extent disappointed, but we trust these ports will also come into their own when the Grand Trunk Pacific is finished and everything possible is done to direct the trade of Canada through Canadian channels.
I submit that the Intercolonial railway has not been a maritime province road any more than it has been a road for the rest of Canada. It has done more for the trade of Ontario and Quebec, especially Ontario, as it has for the provinces of Nova Scotia >and New Brunswick. That will be proved when you look into the particulars with regard to the trade. I moved a couple of years ago for a return showing the amount of traffic westbound over the Intercolonial compared with the eastbound traffic. I am aware that these figures are not absolutely correct. I am aware that to Mr. SINCLAIR,
some extent they may be misleading, but they give the general trend of traffic The way the books of the Intercolonial raihvay are kept it is difficult to get those figures so as to obtain exact information, but I obtained the following statistics showing the percentage of east bound traffic in the different years :-
1902		 54.03
1903		 51
1904		 48.83
1905		 51-2
1906		 44*32
1907		 44-44
1908		 44-55
During the last few years it appears that the volume of the westbound traffic has increased so as to become a little larger than the eastbound, but prior to that the east-bound traffic was the larger of the two, showing that the Intercolonial railway is really of more value to the provinces of the west than to the trade of the maritime provinces.
We often hear complaints about the deficits on the Intercolonial railway. That is unfortunate, no doubt, for us all, but especially for us in the maritime provinces, because if the Intercolonial railway had a surplus every year it would not be so difficult for us to get those extensions and betterments which we require. Yet the deficits, after all, have not been so very heavy. They amount to about $200,000 on an average each year from the time the Intercolonial railway was started, or about three cents per head of the population of Canada, estimating our population at 7,000,000.
What are the reasons why we have deficits and not dividends? The main reason is that the road has ttfeen run on a penny wise and pound foolish policy from the start. One of the reasons-and one that, I think, is most important,-is that the management have not taken advantage of the opportunities to build branch lines to collect the traffic, even where they might have done so, with advantage to the road. When the road was constructed, they took over the old Nova Scotia railway, which extended from Halifax to Truro, and from Truro to Pictou. And there was a branch from Windsor Junction 30 miles to the town of Windsor. This town stands at the eastern end of the Annapolis valley, one of the most fertile and populous districts of Canada, and one of the richest. Any railway company having the business ability of ordinary 'men, would have extended a railway down to the Annapolis valley to capture the business of that rich and populous country. Did the Intercolonial do that? On the contrary, they let it slip through their fingers. A company was formed, the Dominion Atlantic Railway took it over, and it has now fallen, into the hands of the Canadian Pacific. There was

a chance there for the Intercolonial railway to make enough money to wipe out this $200,000 of a deficit from the staat to the present time, but they did noit embrace it. The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), has drawn attention to the enormous amount of traffic that has accumulated on the Louisburg road between Sydney and Louisburg. That was the territory of the Intercolonial; they could well have extended the road from Sydney to Louisburg and secured that traffic-that also, of itself, would have been sufficient to prevent a deficit during the last twenty years. And that branch might have been extended at a trifling cost. Again, the Intercolonial has done nothing to collect traffic for the road. Why, under the late administration, the very station agents of the Intercolonial, were canvassers for the Canadian Pacific; they gave the preference to the Canadian Pacific, rather than their own. line. At a few places, the Intercolonial touches the sea-at St. John, at Halifax, at Mulgrave, at Sydney and at a few other places in New Brunswick. In those sections, population is usually along the coast. The Intercolonial has never put on boats to collect the traffic as they ought to have done. They allow that to get into the hands of private parties. There is an example of this in my own constituency. The Department of Trade and Commerce gave a small subsidy towards a line of boats which was put on, and is known as the Cann line of boats engaged in the collection of traffic for delivery to the Intercolonial at Mulgrave. And with splendid results- the traffic has grown so as to be very.profitable to the Intercolonial. In 1891 the fish from Canso and these other points delivered at the Intercolonial railway station at Mulgrave, amounted to 162 tons with a value of $11,340, and the freight paid and express charges paid to the Intercolonial made a total of $1,134. Then, these boats were put on. In 1901 the tons of fish numbered 1,900, value, $133,000, freight and express, $19,760. And now we come to 1908. In that year, fish to the amount of 3,372 tons was carried-I am speaking of the fresh fish traffic alone, and am not considering other traffic-the value being $235,000, and the freight and express paid to the Intercolonial made a total of $31,644.03. This shows that by adopting a method of cellecting traffic in boats at points where the Intercolonial touches the sea, a great deal of business could hav# been gathered for the Intercolonial that, as a matter of fact, was lost or went in other directions for lack of facilities. When the Reid railway was built across Newfoundland, the circumstances were the same. The railway touched the coast and on the coast was a fringe of fishing villages. The rail-36
way company put on seven or eight boats to collect the traffic and deliver it to the railway. In this way, they made business for their road. But opportunities of that kind have not been taken advantage of by the Intercolonial, and we can hardly expect results. The passenger traffic to be developed is indicated by the fact that the Cann line of boats carried last year 10,833 passengers, who were taken from or delivered to the Intercolonial railway at Mulgrave.
Now, hon. members may say : What are you asking for? In the first place, we want the government to carry out in the spirit the agreement made with the maritime provinces in 1867. We ask for a complete reversal of the old hide-bound policy of doing nothing, and ask the government to embark upon the construction of such branch lines of the Intercolonial as will give to the people who reside in the nonrailway counties of the maritime provinces the advantage of railway communication. The mover of this resolution has suggested that it might be asked : Why do you not form joint-stock companies and find the capital somewhere to build these branch lines? The answer is very simple -it is financially impossible to do it. The province of Nova Scotia, in most places, is not more than fifty miles in width from sea to sea. A short line, or branch railway of that kind cannot be Boated and financed by a separate company, whereas, as a branch of the Intercolonial and managed from the head office of that railway, it might be a great success. Take the case of any other great railway-the Canadian Pacific is a good example. It has a length of over 3,000 miles from St. John to Vancouver. If I counted them right, there are about ninety branches reaching out to collect traffic for that main line. All these ninety branches are managed by one president and one board of directors, with one head office staff, one engineering staff, one telegraph system, one system of repair shops. All these branches, working together, make traffic for the main line and dividends for the shareholders. But apply the Intercolonial system to the branches of the Canadian Pacific railway. You would have a hundred head offices-or ninety, at all	events-ninety engineering staffs,
ninety telegraph systems, and so on. This fact only needs to be mentioned to show how absurd and impossible the proposition is financially, and that the only way we can extend communication to those scattered districts along the Intercolonial is to get it from the main line as branches built and controlled by the main line, managed from the one departmental office, by the one departmental staff, by the one staff of engineers, instead of a dozen. It is easy to see that that is the only possible way this thing can be done finan-
REVTSED EDITION. ~

cially. That is the reason why thinking men in the lower provinces have been turning their minds the last few years to the question as- to whether it would not be better to turn this road over to a company, that is to say, if it is impossible, to get the government to carry on the business on business principles. For my part I see great danger in the transfer to a company and would prefer for the present to remain as we are.
Now we are not here to ask anything that is not reasonable and just, anything to which we have not a right as citizens of Canada. We are asking the government to live up to the spirit of the contract. We are making a sound business proposal. If the road is to be successful it must develop traffic along the main line. The government has adopted a vigorous transportation policy in the west, and the country has approved of it. Now we ask them to do the same thing in the eastern part of Canada. I need not say that everybody knows we have a splendid country in the maritime provinces. The eastern part of Canada is rich in agricultural resources, rich in minerals, rich in fisheries and in forests, yet all these resources are lying, for the most part, dormant, because we have not the necessary transportation facilities to enable us to reach markets. Our people are not opposed to expenditures in other parts of Canada. I do not think it can be said of the people of the maritime provinces that there is anything narrow or sectional about them. Those of us who sit on this side of the House, at all events, have stood up year after year, within the time of this administration, and have voted large sums of money for transportation in other parts of Canada. We have supported the deepening of canals to an enormous extent, we have supported the deepening of the St. Lawrence, the enlargement of that great highway of trade and commerce in this country. We have supported the building of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the broadening of the habitable belt of this country from one ocean to the other. In addition to all that, we are now supporting the building of the Hudson Bay railway. Now we rejoice at the progress that our people are making in the west, we are just as proud of it as the western people are; but we want to feel in the maritime provinces that we have a share in the progress that other portions of Canada are making at the present time. We are sending our sons and daughters to the west year after year, we have a lively interest in their success and progress. We have ceased to look to New England as our market, and are turning our eyes towards Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, and the other large centres of population in this country, for markets for our Mr. SINCLAIR. '
produce. That is where we expect to do our trading, that is where we expect to sell our coal, our fish, our steel and other articles that we produce in the maritime provinces. But in order to do that we must have an avenue of traffic, the Intercolonial must be enlarged, it. must reach out, into places that have not now railway communication.
In conclusion, I would like to appeal to the Minister of Railways and to the First Minister, and to ask them to deal with the proposal of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) in a broad, generous and Canadian spirit. Let us hear no more of the narrow sectional view that no more capital ought to be expended on the Intercolonial. The Intercolonial is one of the great avenues of traffic in this country. We have already spent over $80,000,000 in its construction, let us spend a few more millions to make it capable of doing the work it was intended to do. This is Canada's growing time; let us do everything to see that not only the west but the east has a share of this development. Let us link up the scattered sections of the maritime _ provinces that have been so long without railway facilities, and allow them to have some part in the trade prosperity of this country. In this way we will be adding to the value of the Intercolonial itself, and will be doing a measure of tardy justice to some 70,000 people in eastern Nova Scotia who have been out in the cold for a long while, and who have been patiently waiting for railway communication, and yet who, during the last 40 years, have paid their full share of the $400,000,000 this country has contributed for transportation in other parts of Canada.


Mr. TURRIFF.: As the building of railways is a matter of interest to every part of the country, I may perhaps be excused for taking up a few moments of the time of the House in prolonging this discussion. I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the proposition of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), because I quite agree with him and with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Sinclair), that if there are counties down in the maritime provinces which are now without railway facilities, something ought to be done to meet their needs. What I wish to put before the House is whether the proposition made by my hon. friend from North Cane Breton (Mr. McKenzie) is the best one that can be made for the purpose of meeting the wishes of the people of the lower provinces. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not at all in favour of government ownership and operation of railways. I do not believe it is possible for this or anv other government that could be elected in Canada to run a railway as well as it is

possible for a properly equipped company to run it. At all events, during the forty years since confederation that this road has been in existence, no government has made a success of it. It is not a success at the present time, although I think the present Minister of Railways is the best, or one of the best, that has ever had charge of that proposition. But the fact remains that the original $40,000,000 expended on the Intercolonial railway has grown to over $80,000,000, for which no return whatever is made in the way of dividends. Of course, I agree to a large extent with the remarks of my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) who says we have derived other benefits, there is no doubt of that. I quite agree with my hon. friend when he says that that was one of the conditions of confederation, and that the government, having undertaken to build the Intercolonial railway, should do everything necessary to make it fulfil the purpose for which it is intended. If branches are necessary for that purpose, they should be built. There is no use supposing that, when the government owns a main trunk line, other railways, or any big railway company which is in a position to handle roads, will come in and build all the branch lines for the purpose of feeding a government road. But I wish to point where I think my hon. friends from the lower provinces fail to take a proper view of the situation. While there is no doubt it was one of the terms of confederation, which I think has been fair.y carried out and in a reasonable spirit, have we to remain under that agreement for all time to come, if some better system can be adopted that will be more beneficial to the lower provinces? I 'quite agree that it would be unfair to adopt any policy or any system of transportation that would not meet the views and wishes of the people of the lower provinces. But I claim that we have now tried the running of the Intercolonial railway as a government road for forty years, we have run it under both parties, and it has not been a success in the past, and there is no prospect that it will be a success in the future. Now if that is the case, would it not be better to face the question boldly, to look into it thoroughly and ask ourselves if there is not some better way of handling the Intercolonial railway than we are doing at present. I would suggest that it might be better for the,people of the lower provinces, and better for the Dominion if that road was turned over to one or other of the large railway companies, even if we only got one per cent interest on the money. I would be willing to vote to appropriate that one per cent interest on that money to pay interest on the sum necessary to subsidize the building of branch railways through every part of the lower provinces which is not supplied with railwsv facilities. If you had a 361
good railway company operating in those provinces look at the change which would take place, look at the new industries that they would undertake, look at the industries that they would start, the opening up of lines, the building of hotels and building up of the tourist traffic from all parts, and more especially from the United States, bringing hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars into the country. The government cannot do that. This government will not do it, no government that you can elect will do it. Therefore, why not put the railway into the hands of a company that would do these things? Take one per cent interest on the money that is now in the Intercolonial railway and it will pay interest on $20,000,000, that would go into the branch lines throughout the lower provinces, and the country would be at this advantage that there would be no more deficits and no more piling up of a huge capital account on which there is no interest coming at the present time or likely to come at any time in the near future.
I am in hearty sympathy with the people who are lacking railway facilities and I think our friends from the lower provinces ought to remember that if the railway were sold or leased to a company it would not take it away from the lower provinces. The road would remain there, and it would employ far more men than it employs at the present time. It would buy far more goods to run the road than it does at the present time. It would be no disadvantage that I can see from any point of view if the road were leased and operated by a company. There is no doubt that any company that took hold of the road -would build far more branch lines than any government will ever undertake to do. If the government undertake the policy of building and acquiring branch lines, if they will not dispose of the road, and I see no other way out of the trouble, it will mean in five or ten years that when these lines are bought or acquired and when new lines are built where there are none today, instead of having $80,000,000 in the Intercolonial railway, we will have well on to double that amount of money, there will be no revenue whatever and the lower provinces and the country generally will not get anything like as good a service as they would if the road were turned over to one or two of the existing companies and let them run it under the Railway Commission as other railways are run at the present time. I would support anything along this line and I would support the voting of any amount of money to build branch lines into those counties and into those parts of the lower provinces that have been suffering for many years for the lack of transportation facilities. I believe that in this twentieth century in every part of Canada where there are people, especi-

ally where people have been living for fifty or a hundred years, it is the duty of the government to see that they have proper railway facilities, but I do not think it is ' the duty of the government to build these raods themselves. I would far rather see them give a large degree of help to a good company to build a road. It would give a better service and it would be better for the people of the lower provinces and for the Dominion all around.


Mr. J. W. MADDIN (Cape Breton South).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my sympathy with the resolution of the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. Mackenzie) which is now engaging the attention of this House. It is a fact that the people of the eastern counties of Nova Scotia have for many years been under considerable disability with regard to their industrial development and the development of their natural resources for the want of railway facilities. Whether that railway development shall come from the local government of the province, or as a part of the Intercolonial railway system, built by this government; or from any corporation, the people of the eastern part of Nova Scotia, I am quite certain, will welcome it just the same. I find that in the eastern part of the province, especially in the counties of Guysborough and the four counties which constitute the island of Cape Breton, the branch lines of the Intercolonial railway are not as ideal as they might be. In the county of Inverness there is a railway which was constructed by the Inverness Coal and Railway Company. The original charter for that road contemplated that the road should be run from Point Tupper up to Margaree and over to Cheticamp in Inverness. The railway was built as far as the coal mines of Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann and there it ceased. A right-of-way had been given to the railway company for the building of this road by the municipality of Inverness, and from time to time the municipal council of Inverness have extended the right-of-way with the result that the railway stands at Inverness and has not been carried to the terminus to which it was intended to be carried when the Act of incorporation was put through. Who is responsible for the non-completion of this road it is hard for some people to understand.
However, Mr. Speaker, there was a railway contemplated which would relieve the situation substantially in the counties of Cape Breton, Richmond and Guysborough. It is sometimes called the Guysborough railway and sometimes the Halifax and Guysborough railway. So long ago as 1877, 33 years ago, when Mr. Fremain was provincial engineer of Nova Scotia, a survey was made. Here is an *old map of the province dated 1878 and it Mr. TURRIFF.
shows tire line from Louisburg, the winter port, up through the county of Cape Breton and Richmond, through the county of Guysborough and to the city of Halifax. This railway was promised to the people of Nova Scotia under the Liberal government of 1877. Since 1882 there has hardly been an election run in the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia, federal, local, municipal, bye, or general, at which this railway was not popped out before the electorate and dangled before them as one of the prizes that was to come to them in the event of the Liberal party succeeding at the .-polls. I find, with regard to this resolution, that I at least am in quite an anomalous position and so must be the people of Nova Scotia because we are pledged this railway extension by the Murray government of Nova Scotia. However, I am quite certain that the people of the eastern part of Nova Scotia will be grateful for the road whether it is built by the Murray government or by this government. I may say, for the benefit of the hon. members of this House that from time to time this railway from Halifax through Guysborough, Richmond and Cape Breton counties, has been dangled before the electorate of these different counties and also of the counties of Anti-gonish and Pictou, because the road would be of substantial benefit to these counties, for the last thirty years. But, to get down to more recent times, to something within the recollection of the youngest of us, in 1904, when the general elections .were on in the county of Guysborough, the local government deemed it expedient to emphasize to the people of Guysborough county the assurance that the road would actually be built. So, with that object in view, a number of wheel-barrows were brought into the county of Guysborough, a few men were employed and near the head of Country harbour they actually graded, if measured foot by foot, a distance of 200 feet of railway. That was a few weeks before the general election of 1904.


Mr. SPROULE.: That is a good time.


James William Maddin: 
Mr. CARVELL.: Was this subsidy granted?


James William Maddin: It is a very simple thing to grant a subsidy and another to spend it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. gentleman answer my question: was the subsidy granted?


James William Maddin: Certainly there was a subsidy granted. These gentlemen then crossed over to the Myra river valley and they told the electors of that part of the county: What is the use of building a road down by the shores of East Bay, have they not subsidized steamships on the Bras d'Or lakes, does not the Intercolonial railway cross the Bras d'Or lakes at Grand Narrows, are there not government wharfs and subsidized steamships there, have they not all the means of communication they require for passengers and freight; it is you, isolated farmers in the valley of the Myra, who should be provided with a railway. And so these gentlemen assured the farmers of the Myra river valley that the road would come down to Red Islands and cross the hills to the Myra river valley, descend the river to a point near Burke's Ferry and then send a spur of twelve miles into the city of Sydney and have its terminus at Louisburg. And so of course the people of the Myra river valley were deluded in this way. Up to this date our Liberal, friends had pledged two routes that this road was to go by, but in the meantime there was a district along the south shore of that county to be provided for, and then there was the county of Richmond if you please. And so these gentlemen went over to Gabarouse and they assured the people that the road would not go by the Myra river and they said: Does not the Louisburg railway cross the mouth of the Myra, connecting with the Intercolonial railway and going into Louisburg; have they not subsidized boats on the Myra river and have they not all the facilities they require what would be the use of building a road down the Myra river valley? But, you benighted fishermen of the southern coast are in much
more need of a railway. And they were assured that the road would come through part of Richmond county through Grand river valley, by Gabarouse, Deep Cove, and Kennington Cove into Louisburg. These people on the southern shore were assured of this railway. But it had been pledged to them by three different routes. And it was made to serve their purpose every time a political exigency appeared. There was an election, the Liberal candidates were elected and up to the present time there has been nothing done to extend that road from St. Peters to Louisburg for the very excellent reason that having pledged the railway by three different routes if they dared to build it by any one route they feared to alienate the political affections of the people living along the other two routes. That was in 1906. In 1908 there was to be a federal election and with a view of serving out some more railway facilities for the eastern part of the province they held a gala day in the court-house in the city of Sydney. Invitations were issued, the invitations extended even to the county of my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) and Dr. Bissett, the local member for that county was down at the meeting. They invited all the municipal councillors and one of the local members. Dr. Kendall and the warden took the chair and presided over the meeting. And. when this great galaxy of Liberals from all parts of the county had got together for the purpose of discussing railway matters, for the purpose of making difficult paths easy and smooth, when they were convened there what do you suppose they submitted to the people. Why, of course, the people of Richmond county found it serviceable, because in 1906 when the road had been promised to East Bay and Myra river a kind of Macedonia cry came from Richmond: Please dont use that railway too much over there because we need it in Richmond county, and that is what brought about the promise of the road down by Grand River, Gull Cove, Gabarouse, Deep Cove and Kennington Cove to Louisbourg. At this meeting in 1898 they had to have some of the Richmond county representatives present. Dr. Bissett was there and he undertook to outline what he conceived would be the proper route from St. Peters to Louisburg. He suggested that as Cape Breton had considerable railway facilities that the road should remain in Richmond county by crossing the St. Peters canal and going over to Grand River and round by the southern shore. He began to offer his reasons for this route when some one touched him on the coat tail and he was invited outside-he has not finished his speech yet. Such a suggestion would not harmonize with the South riding of Cape Breton, and that is where the political exigencies of the Grit party were being


Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants).: I have very profound sympathy with the resolution which has been moved' by the hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie). I have realized for several years the great need of transportation in the part of Nova Scotia referred to; in fact, there is no other part of Nova Scotia that needs transportation quite so badly. I realize that, at present, the wheels of progress are stuck in the mud, if I may so say. But-to recall the old fable-those who are crying for help to Jove are crying to the wrong Jove. They may cry for help to the Intercolonial railway until they are weary, and no proper help will come. One speaker says that they want this settled right and right away. Transportation in Nova Scotia will not be settled right, in mj opinion, and in the opinion of a growing number of others, until a private company owns the Intercolonial. I am speaking this from the honest convictions of my own mind and after having studied this question for the last two years more earnestly than I have studied I any other question, and with the thorough conviction that I am speaking in the best

interests of the county I have the honour to represent and of the constituents whose servant I am. The Intercolonial railway, no matter how earnestly it may strive under present conditions, cannot give the people the assistance that a modern railway can and does. I believe-and I agree with the expression of one hon. gentleman who has spoken to-day-that we have the best Minister of Railways that we ever had. I greatly regret that I cannot say the same fo.r the commission that is supposed to handle the Intercolonial. * There is a good deal of doubt as. to who runs the Intercolonial-whether it is the minister, whether it is the commission, or whether it is the brotherhoods of the various employees. So far as my own experience goes, since 1904, I am thoroughly convinced that, in my own county at least, it is run by somebody in the interests of the Conservatives of that county.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Judson Burpee Black: Some hon. gentlemen smile. I have concrete evidence of what I say.


Richard Blain: Why doesn't the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) take care of that?	'


Judson Burpee Black: Ask me something I am capable of answering. I have noticed, ever since I first became a representative of the county and began looking into the position of the Intercolonial railway, that most things go to the Conservatives along that line. Why, if there is a length of old wire fence to be discarded, some- Conservative farmer is sure to walk off with it. I was trying to get a crossing for the benefit of three or four individuals. They happened to be Liberals. My requests were ignored. And while I was making my request, without any request on my part, a good Conservative was served with a first class crossing. These are only little things, they are only straws, but I think they indicate which way the wind is blowing'in Hants county.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman is speaking only for Hants county?


Judson Burpee Black: Certainly; I do not propose to stick my nose into Cumberland. In the last two years, in the interests of my constituents, I have asked for twenty different things that I felt my people should have and that they deserve-nineteen of these things are still ungranted.


An hon. MEMBER.: What one did you get?


Judson Burpee Black: I do not think that is of any interest just now to any one but myself and my constituents. ' The Intercolonial railway runs through the east end


Judson Burpee Black: of Hants county. I would ask any hon. gentleman who knows that county well and the towns through which the railway runs, I would ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham): Has the Intercolonial contributed in the least to the prosperity, advancement or development of the business of these towns? Not in the least. Have they had a single advantage in the way of freight rates? Not a dollar. I tried to show last winter that the same rates as were in force on the Intercolonial prevailed on the Canadian Pacific railway in the maritime provinces. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) produced a lot of figures which he said showed that some rates on the Intercolonial were cheaper. But he forgot to tell us that his figures were those of a branch line of the Canadian Pacific on which there was no competition whatever. But, if you take the trunk line of the Canadian Pacific from St. John to Montreal, you will find that the rates are the same _ as those that prevail on the Intercolonial. There is no advantage to the people of the maritime provinces in freight rates on the Intercolonial. We talk about 'the people's railway.' That is a very, very silly _ expression, because the people have no interest in that railway except what they pay for, and pay for at as full rates as on any other line. When we proposed selling the Intercolonial, or leasing it, some people talked as if we were proposing to tear up the rails and burn the ties, and do away with the line altogether.
I maintain that, with the road sold to a private company, we shall have a better road, more prosperous towns, and better accommodation. And we shall have the development of local industries which now we cannot get. In freight rates, I make one exception. The steel industries in Cape Breton do get very cheap rates on the Intercolonial for their products. Is this as a favour to those companies? Has the Intercolonial conceded cheaper rates to these companies to help the steel industry or to add to their prosperity or their wealth? Not a bit of it; they give them them cheaper rates simply because the line must compete with the water route of the Gulf of St. Lawrence-that is all. _ When the winter months come, the officials of these companies, in answer to an intimation that rates will go up, simply say: If you put up your rates in the winter, we are in a position to store our goods until the spring, and you shall not get a ton of them. Consequently, in their own interest and not in the interest of that industry, the Intercolonial carries goods for these companies somewhat cheaper.
The hon. member for Guysborouglv (Mr. Sinclair) said that the Intercolonial " railway is retarding the progress of the

maritime provinces-those are his very words as I took them down. I am prepared to support his statement. The modern company-owned railway not only carries passengers and freight, but its policy is to increase freight, to crdate< freight and to create passenger traffic as well. The modern railway builds hotels, it builds wharfs, it builds steamships, it' creates commerce on the ocean to feed its lines, which the Intercolonial management could not do, which they dare not' do. I say the modern railway builds hotels. I remember not very many years ago in making a tour to Quebec for my holidays, I found the St. Louis hotel capable of accommodating all the tourists of those days. Then the Canadian Pacific railway came there and built a large hotel, some thought too big. It overflowed, and an addition was made; that overflowed,' and another addition was made, thatl overflowed; and the St. Louis hotel, which accommodated formerly all the tourists, was purchased and added to it. I believe this year a still further addition is being made to that hotel.
Now, suppose the Minister of Railways wanted to build a hotel on that magnificent and charming spot, the northwest arm at Halifax, for the tourists who would come if a hotel was there, supposing he came to this House, as he would have to do, and ask for $100,000 to build a hotel at the northwest arm in Halifax, do you suppose he would get a vote? I think there are many members on that side of the House, and some on. this side, who would laugh him to scorn, who would ridicule the idea of this government building hotels for the benefit of Nova Scotia. In my opinion the tourist trade in Nova Scotia, if fitting hotels could be built in connection with the Intercolonial railway, would exceed anything on the Atlantic coast. Nova Scotia with its magnificent summer climate, with its beautiful sea coast and harbours, is the natural playground of all those people north of Baltimore who want holidays. A modern railway run on modern principles would have hotels at Halifax, at Chester, at Mahone, at River Port, at Liverpool, at Shelburne, and a dozen other beautiful harbours on the Atlantic coast, not to mention other equally beautiful spots on the Bras d'Or lakes all around Cape Breton. Could the Intercolonial railway do this? Not at all. I may say that so large is the tourist travel in that province for which there has been no accommodation, that a large and wealthy colony has sprung up at Chester, mostly from Baltimore. There was no hotel accommodation, and they built their own hotels; there, were no private houses for them, and they built their own houses, and every year that tourist traffic has been increasing. A modern railway
such as the Canadian Pacific railway, or the Grand Trunk Pacific railway when it is finished, or the Canadian Northern railway, would have a chain of such hotels built all over the province of Nova Scotia.
Take our local industries, what has the Intercolonial railway done for any of them in the province of Nova Scotia? We have got one of the finest provinces, probably, with the exception of British Columbia, the most promising province in all Canada; yet the Intercolonial railway has done nothing to develop a single industry in that province. It has carried at normal rates the products of the industries we have created ourselves. I remember some tune ago trying to get special rates to develop a gypsum quarry near Enfield, and the rates that were offered me were most discouraging to any business man. I remember a like quarry, only not half as valuable, in New Brunswick near the Tobique river, which did not require any deputation of any member of parliament to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to develop it, because they developed it in their own interest, and have made it one of the most flourishing industries in that community. These are some of the considerations which lead me to desire, in the interests of my constituents, not a government owned and run railway, but a railway that will be Tun in the interests of our provincial industries which for the want of proper transportation facilities, have not been flourishing.
That the Intercolonial railway is retarding the progress of the maritime provinces I am persuaded, particularly in my own county. Year after year the accommodation afforded by the Intercolonial railway in that county has been steadily lessening and the transportation advantages which we once had have been gradually taken away from us. I presented latterly a large petition praying for a restoration of the accommodation that we formerly had, and I have not succeeded in getting it. I am very sure that if a vote by ballot were taken of the members of parliament from the province of Nova Scotia a very large majority would be in favour of selling the Intercolonial railway to any of the large railway corporations. Some may be a little timid about the effect of such a move on their constituents, before they are educated up to the point. For my part, I am not alarmed at the effect it would have in my constituency, a constituency where, for considerably over a hundred years, the people have enjoyed the educating influence of college and academy, where public schools of the best quality are scattered throughout the county, where the people are accustomed to study and to think for themselves. I am not afraid of the result of a vote in my constituency. when the people have thoroughly understood the question. I dare say this

proposition might not meet with favour in some constituencies where perhaps the people have not looked into this question of railway transportation any more than the voters of Drummond and Arthabaska looked into the navy question. But I am convinced that when our people understand what a modern railway is doing, when they understand what the Intercolonial railway is not doing, and never can do, and when they remember that the privileges we formerly enioyed are being gradually taken away from us, I am not afraid of the result of an appeal to the people on the question whether the Intercolonial railway shall continue to be run under the present system. Whv not follow up the question to its logical sequence of asking the Intercolonial railway to build or acquire branch lines? The intention of course is to increase traffic, to increase prosperity. If you will follow that up to its natural seqilence, you would have to ask it to do other things, you would have to ask it to build hotels, you would have to ask it to build steamships, you would have to ask it to go into the business of running a railway on modern lines, as the Canadian Pacific railway is doing, as the Grand Trunk railway is doing, and as the Canadian Northern railway is doing.
I asked some two years ago, the Intercolonial railway to buy one of the best paying railways in eastern Canada-the Dominion Atlantic-running from Yarmouth to Halifax, through one of the finest districts in Canada. It was a business proposition and a good one where no money would be lost and good interest would be paid. My appeal for help to our people, however, was in vain. The question was not even looked into, the road was hot even examined, but the Canadian Pacific railway, with that business shrewdness that has always characterized them, got the road and are delighted that they got it, and so are we. They take possession next May and already propositions are made and work laid out to bring the New England tourists into that province. The present steamers are to be replaced by new ones with 140 foot keel, 2,500 tons equipped in first-class manner for first-class passengers. These are in contemplation if not already under way. Hotels will be built and a proposition is already made to bring English immigrants into that fruit-growing country where land can be got at moderate rates and where fruit-growing is a profitable industry. I do not want to take up any more time. I want to say again that my sympathies are altogether with this resolution, but the true solution, the only proper remedy in 'Cape Breton and in other parts of Nova Scotia, in so far as transportation is concerned, will be when the Intercolonial railway becomes part and Mr. BLACK.
parcel of one of the great transcontinental railway systems.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N. S.).: Mr. Speaker, I think I may fairly congratulate the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) upon the happy circumstance that he has now recovered his voice sufficiently to place himself upon record upon this very important question, so important to the eastern part of Nova Scotia, the Island of Cape Breton and to the whole province-the question of improved railway facilities for the maritime provinces. I remember when, two sessions ago, the hon. member for Westmorland, moved his resolution setting forth reasons why, in his opinion, the government should provide for the extension of its railway operations and should acquire certain branch railways connecting with the Intercolonial railway in the maritime provinces, I looked across the floor of the House, but I looked vainly for support for that resolution from the hon. member for South Cape Breton. When the hon. member for Westmorland had, the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) and myself to support him, the hon. member for South Cape Breton and others about him sat tight and voiceless and had no word to say in commendation of the policy which was enunciated upon that occasion by the hon. member for Westmorland and which, I am happy to say, is about to bear fruit, with respect to acquiring some of these branch lines in the maritime provinces.
I regret that the hon. member should have felt it necessary to import the characteristics of a barn-storming speech, as it may properly be described, into the debate this afternoon. However, I may say that I was not very much surprised because I recollect my hon. friend had only recently returned from the county of Digby where: his party met a disastrous defeat at the hands of the electorate of that intelligent constituency. The hon. member felt, perhaps, that the speech which he had so elaborately and so carefully prepared had not been given sufficient publicity in the rural sections of the county of Digby and he, therefore, felt that it was due to his determination and industry that the speech should be embalmed upon the records and find a place in the ' Hansard ' debates of this parliament.
The hon. gentleman also felt that it was his duty to make some contrasts with respect (to the attitude of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia in the matter of railway construction in that province. He has mentioned the name of Premier Murray as a person who had promised railways in that province and whose promises had not been fulfilled. It will be news to the people of Nova Scotia when they read (the hon. gentleman's speech, to find that there is

one person in Nova Scotia who is apparently, so ill-informed on the political history of the province, as to commit himself to statements so utterly -at variance with the facts. Since 1896, when the Hon. Mr. Murray led the Liberal government of that province for the first time, a new era has arisen in respect to construction of railways there.
I have always endeavoured to abstain as much as possible from importing into the debates of this parliament, questions which are of a purely local character. For that reason, I must apologize, if I take up the time of the House for a few minutes to discuss what may appear to hon. gentlemen as being -a question which is peculiarly applicable to the political conditions of Nova Scotia, and in which hon. members coming from other provinces can have no special interest or concern. The hon. member has referred to certain railways which were promised in Nova Scotia but he has omitted from his category any reference to the railways built by reason of the policy adopted and carried forward so successfully by Mr.- Murray and his government. I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, of the Halifax and South Western railway, a railway extending from Halifax to Yarmouth, a distance of over 250 miles. An agitation for the construction of that very railway had been carried on by the people of Nova Scotia for many years. There was a time when the Conservative government, defeated in 1896, did take some interest in the construction of a railway throughout that district, but the interest they took was most fatal to the success of the enterprise.
The Hon. Thos. Robertson, in 1894. who represented the county of Shelburne in the legislature of Nova Scotia, was instrumental in incorporating a company for the construction of a railway from Yarmouth westerly towards Halifax, known as the Yarmouth and Barrington railway. He received a charter incorporating his company from the legislature of Nova Scotia, and he went to the United States and interested there capitalists who had the' financial ability to carry on the construction of the railway to a successful completion. He had reason to believe that, having secured a subsidy from the local government, towards the construction of the road, he being first upon the ground, there would be no difficulty in his securing a subsidy from the Conservative government, then in power at Ottawa. Acting upon the good faith of representations received from that quarter, he introduced his capitalists into the province already prepared to carry on the construction of the work, but strange to say, the government and party which the hon. member for South' Cape Breton supports so loyally,
and in whose high praises he has indulged, with such loud acclaim, refused to give a subsidy to the company of which Mr. Robertson was the head, but, on the contrary, they gave a subsidy contract to another company which had been incorporated a short time before, and composed of local men, I understand. The people of Nova Scotia were then edified by the spectacle of two companies undertaking to construct a railway through the same territory -and within a few hundred yards of each other at the same time. Such a condition of affairs could only result disastrously to the scheme to build a railway in that section of the province. But, fortunately, on the 23rd of June, 1896, the Conservative government was swept from power and Mr. Robertson and his company were able to secure a subsidy from the present government to supplement the one received from the provincial government, and thereupon entered upon the construction of that railway and build it from Yarmouth to Barrington. That was the beginning of tlie construction of the splendid line of railway that now extends all the way from Yarmouth to Halifax. The government led by Mr. Murray, was not satisfied with the progress w'hich was made, and he urged the company interested in the remaining portion of the road, to carry on the construction of that railway.
For some reason or other that company was not prepared to carry on the construction of the road, and some time afterwards the charter got into the hands of MacKenzie and Mann, and that firm of progressive railroad builders were prepared to go on with the construction of the road, but they could not do so upon the ordinary terms as to subsidy. In order, therefore, to make the construction of that road assured, Premier Murray, on behalf of the provincial government, entered into an agreement by which the provincial government furnished MacKenzie and Mann $13,500 a mile which secured the construction of the road through to the city of Halifax. Of that amount, $10,500 per mile was a loan to be repaid at a certain stated time and $3,000 per mile of it represented subsidy. But, Sir, that is not all that Premier Murray has done to help the building of railways in the province of Nova Scotia. Down in the county of Inverness there were rich coal mines which would, if developed, lead to an important industry, but unfortunately they were not reached by any railway. Premier Murray undertook to interest capitalists in a line of railway through that constituency, and by reason of an increased subsidy given to MacKenzie and Mann (a subsidy of $4,000 per mile) out of the treasury of the province of Nova Scotia, MacKenzie and Mann, with the assistance of the subsidy obtained from the federal gov-

ernment. undertook to carry through the construction of a railway from Point Tup-per to the town of Inverness. The hon. member (Mr. Maddin) seems to be very much distressed because that road has not been continued from Point Tupper down to Margaree and Cheticamp, but I know of no means by which a company can be compelled to build a railway through territory into which it does not want to build. But," Sir, when a government pledges itself to give not only the ordinary subsidy, but an increased subsidy for the construction of a road, surely that government has done all that can be reasonably expected of it. And, if there has been any dereliction in respect to the extension of that road, surely it does not lie with the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) to charge it up to the province of Nova Scotia. Then, there was a road from Sydney to Louisburg which was built in 1894, and which was also subsidized by the government of Nova Scotia to the extent of $4,000 a mile, and that road is one of the best built and one of the most profitable railways in Canada when you take into consideration the amount of traffic that is carried over it. Again, there is a railway running from Point Tupper into the town of St. Peters, situated in the constituency in which I live. That constituency had been clamouring for a railway for twenty years, and when the hon. member (Mr. Maddin) spoke of the efforts made by Liberal politicians to play one route against another in respect to the extension of the railway into southern Cape Breton, I was reminded of the fact that for twenty years the late Conservative government held the construction of a railway through the island of Cape Breton before the eyes of the electors of North Cape Breton and South Cape Breton, and thus gave to the people of that province an example of railway legerdemain and political black art that has never been equalled in the history of Nova Scotia. However, a railroad was finally built by the Conservative government through the island of Cape Breton along the north shore of the Bras d'Or lake, and thence into Sydney and North Sydney. It is not necessary for me to remind the hon. member (Mr. Maddin) that that is not the most important section of his very important county, and it left thg most important portion of it without any railway. But, Sir, the wiles and schemes of friends of the hon. gentleman were not exhausted, and as late as the general election of 1891 an issue was sought to be made in my constituency by the Conservative candidate of that day exhibiting a telegram through the constituency purporting to come from the Rt. Hon. Sir John Thompson, then Minister of Justice in the Conservative cabinet, and on the strength of the telegram this gentleman claimed he Mr. KYTE.
had received a promise from Sir John Thompson that if the county of Richmond would return him to parliament the government would build a railway from Point Tupper to St. Peters. Then, Sir, the election was carried for the Conservatives, but some two years afterwards a provincial election came on and the same gentleman, who had been returned to the Dominion parliament to represent the county of Richmond as a Conservative, was an active agent of his party in the provincial election. Of course, it was impossible for him to carry out the promise he gave to the people of Richmond in respect to the government building the railway, but in the meantime he alleged he had discovered a capitalist in the United States who would build that railway, and he stated that if the county of Richmond would return two Conservatives to the legislature he would be able to get the necessary financial assistance to build the road as a company undertaking. I am personally familiar with the facts, and I remember very well the Conservative member to whom I refer going through the county of Richmond in 1894, accompanied by the gentleman who was alleged to be in a position to furnish all the money necessary to build the railway, not only from Point Tupper to St. Peters, but through southern Cape Breton into the town of Louisburg and into the city of Sydney. But, Sir, something happened; the road was not built. After the election people became anxious to know what was being done by the company with respect to the railway, and the secret came out a short time afterwards when it was learned through the public press that the very gentleman whom the Conservative candidate introduced to the people of the county of Richmond as the person who would furnish the money to build the railway, had been arrested and imprisoned for stealing $300 from a widow, and that put an end to his railway operations in the county of Richmond.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) is inclined to criticise the action of certain people in his own constituency with respect to a public meeting which was called there to intensify the agitation and demand for the extension of the railway trom St. Peter's into Louisbourg and Sydney. I am not familiar with all the circumstances, but I am aware that a very largely attended meeting of representative public men from the counties of Richmond and Cape Breton attended in Glace Bay for the purpose of passing resolutions calling upon the government to give the necessary financial assistance for the construction of the railway. There resolutions still stand, and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maddin) is in no position to deny the fact that the resolutions passed at that meeting had

something t-o do with inducing; this government to introduce that Bill into the House of Commons last session by which they are enabled to acquire branch railways and under which legislation I hope that at no distant date the government shall acquire the railway from Point Tupper to St. Peter's and then extend it into his own constituency to the towns of Louisbourg and Sydney. In all the debates that took place in this House on thfit question since the hon. member took his seat in it, never once did he rise to give any assistance or support to the agitation which the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), the hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie), the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), and myself were endeavouring to carry on, and which I am happy to say will bear fruit in the near future. The hon. member having held his peace so long, I am sure his constituents will not be disposed to congratulate him upon the stand he has taken on the resolution which was moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton North. I should have thought that he would have given his hearty support to that resolution and would have advanced some reasons why it should receive the unanimous support of the House:	But instead of doing so, he has
lugged into this House some of the barnstorming exhibitions which he engaged in in Digby and other counties of Nova Scotia during the last six months. The hon. member also stated that in the past, when the Intercolonial was under discussion in this House, certain Ontario members carped at and criticised the management of the road, and grudgingly supported >any vote of money for that railway, and whined whenever such a demand was made. I presume that the hon. member was speaking for those Ontario members who sit on his own side of the House, for I never knew a Liberal from Ontario to whine or complain about it.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. member whether he ever heard a member on this side?


George William Kyte: I have heard hon. members on the opposition side complain that the Intercolonial was not paying.


James William Maddin: The hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Turriff) sits on the other side of the House, and he did the whining this afternoon.


George William Kyte: He does not represent Ontario.


James William Maddin: I said members from the west. '


George William Kyte: I have an observ.tion or two to make respecting the speech of the hon. member for 'Assiniboia if I am permitted to reach that point. The resolution moved
by the hon. member for Cape Breton North has, in my opinion, passed the stage when it appears necessary to win support for it. The Bill introduced by the Minister of Railways last year looking to the acquisition of branch lines of railway passed this House unanimously, except for some criticisms which were made of it in Committee of the Whole. If my memory does not fail me, when that Bill was under discussion in the House, the hon. member for Cape Breton South did not rise to give any support to it; but when it reached the committee stage he did make some criticisms of the details of the Bill. There are a great many things to be said in favour of the government extending the operations of the Intercolonial railway through the non-railway counties of the province, but that ground has been covered by other hon. members. I wish to make one observation in answer to the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black), who seems to be an advocate of handing over the Intercolonial to the Canadian Pacific railway. For my part, I have an entirely open mind on that question. What I desire is that railways shall be built in the non-railway counties, and while I would prefer to see the Intercolonial extended to them, by taking up the question of branch railways and building some where none now exist, yet if the Railway Board are not disposed to ad.opt a forward policy in that regard, rather than have no railways at [DOT]all, I am willing to join the hon. member for Hants in supporting a resolution asking the government to hand the Intercolonial over to the Canadian Pacific railway. The hon. gentleman stated that where there is no competition the rates of the Canadian Pacific railway are higher than those of the Intercolonial. That statement he quoted from a speech made by the hon. member for King's and Albert (Mr. McAllister) last year. What guarantee have we that if the Canadian Pacific railway purchased the Intercolonial and thus put an end to competition throughout the whole of eastern Nova Scotia, the Canadian Pacific railway would not put up the rates to a higher point than they are at present?
The hon. member for Soulth Cape Breton also made some reference to the terminal wharf in the city of Sydney, which he said was not adequate to the business transacted there. I am not aware whether the hon. member has the information

if he has not, I desire to give it to him-that during the visit of the deputy Minister of Railways and the board of management to the city of Sydney last year, that very question was taken up by the citizens, and it has since received the attention of the board; so that any defects or shortcomings that have heretofore existed as to terminal facilities in the city of Sydney will be very speedily* remedied,

thanks to the activity of the hon. member for North Cape Breton. I am glad to be able to say that from all indications, something is likely to be done for the improvement of railway facilities in Eastern Nova Scotia and in the island of Cape Breton, and I desire to assure the Minister of Railways and the members of the railway board that every thing done in that direction will receive the approval of the people who are interested, and not unfriendly criticisms, such as those we heard this afternoon from the hon. member for South Cape Breton.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no knowledge of the local conditions sought to be remedied by the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), and I will not take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes in speaking of the principles on which to my mind this matter should be decided,. I discussed this question at some length last year, at the time the resolution moved by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black), in favour of the Intercolonial railway being handed over to one of the great companies was under discussion. There is no portion of the Intercolonial railway in my constituency, and therefore I have no personal interest in the question. But, living as 1 do in the maritime provinces, and knowing something of the business interests there, I think I am in a position to form an idea of what the wishes of the people are. I agree with the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) in the statement that either the Intercolonial should develop the territory which it occupies, or it should be handed over to one of the great companies; and had I been in a position to have decided this question forty years ago, with the knowledge we have at the present time, I am very doubtful whether I would have been in favour of a government owned railway. I do not believe in government ownership of anything if you can have company ownership; but we must not forget that confederation could only have been brought about by the promise to build the Intercolonial railway. That was a compact entered into and carried out, and it must be continued. My hon. friend from Hants says that he believes that if a poll of the members from Nova Scotia were taken, a majority would vote in favour of disposing of the road to one of the great companies. I think he will take good care not to take the poll; but if he does, I very much doubt that he will find the members from Nova Scotia voting as he thinks they will. I can assure him, so far as the members from New Brunswick are concerned, that every one of them would vote in favour of continuing the Intercolonial as a government road, only they would desire it to be made a better Mr. KYTE.
road to serve the people than it is at the present time. I do not believe that any public utility can be operated as cheaply by a government as by a company. But he must remember that while it costs more to operate a government owned utility, yet in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred it will give us better service than a company owned utility. When our hon. friends from Nova Scotia talk about disposing of the Intercolonial, I am afraid they do not understand the conditions existing on company-owned roads. I am safe in saying that the Intercolonial railway affords double or treble the accommodation that is afforded by company-owned roads. It gives us express .trains where company-owned roads would not give us accommodation trains. When the hon. member for Westmorland was Minister of Railways in 1906, he placed before this House a comparative statement ofi the rates charged on the Intercolonial railway at that time, and I understand they are the same to-day, as compared with those charged by company-owned roads, and this statement shows that in every case the former were from thirty-five to forty per cent less for equal distances.


Judson Burpee Black: The rates on the main lines are the same.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend will find that they are from twenty-five to thirty-five per cent less on the Intercolonial railway than on the Canadian Pacific railway. I would rather my hon. friend gave the details. However, some hon. gentlemen during this debate may have an opportunity to give them. My hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Black) says that these companies will go on and build hotels and develop the Intercolonial railway. Well, why do the Canadian Pacific railway not build hotels? They own some 8,000 or 10,000 miles of road in Canada.


Mr. TALBOT.: Are they not building any hotels?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: WTell, they have a few eating houses along their road. There is -a hotel at St. Andrews which they did not build, but was built by another company, and which they took over.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: What about the Chateau Frontenac?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is a splendid hotel, one of the finest in Canada, and the Canadian Pacific railway have another in Winnipeg, but there are a thousand miles between Winnipeg and the Chateau Frontenac. What other hotels have they got? They have the Place Viger, but it is a railway station. Have they any in New Brunswick? Not one except the Algonquin hotel at St. Andrews, which is owhed by gentlemen Close to the Canadian Pacific railway.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: And the Alexandra at j Winnipeg. .


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, but that is a thousand miles from the Chateau Frontenac, and they have no other hotel except the Place Viser, between those two points. Let me tell my hon. friend that the number of hotels the Canadian Pacific railway have built do not go very far towards building up a country. If my hon. friends lived along a company owned road, as I do, they would soon see the fallacy of their argument. The Canadian Pacific railway is, in my opinion, the finest railway organization in Canada at any rate, but that company is working for the interests of its shareholders, and is taking out of the people every dollar it can without falling foul of the Railway Commission, and will continue to do so. Any other public utility company will do the same thing. These companies are not philanthropists working for the common good but are working for themselves; and if my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Black) had five years experience of Canadian Pacific railway ownership, he would not be so much in favour of their getting the Intercolonial railway as he is this afternoon. What I contend is that the Intercolonial railway should continue to be a government operated road. That, I believe, to be in the interests of the people of eastern Canada. I know that we are getting cheaper freight rates than we would from a private company. My hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) says that we have no business to get these cheaper rates. Well, I only reiterate the oft repeated assertion that we have spent a hundred million dollars on our canals from which we do not receive a cent of revenue and are spending a million dollars and more per year on them for maintenance, and we hear of no public outcry against that expenditure. I say that the people of the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec are entitled to what they are getting as part of the confederation compact.
If it be a proper principle to maintain the Intercolonial railway as a government road, then the resolution of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) is perfectly in order. The board or commission which is managing this railway ought, not only from the point of view of good business, but also because they owe it to the people of Canada, to develop the territory served by the Intercolonial railway and make it what it ought to be. The Intercolonial railway is not pushing out for business and I quite understand why. Every time it requires a siding, it has to come to parliament for authority. vVhat we ought to do is put the road on the same basis as a company owned road and get rid of red tape. Let us put the Intercolonial railway
on a business basis, let us see that it is Tun from the operation standpoint just as a stock company road is run. If it be necessary to put in a siding or build a branch line let the board have the authority to do that without coming each time to parliament. There is no reason why this country should not be willing to spend $20,000,000 on branch lines in the eastern provinces just as it is willing to spend $20,000,000 to deepen the Welland canal. I am prepared to vote for that, but I equally want my friends from the other provinces to vote to build branch lines wherever necessary along the line of the Intercolonial railway.
Then we have the principle, which my hon. friend has been so ably advocating for years and which the government adopted last year, namely, the acquisition of branch lines. The same condition exists in eastern Canada to-day with regard to branch lines that existed in Ontario and Quebec some 20, 30 or 40 years ago. In Ontario and Quebec, some 25 or 30 years ago, there were many branch lines built by independent companies, the majority of which no doubt received government assistance, but which were afterwards found not to be remunerative to those who invested money in them. What) was true in Ontario and Quebec at thalf time is true now in the maritime provinces. In order to make these branch lines a success it was found necessary in the upper provinces to amalgamate them with the big trunk lines. They then became feeders of the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Pacific railway and became profitable, which never would have been the case had they remained independent, If it is necessary for the-Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Pacific railway to acquire branch lines by purchase or by lease or by construction, it is just as necessary for the Intercolonial railway. I understand that the government have gone so far as to say that they will lease the branch lines* What I contend is that if it be necessary to get a branch line into a fertile or productive territory, or even into a territory not so fertile or productive, the govern-, ment should buy it if they cannot lease it, and in this way bring the prosperity to the people of that territory to which they are entitled. Go down into the maritime provinces to-day and investigate the conditions under which some of those branch lines are operating and you will see that it is impossible for them to make any money. They have to run under separate business management, they have not the necessary rolling stock, and they cannot get the business. That is looking at the thing from a railway standpoint, But look at it from the standpoint of the shipper, and you will find

that he is compelled to pay practically two prices for his transportation, whereas if these branch lines were incorporated with the Intercolonial railway, he would get the one through rate, and that through rate would not vary, to any appreciable extent, from the rate on the main line,1 because a distance of a few miles does not make very much difference in the' transportation charges by rail. If the government cannot lease these branch lines let them buy them, but get them in some way. Then if there are not branch lines into a territory, the government should build these branches wherever there are people who require them and business to be developed. If the government will adopt that policy I have no hesitation in saying that the maritime provinces and eastern Quebec will prosper to an extent they have never yet sue-, ceeded in doing. We have business there in large quantities; we have many places lying dormant for lack of railway facilities. I believe such to be the case in some parts of Cape Breton. If so, it is the; duty of the government to build branch lines wherever necessary and give those people the transportation facilities to which they are entitled.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is not my desire to make any extended observations on this resolution as I have on so many previous occasions in this House discussed the general question of the Intercolonial railway in relation to its branch lines. But I do desire to say a few words that, I trust, will be germane to the subject. I do not understand the discussion of this motion to involve a general discussion of government ownership of railways. If that were the question at issue, I cer), tainly would be very pronounced in my view. But the motion of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) is:-
That, in the opinion of this House, the time has arrived in the commercial and industrial development of the province of Nova Scotia when the Intercolonial railway of Canada should be extended into the non-railway counties of the eastern section of that province.
Now, it is an inexorable law of railway corporations that they shall not stand still. It is absolutely necessary for a road to grow, if it does not grow, it dies or is swallowed up by some other road that does grow. I take it for granted that the government of Canada is committed to the idea of the retention of this railway. Then, if they will have the railway prosper and be of real benefit to the country, they must have that road grow as other railways on this continent that have prospered have grown. We do not need to travel for illustrations. If we Mr. CARVELL.
prefer to go beyond the bounds of Canada, we have a splendid illustration in what are known as the Jim Hill roads. We know that Mr. Hill, a Canadian boy of Scotch descent, went into Minnesota, and he, in conjunction with some gentlemen of Montreal, acquired what was known as the St. Paul and Pacific road, a small line of railway with a mileage of about six hundred miles. The mileage of the Hill roads has grown until it is somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 miles, unless my recollection is astray, certainly the growth has been marvellous, tremendous, year after year they have absorbed other lines until this has become one of the greatest combinations in the northern part of the United States.
Now, on the other hand, here is the In tercolonial. There are feeders to it, and those feeders are owned by isolated companies, small, weak roads that are not doing the work for which they were intended and not contributing to the traffic of the Intercolonial-in fact, a great deal of the traffic is being diverted from the Intercolonial by reason of the fact that the Intercolonial does not control these roadsr Then, there are sections, m the province of Nova Scotia particularly, that have no railway advantages, and into which sections branches could be extended to the advantage of the community and to the expansion of the traffic of the Intercolonial. These are admitted facts. Now, will the government of Canada-committed as it is to the retention of the Intercolonial-apply business principles to the management of that railway? And when I speak of business principles there is no lurking suggestion in my mind of political as against business principles. If you applied business * principles to the administration of this road, it would mean that the road would be extended, that the feeders would be absorbed, that traffic would be created and the country served by the road developed. A great many are bringing forward the Intercolonial as an illustration of government ownership. The Intercolonial has, never had fair play from its inception'down to the present moment-from either government. When the Conservative party were in power and were etiarged with the responsibility of administering this road,, how did they do it? In an apologetic way. We must remember that the road was laid out as running from Halifax to Riviere du Loup-it ended nowhere. It struggled on ; after a time it was extended to Levis. And year after year as the former government came down to parliament with the estimates for the road, those estimates were put forward with fear and trembling. And the Liberal party felt it to be their political duty to curse these items, and the railway, and the people of the maritime provinces because they wanted, a railway. And now, when the positions of the parties

are reversed and the Liberal government is responsible for the administration of the railway, that tune is being played by hon. gentlemen opposite-they are cursing the railway and condemning these estimates. So,' as I say, the Intercolonial, from its inception down to ' the present, has never had a fair show. If there has been an attempt to create traffic or to promote development, what has been the answer on all occasions? Some three years ago the duty devolved upon me of bringing down to this parliament a proposition for the acquiring of a certain section of railway in New Brunswick known as the Canada Eastern, with a view to making it a part of the Intercolonial. And how was that treated by hon. gentlemen opposite? My hon. friend from South Lanark (iMr. Haggart) an ex-minister and a former minister of railways, said it was like dumping so much money into the sea. And any one who knows the facts knows that the securing of that branch line of railway was the best contract ever entered into by a government in connection with the Intercolonial railway. The prosperous condition of the country that that railway serves today testifies to the prudence of the arrangement entered into on that occasion. My hon. friend from South Lanark, as I have just mentioned, said you might as well throw the $800,000 that this railway would cost into the sea. That, after all, is but an expression of a general sentiment. Many seem to think that money expended on the Intercolonial is so much money wasted ; people have not the proper conception of the work that the railway has done in the past, is doing today and is calculated to do in the future. And? in my judgment, When they bring forward the Intercolonial as an illustration against government ownership, they are not treating the people of this country fairly, and are not doing justice to the Intercolonial. The Intercolonial suffered during the days of the Conservative regime, because there were those in the ranks of that party who were hitched up in their sentiments and ideas with the Canadian Pacific, so that whatever the Minister of Railways or parliament did for the Intercolonial in those days was none against the strong opposition of some within the ranks of the Conservative party, and perhaps within the ranks of the Conservative government. Did conditions change because there was a change of government? I say : No. The Intercolonial railway has been struggling on, and is now struggling on, because there are men within the ranks of the Liberal party, perhaps within the ranks of the government, who are the allies -I do not say in a wrong sense, but the allies in sentiment-of corporations. There is but one alternative, it seems to me, in Canada : You must have a government-37
owned railway system, or you will have a railway-owned government system.
If I were to discuss the question from the standpoint of government ownership, I could point out advantages and perhaps disadvantages. But one of the great advantages of a government railway is said to be that you have full control of it. We talk about how much money we have expended on the Intercolonial, $80,000,000 and $100,000,000 on the canals. But we have got a railway to show for the $80,000,000, and we have canals to show for the $100,000,000. How much of the people's money was expended in the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway? I think I could demonstrate to this House that at least $225,000,000 of the money of Canada, went into that great corporation. I have heard larger figures given; I think one member on the floor of this House, a few years ago, demonstrated, to his own satisfaction at least, that nearly $400,000,000 in lands, money, franchises and rights had been given by the people of Canada to that great corporation. But whatever the amount, if it is $80,000,000, if it is $100,000,000, if it is $125,000,000, how much of that railway do the people of Canada own? You have an asset in the Intercolonial, and the best evidence of it, is that there are influences at work to-day in Canada, almost within the shadow of parliament, to secure the Intercolonial railway, to divide it up as spoil for the Egyptians. Hon. members of this House, speaking of the advantages that would accrue to the people of the maritime provinces if the Intercolonial were transferred to one of the three great railway corporations of this country. I think that perhaps, after all, we had better adopt the idea of having no contention. The good book says that it is better to have a dinner of herbs, where love is, than a stalled ox, with contention. Now, it is said that the Canadian Pacific railway are building hotels, and if it acquires the Intercolonial, it will build hotels on that system. Sir, we have had tie Canadian Pacific railway in the province of New Brunswick for upwards of 25 years, and I would like to know of a single industry they have established.


An hon. MEMBER.: A plaster quarry.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, they have never established a plaster quarry, or a stone quarry, or anything of the kind. They have great powers under their charter which they could use, but as a matter of fact, they have not used them, and they have not established any hotels. When hon. members get up in this House and propose to decide a great question like this, on the basis of haying a hotel built, in this place or that place, it seems to me they axe not seriously discussing the question. Surely, if



Halifax and Nova Scotia cannot get hotels without our giving away the Intercolonial, then I think Halifax and Nova Scotia had better go out of business altogether.


Judson Burpee Black: Nobody has ever asked to have the Intercolonial given away. We want to sell it, not to give it -away.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not say: Give it away, I said: Give it away. But I know something about this matter of giving away the Intercolonial. My hon. friend is an advocate of a proposition made by the Canadian Pacific railway to secure certain rights ,in, and even control of the Intercolonial. How much was offered? It is a matter of parliamentary record that $130,000 was offered for that right. Give it away? Why, if you entertained the idea, they would be turning around and asking you, judging from the speeches made by some hon. gentlemen here, to give them a premium for taking over the Intercolonial. Sir, these gentlemen who represent the Canadian Pacific railway are astute business men, they are astute enough to see its value. The Canadian Northern people are astute enough to see its value. They send representatives to Halifax, and they have banquets and after dinner speeches, and what is the trend of every one of these speeches: How'much we could do for you, if we only came down to Halifax. I do not think they would go there as philanthropists, I think they would try to secure the Tailway as a business proposition. They realize the advantages the Intercolonial would be to them, and they are thereby rendering testimony to its value to the people of Canada.
Now, hon. members having said that the Canadian Pacific railway is charging no more in freight rates than the Intercolonial. Well, freight rates on the Intercolonial are practically the same to-day as they were in 1906. On the 22nd of March. 1907, I laid on the table of this House the tariff rates of the Intercolonial, of the Canadian Pacific railway and of the Grand Trunk railway; not only did I produce the general tariff rates, but I produced the special tariff rates from the evidence of the railways themselves, tariff rates that have been filed with the proper officers. If hon. members will turn to the ' Hansard ' for 1907, they will find on pages 5212 and following pages, the rates set forth in detail the charges made by these respective railways in comparison with the charges made by the Intercolonial. In regard to the rates on lumber by the carload, the charges by the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk railway ranged all the way from 50 to 111 per cent higher than the charges over the Intercolonial. I am speaking of local tariff rates. I am not speaking of through tariff rates. My hon. friend Mr. EMMERSON.
from Hants referred to the fact that the rates over the Canadian Pacific railway from the city of Montreal, to the city of St. John, were the same as the rates that, prevailed over the Intercolonial railway from Montreal to St. John.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: The Intercolonial railway is 200 miles longer.


Henry Robert Emmerson: So it is, and the wheels of the Intercolonial railway have to turn around for a distance of over 800 miles.


William Pugsley: It is -about 200 miles further.	[DOT]


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is over 200 miles further. The fact that the government are controlling and operating a railway gives the people the benefit of the competition. Then there are comparative rates on coal in carloads. I could give them in detail here. The information is to be found on page 5219 of ' Hansard ' of 1907. The difference ranges all the way from ten to twenty-five per cent. That is, that these other railways charge on the average about 20 per cent more on cars of coal than does the Intercolonial railway on its cars of coal, and its distances are computed from five miles to the maximum mileage of the Intercolonial railway. I need not take up any of the time of the House in repeating that evidence which puts indisputably this truth beyond question, and we all recognize the fact that if this corporation secured the control of this railway there would be the exercise of a monopoly up to the very topmost point which could be reached under the eyes of the Railway Commission of Canada. I could give this additional illustration. The distance from St. John to McAdam Junction is 90 miles. A few years ago, if you wanted to ship a horse from St. John to McAdam Junction over the Canadian Pacific railway you paid, I think it was, in round numbers, $8. The distance from St. John to Monoton over the Intercolonial railway is 89 miles, in round numbers 90 miles, and you paid over the Intercolonial railway $2.90 for the same animal. The people were getting the benefit of that. There is a clear and strong illustration, one of many that I could bring to your notice, if time permitted, but I do not feel that I am called upon to go into that.
I think the Intercolonial railway lost a very great opportunity when it failed to secure the Dominion Atlantic, and I think that the Canadian Pacific railway, with a keen eye to business, having secured that railway, are in search of other railways in the maritime provinces. I know that in my own county the Canadian Pacific railway are to-day negotiating for the purchase of a line. Why? They see the possibilities of the immense development of the shale industry in the province, they see the possi-

bilities, aye, almost the reality of the development of the oil and gas industry in the county of Albert, they realize that today there is developed there and working as a splendid business proposition a plaster quarry. They find their markets in Winnipeg and the prairies for the products of the plaster mines in the county of Albert, and the Canadian Pacific railway naturally want to secure that as a year or two ago they secured what was known as the Midland railway from Windsor to Truro, or, rather, the Dominion Atlantic secured it, and then the Canadian Pacific railway acquired the Dominion Atlantic. Now they . have full control of the section of country from Yarmouth to Truro and of the traffic which emanates from the sources along that line. What do they propose?-crossing over by Brule, getting into Prince Edward Island, putting on steamship lines and acquiring from under the nose of the government railway system a profitable traffic which the Intercolonial railway and the government system secure from Prince Edward Island.


Judson Burpee Black: That is modern railway business.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is modern railway business, and there is no reason why these modern railway methods should not be adopted by the government of Canada through its Department of Railways. My hon. friend, in making the statement that it cannot be done, is condemning our very system of government, is practically condemning all government. It does not seem to me to be a very serious matter for the government of the country to undertake to extend a public work that is theirs to-day. After all there is only a difference in degree as to the principle. If, under the conditions of long ago, it was necessary to build a government railway, and if, during all those years, it has been possible for the government to operate that railway, surely this government, at this time, in the twentieth century, will make no public admission that it has failed to do what other governments have done in this country, what governments are doing in Australia, what governments have done in other countries, especially in European countries and what they are doing to-day. Surely we, in this Canada, at this time in our history, have not reached the point where we are bound to say: Oh, we cannot do it, we must call in the Canadian Pacific, or the Canadian Northern, or the Grand Trunk Pacific. Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me, that if there is one thing more than another that the people of this country have to look upon with alarm it is the increasing power of the great corporations. If you are to hand over this and that government work, and entrust it to a great corporation what is the inevit-37i
able result?-you might just as well put any of the departments of government into the hands of private corporations to run on, the same principle. But, Mr. Speaker, I fear I digress when I speak of that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why is it that Ontario makes its railway pay so well?


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are exceptional circumstances. When the road was foreshadowed my hon. friend's friends thought that it would be an absolute and utter failure, but there was a development of a great mining industry up there, they had a monopoly, they ran the road and they ran it on a political basis, more so than any other railway that I know of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it pays.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They had a very short route, a direct route and an immense business growing up. But, if it can be done there it can be done measurably with the Intercolonial railway. Mr. Speaker, I am not endeavouring to discuss or to deal with this question in anything like a puny, political way. I have no desire to serve any political ends or to discuss. the question from any such standpoint. I am dealing with it simply as a proposition in the interests of the people of Canada. I am dealing with it as a proposition that is brought forward in the interests of a great section of this country. In constructing branch lines of railway the 'government would only be following their own precedent in connection with the canal 'system for the past ten years, because the Trent Valley canal may be regarded as but a feeder to other canals. We are to-day expending large amounts of money, and in the past we have spent millions of dollars in constructing feeders to our canal system. Is there any difference between constructing feeders to the canal system and constructing branch lines of railway as feeders to the great Canadian railway system which we ourselves own? There is one thing which we can congratulate ourselves upon as a people, and it is, that whatever mistakes have been made by all governments in the past in connection with the Intercolonial, we have now reached a point "where we have, I say without fear of successful contradiction, the best railway in Canada today, and moreover we ourselves own it. We have spent millions on the Intercolonial railway, but the railway is ours ; we hav' spent hundreds of millions on other rat ways, but they do not belong to us. I certainly would strongly support the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie). He has presented it to the House with conciseness and with force, and he has given substantial reasons why the government should enter upon the construction of these branch lines. I say, Sir, that the government

should not delay one day or one hour more than is absolutely necessary before they acquire many of these branch lines, in Quebec, in New Brunswick, and in Nova Scotia. At the very earliest possible moment the government should undertake the extension of the Intercolonial railway into those remote sections where there is plenty of freight traffic seeking egress to the markets of the world, and where the people are only awaiting the advent of a railway to participate in the great development of trade and commerce which has blessed all the provinces of our Dominion.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in the enthusiasm on one side for government ownership, and on the other side for company operation, possibly the object of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) may be lost sight of. I venture to rise to endeavour to call the attention of the House back to what is the real proposition involved in the resolution of my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Thank you for your kindness.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has so much solicitude about matters affecting the maritime provinces that perhaps he will bear with me for a moment while I treat of a subject which I know is usually distasteful to him. The immediate matter we have been discussing is whether the Transcontinental Railway lines should get into Nova Scotia or not, and in this connection we have to consider the peculiar fact that Nova Scotia is the only province in the whole of Canada which is not touched by the Transcontinental Railway systems of this country.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about Prince Edward Island?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I stand corrected, but Prince Edward Island of course could not be connected with a Transcontinental line and the correction is therefore somewhat technical. Nova Scotia is the only province in the Dominion separated from whatever advantages flow from Transcontinental railway connection, and we are dependent on the Intercolonial railway alone for connection with central Canada and the city of Montreal. In considering the development of branch lines we have to consider to which one of these great railway systems of the country should the people interested look for assistance and co-operation. It is true that we cannot at the present time look to any of the Transcontinental Railway systems because they have no connection with Nova Scotia, and we have to depend on only the Intercolonial railway which runs from Amherest in the western portion of our province through the city of Halifax and also to the city of Sydney. Let me Mr. EMMERSON.
remind the House that the country traversed by that railway in Nova Scotia is the country which contributes most towards the surplus which for the last two or three years the Minister of Railways has been able to announce to the House. Were _ it not for that portion of the Intercolonial railway which runs through the province of Nova Scotia the Minister of Railways would not be able to report a surplus as a result of his management. Now, what are the people of Nova Scotia going to do to obtain these branch lines? The hon. member for Westmorland tells us that it would be a horrible mistake to permit these Transcontinental lines to go into Nova Scotia and participate in any extension there, and he cautions us to stand by the Intercolonial railway. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) asks the House to saw that this government should pay heed to the call which comes from that portion of the country asking for railway connection. and I say. that the situation in Nova Scotia to-day is such that this government must either listen to that call to build the branches or they must afford facilities to the Transcontinental Railway systems of this country to get into the province of Nova Scotia, so that, if the government of Canada does not afford railway facilities these Transcontinental lines may. I submit, Sir, that this proposition is a logical and fair one. The people of any other of the provinces in the Dominion, can go to these Transcontinental railways and make out a case for railway extension, and they can come back to this parliament and get subsidies to aid in the construction of these railway extensions, and if the proposition is good as a business venture the railway will be constructed. But, in Nova Scotia we have, not that opportunity. My hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) may tell us that these companies are terrible things and my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) "may tell us the same thing, but, speaking for a portion of Nova Scotia through which the Intercolonial railway runs, and which, because of the extensive industries existing there, contributes a large share to the revenues of that railway, and a portion of the province which has insisted on railway extension and must have it; I say that when this resolution declares that it is the duty of the government to assist in the extension of railways, the government should either itself provide for the extension of railways through Nova Scotia, or they should give running rights to the Transcontinental railway over the Intercolonial railway so that our province mav in this way obtain the transportation facilities which she is justly entitled to.


Mr. W. S. LOGGIE. (Northumberland, N. B.).: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words on this subject, because it is of

burning interest to my county and the adjacent counties. In the first place, I would point out that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), seems to be under a wrong impression, because in the contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific there is provision made for the right of that railway to run over the trunk line of the Intercolonial railway into Halifax. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), has told us that the compact regarding the building of the Intercolonial entered into at confederation should be carried out, and in the next breath, he suggested that the compact might be fulfilled by leasing the Intercolonial to one of the great transcontinental lines, if that were satisfactory to the people of the maritime provinces. For my own part, I take issue with him on any such proposition, as giving over the people's Tailway to be managed and operated by one of the transcontinental railways, and I say that such a proposition as that, would not be acceptable to the people of the maritime provinces. It seems to me, that if we are to meet the wishes of the people of those provinces, it will be by our acting along the lines of the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie). The hon. member for Assiniboia this afternoon told the House that the Tailway has not been a success up to the present time. I must take issue with the hon. gentleman in that regard. It is true, the population of the maritime provinces has not increased to the same extent as that of the west; yet the wealth and resources of the maritime provinces during the past 20 years have increased in a very marked degree, and 'the Intercolonial railway has been a great success in the maritime provinces. In the year 1896 it was a road of about 1,100 miles, capable of earning in round numbers $3,000,000. Since that time we have added to its mileage a little over 300 miles, or about 30 per cent, and during the same period its earning power has increased to $9,000,000, an increase of about 300 per cent. During the same time we have, it is true, increased the capital account from $55,000,000 to about $80,000,000, an increase of iabout 50 per cent. So that by increasing the mileage by about 30 per cent and the capital account by about 50 per cent, we have been able to earn $9,000,000 instead of $3,000,000. Therefore, I do not think the hon. gentleman can substantiate his statement that the Intercolonial railway, up to the present time, has not been a success. The hon. gentleman intimates rthat if we leased the road, there would be no more deficits and no more piling up of capital. I do not care very much how much is added to capital account, if we have something to represent it. The hon. gentleman will not object to our subsidizing railways
to connect with the Transcontinental line in the west; yet whatever we give for that purpose, is gone forever, excppt for what we get by increased population, by our own people growing in wealth, and by the general growth of the country. I take issue with the hon. gentleman also, when he-tells us that if the Canadian Pacific railway owned the railway, they would employ more men. Does the hon. gentleman mean to tell us that to do the same work, the Canadian Pacific railway would employ more men? I know not. We know, as a matter of fact, that the Canadian Pacific railway is managed as economically as any other railway in the country, and I think my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, is at the present time, following it pretty closely in that regard. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. iflack), had the audacity to tell the House that the rates on the Intercolonial were as high as those on the Canadian Pacific railway. If he had qualified his statement by saying that they were as high from a common point, where there is competition, he would have been quite right. For example,' the rates from Montreal to Windsor, where tire hon. gentleman lives, are identical on the Canadian Pacific railway and on the Intercolonial railway. From all competing points the rates must be identical. As a matter of faot, these rates are agreed on. But the rates from a given point on the Intercolonial to a point on its own trunk line are greater on the Canadian Pacific railway than they are on the government railway.


John Dowsley Reid: Is not the rate from Montreal to Windsor lower on account of the Intercolonial being a government railway, than it would be if there were no Intercolonial railway?


William Stewart Loggie: I would say yes, and I think that is another advantage which the Intercolonial gives the people of Windsor.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No.


William Stewart Loggie: Yes, to the people of Windsor.


John Dowsley Reid: I also understand the hon. gentleman to say that the rate on the Intercolonial from Montreal to local points is lower than the rate on the Canadian Pacific railway.


William Stewart Loggie: Yes. There was another statement made by my hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Black) who perhaps rather took his text from the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), though possibly that hon. gentleman did not mean it to be taken up as the hon. member for Hants interpreted it. That statement was that the Intercolonial railway is retarding the prosperity of the maritime provinces. I am sure that what the hon.

member for Guysborough meant was that if the Intercolonial railway was retarding the prosperity of the maritime provinces, it was because the government were not building the necessary branch lines into the adjacent territory along the .trunk line. There are many villages along the *Qoastj both In 'Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which have been in existence half a century and are thriving and yet are without railway transportation. In my own county-and I think the hon. gentleman should enlarge his resolution so as to take in all the territory where branch lines are required in the public interest-there is at present, about 20 miles down the bay from Loggieville, which is the terminus of the eastern branch, considerable fishing going on. Thom the stations at Loggieville and Chatham there are each winter about 200 carloads of frozen fish exported. It costs about 10 to 15 per cent to team those fish from where they are caught to the railway station, whereas if a branch were extended from Newcastle, down to Tabucin-tac, a distance of 30 miles, the fish could be landed on the cars at 10 per cent less cost. That would mean that the fishermen would get 10 per cent more for their fish. If a man growing wheat in western Canada could get 10 per cent more for it through the building of a branch line, what an outcry there would be if no branch line' were built. In that case the government would be willing to subsidize a branch line. But after the subsidy is given, we have no asset, whereas if you build a line from Newcastle to Tabucintac, you have an asset. I am not prepared to say that a branch Ijne would in this case" be a paying one, but I only cite what the Minister of Railways said some three years ago regarding branch lines in Prince Edward Island. He said:-
I may say, without speaking from any great knowledge because I have been but a short time in parliament, the province of Prince Edward Island possibly is in a different position, compared with other parts of Canada, in many respects. I have no idea whatever that building branch lines in Prince Edward Island is for the purpose of making money for the government.
It is quite possible that the branch line I refer to would not make any money because the first object in making money is to pay interest on the capital invested, but it seems to me that there is a larger way than that of looking at the subject. If you increase the wealth of your customers, you are thereby increasing the wealth of the whole people. Every man you can keep in the maritime provinces, every man you can prevent going from those provinces to Boston or other places in the New England states, is worth so Mr. LOGGIE.
much to the revenue of the country. If the Intercolonial railway is to do its full duty to the people of the maritime provinces, where it has a monopoly, where it is the only trunk line, it is the bounden duty of the Railway Department to look into the possibilities of the adjacent territory and go into the venture, in the interests of the country at large, wherever business can be increased.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is leading the House to believe that the statements made as regards freight rates on the Intercolonial railway in the eastern provinces, by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black), the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-vell), and the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), are not correct, and that he is giving the exact situation?


William Stewart Loggie: ' I have agreed with my hon. friend from Hants regarding rates where they start from a competing point like Montreal to Windsor, N.S. The rates are then exactly the same on the Intercolonial railway as on the Canadian Pacific railway. But I say-and I say it with some knowledge of the facts-that the rates on the Canadian Pacific railway, on their own line, to a given point, say 100 miles, are more than they are on the trunk lines of the Intercolonial railway for the same number for miles.


John Dowsley Reid: But the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) did not admit that the Intercolonial railway had anything to do with reducing the rates from Montreal to Windsor, and my hon. friend admits that they have.


William Stewart Loggie: It is no fault of mine if the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) has not admitted that. That hon. gentleman seemed to lay great weight on the idea of new hotels. Well, the Grand Trunk railway is the pioneer railway of the great province of Ontario. It runs its trunk lines between Montreal and Sarnia and touches the great city of Toronto. I would like to know what likelihood there is, from the actions of that company in the past, that they would build any hotels in the maritime provinces?


John Dowsley Reid: But the hon. gentleman knows that the Grand Trunk railway have hotels all along their system.


William Stewart Loggie: Perhaps they have hotels such as the hon. gentleman has in his mind, but they are not the class I have in my mind.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman means temperance hotels, but I mean hotels where liquor is sold.


William Stewart Loggie: I do not intend to occupy the time of the House very much longer, but I cannot help saying this: As far as the future of Canada is concerned, I am an optimist. A gentleman of some knowledge of what is going on in this great country said the other day that within 20 years the great province of Ontario would have doubled its prespnt population.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Stewart Loggie: Another grand old gentleman made the statement that to our children the greatness of the Canada of to-day will appear a bagatelle. Now, if this be the possibility of the future-and I am sure hon. members will say that it is not only a possibility but more than a probability-should we not, as a people, take hold of this Intercolonial railway and have it fulfil its function? If there be a village of a thousand people who could produce more goods, and, with opportunities for transportation, could market those goods to advantage, is it not the duty of the people of all Canada-the duty of this great Ontario that is to have four millions of people within the next two decades- to help to build up such communities in the eastern parts of our country? The eastern portion, to my mind, rounds off Canada. Can we not, as a people, join hand in hand and round off this Intercolonial and make it fulfil its functions and do its full duty in serving not only the people that it serves to-day but also those in outlying districts that are without its benefits? It seems to me that, if we do this, the time will come when we shall realize that the capital used was well invested in the interest of Canada as a whole.
I only wish to say another word, a word in behalf of my own county. There is on file a petition for the railway to which I have referred, from Newcastle to Tabucin-tac, and I trust that it will receive favourable consideration. This is the burning question in my county; also the question of extending the Canada Eastern railway from Loggieville down river to Escu-minac. The Minister of Railways will remember also that there is a survey for a road from Indiantown to Red Bank. Red Bank is a thriving village on the main northwest branch of the Miramichi, fifteen miles northwest of Newcastle, and about eight miles from Indiantown which is on the railway, and the residents of the district are very anxious that the line should lie extended from Indiantown to Red Bank. I know that the minister will give these matters his favourable consideration. I might cite what he said regarding the matter some three years ago. It was to this effect-that if he owned the railway he would build and operate branch lines.


Mr. ONESIPHORE TURGEON (Gloucester).: I will not detain the House more than a minute, for I have, on previous occasions, explained my views with regard to the Intercolonial and the extension of branches required. I extend congratulations to the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) on the very interesting and forceful manner in which he placed his request before the House; and I trust the discussion will bear fruit in the near future. I desire to corroborate what was said by my hon. friend from Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) when he advocates the construction of a branch line from Newcastle to Tabucintac. I would go further and say extend to Tracadie and give railway communication to the northern peninsula of New Brunswick, where there is a population of 20,000 with resources of land and sea at their command which they cannot develop properly because, as has been stated, they are so 'far from railway facilities. Petitions have come to the government from time to time on this subject. I hope that the recommendation of my hon. friend from Northumberland will be given due consideration equally with that of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton.


Mr.  C. A.@: GAUVREAU (Temiscouata), (Translation). Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to prolong this debate which, has already lasted long enough, but I do not wish it to be stated to-morrow in the papers throughout the country that whenever that important question of the Intercolonial is brought up'in this House only hon. members from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia raise their voices.
The Intercolonial runs through the province of Quebec, and I would not like this opportunity to go by without saying a few words. I would have rejoiced if hon. members whose views carry greater weight than my own had taken part in the discussion, but in the words of Victor Hugo:
" S'il n'y en a qu'un seul, je serai celui-15."
As to one fact, I am satisfied, and I cannot be very far out in stating so here: there is not a single member from the province of Quebec who is in favour of the idea of our getting rid of the Intercolonial. Whoever has experienced the rule of the private corporation system, and is acquainted with the management of things on the Intercolonial, has come to the conclusion that of two evils we should prefer the least, that is to say the Intercolonial should remain in the government's ownership, in spite of the grievances which may exist.	_
I may be allowed to suggest to the minister two means for improving the condition of things on the Intercolonial: the first would be to acquire branch lines

destined to become important sources of revanue. And by the way, as the English motto reads, chaffity begins at home, the Temiscouata railway should be purchased at once. Judging from the report of the commissioners who have looked into the question of the location of branch lines, the Temiscouata railway is one of the local railroads of the province of Quebec, I should say of the Dominion, yielding the largest revenue, and likely to pay heavy dividends. It would be in the interest of the Intercolonial to acquire this line. I may add that the minister should make haste, as the Quebec Central, starting from Beauce county, has a branch running towards the Temiscouata railway and having its terminus at Cabano. It is likely that before long that branch will deprive the Intercolonial of all that portion of the traffic which is shipped from Cabano to Riviere du Loup. Instead of going to Riviere du Loup, that traffic will take the direction of Levis via the Quebec Central. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the Canadian Pacific railway has an eye on that line and that they are interested in securing a hold on it for the benefit of their branch railway which runs through Maine and New Brunswick. At all events I may remind the minister that it is important he should make haste to secure the ownership of the Temiscouata railway, with a view to using it as what is termed in English a feeder, a most important feeder for the Intercolonial.
The second means of improving the position of the Intercolonial which I would like to point out to the minister, has reference to the qualifications of the men we have appointed as commissioners. I stated the other day in this House that perfection was not a thing of this world, and I believe that saying to be doubly true as regards the Intercolonial and its commissioners in particular.
I call the minister's attention to, the fact that Mr. Brady is not a suitable choice as commissioner. Had I time this evening- and on some later occasion I mav take it- I might read some comments from the New Brunswick and Quebec press, which are not flattering for Mr. Brady or the Intercolonial. It seems as though the general superintendent were purposely acting in such a way as to antagonize irretrievably m their attitude towards the railway, himself, or at any rate the minister, all who have dealings with the Intercolonial. Here is a government official, here is a man depending on the Railway Department who thinks he can dispense in his intercourse with the public with the ordinary courtesy which one would expect from government officials in the pay of the country.
Now I stated a moment ago that I did not think there was a single member for Mr. GAUVREAU.
the province of Quebec who would favour the sale of the Intercolonial to a private corporation; and that whoever had experienced both systems had been driven to the conclusion that it was preferable that the government keep the railway. At any late, should there be any hon. member in favour of such a policy, I hope he will have an opportunity of so stating before the session closes.
The Intercolonial, even with the commission as it is now made up, in spite of all its defects has succeeded in getting a surplus. The public may complain of the commission, find its ways intolerable; hon. members may not be pleased in this connection, but after all, in the public interest, one should bow his head and put up with it, though bound to protest until matters are set right. That is what I am doing.
For these reasons, I hope the minister will see his way to improving matters in connection with the railway, and I may add: the commissioners should see to it also, in order to retain for the benefit of the people that railway which is rightly termed the people's railway.


Mr. CYRIAS ROY (Montmagny.) (Translation).: Mr. Speaker, before this debate comes to a close, I beg, as the representative of a constituency through which the Intercolonial runs, to be allowed to say a few words. The resolution is of interest for other provinces besides Nova Scotia.. It is worded as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the time lias arrived in the commercial and industrial development of the province of Nova Scotia when the Intercolonial railway of Canada should be extended into the nonrailway counties of the eastern section of that province.
Now, I do not wish to make a plea on behalf of local interests, I do not wish to specially advocate the claims of the province of Quebec; but if the resolution before the House is worthy of our support- and I think it is-it seems to me the province of Quebec should not be forgotten when the time comes.
For some length of time, the Intercolonial has brought some revenue to the government. For a protracted period it has invariably shown a deficit from year to year; but for a few years back a small surplus has been obtained. What provinces are responsible for these surpluses? If we refer to the government reports, we shall find that the larger part of the surplus for the current year originated in the province of Quebec. That induces me to entreat the government, should their future policy be to build branch lines instead of acquiring those already in existence, as feeders for the Intercolonial, and should they decide to build such branch railways in

the various counties of the province of Nova Scotia, wherever they are needed, not to forget the province of Quebec. 1 concur in the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) in this connection.
The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) advocated the sale of the Intercolonial to some private corporation. In support of his views he suggested several considerations, some of which I have noted. He' stated in the first place that the Intercolonial is not a paying proposition, and as evidence of the truth of that contention he claimed that the rates on the Intercolonial are higher than those which a private corporation acquiring such a road would charge.
Well, in my opinion, that statement has been disproved by another statement to the effect that the passenger rates on the Intercolonial and especially the freight rates wore lower than on other lines.
The hon. gentleman also stated that, in the interest of the province which he represents here, should a private company acquire the Intercolonial, hotels would be built, which would attract tourists, create a tourist trade, thus increasing the traffic and the revenues of the Intercolonial.
If there are to be found in his province such charming and magnificent spots as he describes and such fine sites for the location of hotels, and if that province is really blessed with such a magnificent summer climate, it seems to me that there should not be wanting private companies with enough enterprise and capital to build those hotels. Therefore that is no sufficient reason why he should ask the government to sell the Intercolonial to a company.
Moreover, supposing that the interests of the Intercolonial were so inadequately protected in the present state of that railway that the government should be called upon to acquire branch lines connecting with that railway, is the hon. gentleman prepared to say that those interests would be better protected, in the event of the Intercolonial being sold to, a private company? I merely put that question, which I think is easily answered.
The hon. gentleman further stated that he had consulted his constituents-and, by the way, he says that they are very intelligent-and they are all agreed that the Intercolonial should be sold to a private company.
I do not wish to indulge in boasting and I do not mean to say that my constituents in Montmagny are more intelligent than those of another riding; but I think I am voicing the feeling of my electors in saying that they are entirely opposed to the sale of the Intercolonial. I do not wish to go into the reasons that have been adduped for and against that proposal during this debate, as I do not wdsh to take up the
time of the House. But let me remark that if the government is in favour of acquiring branch railways as feeders of the main line, I consider that the claims of the province of Quebec should not be forgotten. Some one stated, during the debate, that the Intercolonial had been extended into Prince Edward Island when it joined confederation. That was one of the conditions of the entrance of that province into confederation. It was the fulfilling of the bi-latoral contract. But is Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia to be permitted to build branch railways at the public expense, without the other provinces having any voice and being consulted because, although they did give their consent and approval to the building of the main line, they have never been consulted as to whether branch lines should be built hejre and there.
I do not wish to protract this debate. But I wanted to give my support and en-dorsation to the remarks fallen from the lips of my hon. friend from Temiscouata, while at the same time I depreciate any desire to make political capital for the province of Quebec, which I have thq honour of representing, as I sit here for Montmagny. Justice and fair play is all I ask for the province of Quebec as well as for any other province.
In conclusion, I may say that should the government deem it desirable to build branch lines in Nova Scotia, I am willing to give their policy my support. But let me call their attention to this consideration: in the event of those branch lines being built, I would object to the province of Quebec sharing in that responsibility with the maritime provinces, should our province not obtain any branch railways; because, later on, the members from the western provinces might complain that they are being saddled with the burden of the maintenance of railways from which they derive no return, in case the revenues yielded by those branch lines proved inadequate to ' meet the charges of capital expenditure incurred for the construction.


Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: It appears to me that scarcely one of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this subject have given any attention whatever to the resolution before the House. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) got up and read the resolution, and said he was going to speak upon it, but he went on and gave a splendid oration and sat down without having said scarcely a word about it. As to the two hon. gentlemen (Mr. Gauvreau and Mr. Roy), who have just spoken, I do not know whether they spoke to the resolution or not. I want to say, Sir, that my hon. friend from Cape Breton North has said about everything in favour of the resolution that can be said. I am in

perfect sympathy with it. He did say, however, that he didn't want to make a speech. Now, if he is as earnest in pressing the government to put his resolution into effect as he was in carrying out his intention to make a speech, there is no danger but something will be done by the government. Everybody who knows that hon. gentleman knows that when he goes after something he means business. But I am doubtful whether he means to press the government to do anything.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman may be at ease; I intend to press forward the object of my resolution.


Adam Brown Crosby: Time will tell. We will see whether he is really in earnest, and intends to press the government to carry out what they should have done long ago. Now, Sir, we are very much interested in this subject down in Nova Scotia, and we want the Intercolonial extended to some very important parts of Nova Scotia that are not touched by it to-day. We hear some talk about a railway from Dartmouth down to and through the county of Guys-borough to Canso. And here let me congratulate the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) on his able and eloquent speech in support of the resolution. The idea is to couple with the Intercolonial at Canso and run from St. Peter's down through the county of Richmond, thence to Louisburg "and, from there to Sydney joining the Intercolonial again. I believe, although I am not a railway expert, that there is no possibility of any company undertaking to build that road from Dartmouth to Canso, a road which has been projected so often, and about which the local government has done so much talking. I believe that such a railway could be made a paying concern, though there is no doubt that for a few years after construction it would be difficult, perhaps, to make it pay. That is the reason why it would be necessary to call upon the government for assistance. We know that financial men are often unwilling to put their money into a concern unless they can see some immediate return for it. They must have the people's money in their hands before they start out to expend anything, the government must give them a subsidy, either the local or the Dominion government, or a combination of both, in order to guarantee them a return for their money before they will invest it. So I believe that the only hope we have in Nova Scotia to-day is in the way of building branches to the Intercolonial. Now, there are many who think that the Intercolonial is no advantage to us. I am not going to discuss that question, because it is not before the House. I am not going to discuss the question whether we should give the In-Mr. CROSBY.
tercolonial away for $80,000,000, or for nothing. What we have to discuss is this resolution, whether this parliament is prepared to endorse this resolution, whether they are prepared to go into the province of Nova Scotia and the province of New Brunswick and connect the Intercolonial with branches or feeders in both provinces. I say our only hope in Nova Scotia is bound up in the intercolonial. Now, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) made a very eloquent speech, and he complained that we had not one transcontinental railway running into Nova Scotia. Well, he was the very last man to speak in that way, because he had a seat in this parliament when this parliament decided to bring the transcontinental down to Moncton, and he never raised his voice in favour of Nova Scotia, never stood up and demanded that this government should bring that railway down to Halifax and St. John. Now he stands up and makes an apology because neither one of these transcontinental railways goes to Halifax.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is only fair to the hon. member for Pictou to say that he was not in this parliament when that point was decided.


Adam Brown Crosby: I may be mistaken, but I think he was elected in 1900.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he came for the first time in 1904.


Adam Brown Crosby: Perhaps I am mistaken. Anyway, in 1904 there were 18 Liberals from Nova Scotia sitting on that side of the House , and not one of them raised their voice to say that he wanted one of these transcontinental railways in Nova Scotia. Of course, the rest of the House was guided by what was supposed to be their opinion. Not one of them made an intimation that there was such a place as Nova Scotia in existence. But you may say: What about the Conservatives? We were standing by the Intercolonial, we wanted to double track the Intercolonial into Halifax and St. John, in order to have a government line from the Pacific to the Atlantic ocean-not a transcontinental line railway stopping at nowhere-I say nowhere, because you couldn't expect that the Transcontinental railway going down to Moncton was going to find an outlet there for goods carried over that line. I want to say, and I want to emphasize the fact, that I am here for the purpose of supporting the resolution of my hon. friend from Cape Breton, although I must say I doubt very much that his resolution will amount to anything. There is a possibility of the government forgetting all about this resolution. I was amused to hear the hon. member foT Hants (Mr. Black) speaking of the Minister of Rail-

ways, and describing what a lovely Minis- 1 ter of Railways he was. But he says: Oh i that rascally commission. Where did that ] commission come from? Who appointed the ( commission and who rules the commission to-day?-the deputy minister, taking his advice from the Minister of Railways, with- ' out any doubt in my mind, and no doubt ' in the minister's mind either.
And, Mr. Speaker, it would be fair for me , to say here that we have a branch of the , Intercolonial railway going around from . Halifax to Dartmouth and therefore we , have the commencement of an eastern j branch down through the Musquodoboit Valley and the fertile county of Guysbor-ough, represented by the hon. gentleman who seconded the resolution. We have really built part of the road, because part of it runs out to Windsor junction, and all we have to do is to follow it up and I am sure that, although the minister has not really been converted by the hon. member for ; North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), by the way he looked at me just now there is a possibility of his taking the matter up.
A number of hon. members have complimented the Minister of Railways and also the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmer-son). The ex-minister had a good deal to sav about branch lines and J listened to him with a great deal of pleasure a year ago discussing this question, I followed him very closely and what he said assisted me in coming to a conclusion. The Intercolonial railway has more to do to-day than it is able to do. The country is wide enough for double-tracking down there and if the minister would double-track the road, and, in accordance with my advice, secure the Cunard property in Halifax and cover it with accommodation, there would be facilities for the beautiful steamers which come to Halifax. I believe that they have at St. John all the steamers that they can accommodate, and it would be well for both St. John and Halifax if greater accommodation were provided than that which is to be found at either of these places to-day. I am not standing up here to speak for Halifax and against St. John. I believe that if the Intercolonial railway were double-tracked both port3 would have all they could do. Of course those who come to Halifax will find more conveniences than at St. John. I only rose for the purpose of giving my endorsation to the resolution moved by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) and to say that we indeed will benefit very largely if the Intercolonial railway would take this matter up and carry it out to an immediate conclusion. I trust that the hon. member for North Cape Breton will do what he said the other night about a Liberal who was written to by the Minister of Customs and who stood to his guns. I hone that the hon. member for North Cape
Breton will stand to his guns, because then we may expect to have some results, but,
I am afraid that he may take up one of the old Ross rifles before he gets through.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the width of this discussion compels me to almost do like my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) violate the strict rule of adhering to the question under discussion. I may say without any hesitation that the management of the Intercolonial railway and everything connected with it form one of the most difficult problems that the government has. I imagine that I have some difficult ones in my department, but the management of that railway, taken ah. together, is perhaps one of the most difficult that I have in the department. There is such a diversity of opinion not only among opponents but among friends of the government. On one side: 'Sell the railway'; on the other side: 'Do not think of such a thing'; friends behind me saying that the Conservatives get everything there is to be got on the railway; the enemy in front of me saying that they do not get anything. All these things go to show the great difficulties surrounding this road. I might make another statement, and I agree fully with my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) that the Intercolonial railway does not get a fair show. I might startle some of the members of the House when I, having given the question some study, say that from a business standpoint the very rules of parliament make it harder to manage the Intercolonial railway than it is to manage any other railway in this country. When the Canadian Pacific railway, or the Grand Trunk railway, or the Canadian Northern railway, desire to undertake any work, particularly the Grand Trunk railway, and the Canadian Pacific railway, how do they go about ll? They have a board and every man on that board has made some study of the question, and has no other interests but the financial interest in what is about to be discussed. It is not composed of 225 men, all of whom at least have not given great attention to the subject, but it is composed of a few men whose interests are locked up for the time being in the enterprise. They are not going to take into consideration minor effects, but they are going to take a broad view of what they think will be best altogether for the road even though what they decide on will not please a lot of people. They decide 'it from a business standpoint as business men and they carry it through. If it is a success they are successful, if it is a partial failure few people know it but themselves. There is as great a number of failures in small projects undertaken by big railways as there is with respect to any of the projects undertaken by the Intercolonial

railway. When you consider that seventy-five per cent of the railways on this continent have passed through the hands of liquidators you will realize to some extent what I mean. We talk a great deal about the capital put into the Intercolonial railway not making any return. In the great majority of the railways of this country the original capital has ail been squeezed out long ago without getting any return and it never will get any return. AH along the line, if you make comparisons, you will find that arguments are used against the Intercolonial railway that are not used against a private road and it is hampered in its way of doing business as no private road is. Take the question of buying for the Intercolonial railway, and this is but incidental. If I were managing a private road I would have a purchasing agent. If something come on the market that I felt the company would need in six months, or a year, or two years, I would toe at liberty to go out and make a contract for the material. I might save my company hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have no hesitation in saying that if the management of the Intercolonial railway were at liberty to go into the open market and buy what they wanted, and if, when they found a first-class and reliable contractor they could give him a contract without asking any one else for a tender; if they could do as the management of a private company is able to do I believe thousands of dollars would be saved every year. But, under our parliamentary system that cannot be done. It is a mistake to run away with the idea that purchase by tender is a panacea for all the evils that accrue; it is not. If .you have a reliable firm that gives satisfaction in every respect either as a contractor or a purveyor of goods, nine times out of ten the railway would get better service by dealing with that firm than they now do by calling for tenders in every case. Then, we have to put in our Auditor General's Report all the details of expenditure, but you never heard of the Canadian Pacific railway telling every detail of their business to all their competitors in a published document. If we buy goods from Mr. A. and get them at a fair rate we have to publish that.	.


Samuel Hughes: At a fair rate?


George Perry Graham: I *will say at a low rate if you like, and I can tell my hon. friend that we buy our goods at as low a rate as any of the railway companies.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman said ' if '.


George Perry Graham: This is of as much interest to my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) as it is to me, and I hope he will not drive me away from the point. If, when we do buy Mr.i GRAHAM.
goods at a certain low price, that price were not published we could perhaps year after year buy at that price. The Canadian Pacific railway does that, the Grand Trunk does that; but we cannot do it. When we buy goods from Mr. A. the price is published in the Auditor General's Report and it is discussed and talked about from every point of view, and every man whether he is trying to sell the government good goods or bad goods at a high price, or a low price, immediately has his member send him the particulars of what is paid for a certain article. And, if by any stretch of imagination any member can be made to believe that that man has not been treated fairly, it is all discussed in the House and an attempt made to show that the government has not dealt fairly, while as a matter of fact the goods which the other man tried to sell were not up to the standard at all. I speak with knowledge of the subject, and I say that if the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific railways had to publish all the details of their business as the government has to, they would not be in such a good position as they are to-day. It would be in the interests of the people of Canada if the details of the business of the Intercolonial should be scrutinized say, only by a small committee appointed for the purpose, rather than we should be obliged to publish east and west and north and south what we are paying for everything we buy. No genuine business man in this House would carry on his own business as he compels the government to carry on the business of the Intercolonial.


William Sora Middlebro: How does the minister account for the success of the government railways in Australia?


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend has a friend who has come from Australia I would like him to ask him to compare the railway accommodation afforded in Australia where the government has practically an entire monopoly of the railway business, and the rates charged in Australia, with the rates and the accommodation afforded by the Intercolonial.


John Dowsley Reid: The Ontario railway publishes everything.


George Perry Graham: The Ontario railway is a new railway carrying high class freight into a new country, and it has practically a monopoly of the territory. I admit that the Ontario railway is well managed, and I am not intimating that it is not, but if my memory serves me right the Intercolonial railway publishes its business far more in detail than does the Ontario railway. However, that does not alter my argument, because even the Ontario railway may be hampered in that respect. I think practical business men will agree with me that if

they had to make known to their competitors every detail of their business they would find it more difficult to transact their business than they do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I refuse to discuss this question of the Intercolonial as a sectional one, it is a Canadian question, 1 feel that I would not be doing my full duty if I, as an Ontario man, discussed the Intercolonial as a maritime province and Quebec institution, any more than I would if I were to discuss the canals as an Ontario or Quebec proposition. The Intercolonial is part of the assets of the entire Dominion of Canada, and I feel that I have just as much interest in it as any man who comes from the maritime provinces. I believe further that the people of Ontario have benefited from the Intercolonial railway, and I believe that the people of the east have indirectly benefited from the canals. Every community which has any business intercourse with Montreal or Quebec, or any other port where there is waterborne traffic, must in some way be benefited by our canal system, and consequently I wish to look at and to discuss this question as a Canadian question in which we all have equal interest. My hon. friend has pointed out that we have very many large projects on hand at the present time. To-day there was a deputation here discussing the Georgian Bay canal, tomorrow there will be a deputation to discuss the Welland canal, and on Friday there will be a deputation which among other things will discuss the Hudson Bay railway. And then we have the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, all of which are large projects. I am not at all pessimistic, I am on the contrary very optimistic, but our expenditure has grown to pretty large proportions, and we can only move as rapidly in all these directions as our finances will warrant. It is true that this year our finances are in magnificent condition, and we all hope they will continue to increase so that all these works for the benefit of Canada may be carried to successful completion.
But notwithstanding what I have said, I agree largely with the argument of my hon. friend from North Cape Breton. There is the situation that confronts us in the east and that we have to face. The Grand Trunk Pacific will shortly be at Moncton. It has running rights over the Intercolonial railway to St. John and to Halifax. The Canadian Pacific railway is at St. John, and by arrangement its trains are hauled to Halifax. These two have steamship	lines-one has, the other
practically has. The Canadian Northern asserts that it will soon be in the east as well. All these lines are great arteries for through traffic. The Canadian Pacific railway says : We want to run our own
trains to Halifax. The Nova Scotia people almost unanimously say :	Make some
arrangement by which they can do it. The Grand Trunk Pacific must have running rights over the Intercolonial railway on terms. I just want to point this out to hon. gentlemen, so that they can think it over. If these roads get running rights over the Intercolonial, with the right to pick up local traffic, then for every train that is running, that is picking up local freight, either the Intercolonial will have to drop a train or go with partial business. It is said, in reply to that, these other lines will pick up local traffic, but they will account to the Intercolonial for it. That is true. That is the plan under which the Delaware and Hudson railway has running rights to Montreal over the Grand Trunk. But that would not make any difference so 'far as the employment of the men is concerned. We may be able to work out an arrangement in some way, but there seems to be a unanimity of opinion in the east that these roads should get into Halifax from the west. In working, out that problem we must try to protect the interests of the Intercolonial, and I can assure hon. gentlemen it is not an easy problem. Another point mentioned is the question of rates. That question is simple. From competitive points the rates are the same. No matter what the Intercolonial rate is, the Canadian Pacific railway rate must be the same, and vice versa. But where there is no competition between a company road and the Intercolonial, you will find the Intercolonial rate every time lower than the other. Another point which ought to be borne in mind is this : The Intercolonial for many years had practically a monopoly, yet its rates were always low. Suppose a company road had had that monopoly, without the Railway Commission's control, what rates would have had to be paid during all those years? I think it is not too much to assume that during the years during which there was no competition, there has been enough saved to the people on the Intercolonial to nearly pay the interest on the cost of construction. These questions perhaps lead us toward government ownership. I am not going to discuss that question to-night. I may say to my hon. friend that the Finance Minister is away at present. I am giving away no secrets when I say that the question of branch lines, both as to leasing and building, is now under the consideration of the government. It would have been farther on in that consideration had tire Finance Minister not acted on advice and gone for a short rest which he so well deserves. When he returns, which we hope will not be very long hence, I hope to take up this question of not only leasing branch lines, but constructing branch lines, and one or two other large

projects, and arrive at a policy which we. hope to submit during the present session. If my hon. friend will allow me, having got started on these questions, I will move the adjournment of the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the debate adjourns, I would like to say two or three words upon it. In the first place, I would like to inquire whether this debate will Ibe resumed this session? Will the government give an opportunity to have this motion disposed of?


George Perry Graham: I think there will be ample opportunity to dispose of everything in connection with it. On some propositions which will come before the House, it may not be necessary to dispose of this motion. We have no desire to side-track it at all. That is not my object.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, it is a very important consideration whether the motion is to be disposed of or not. If it is to ibe merely moved as an empty form in order that certain hon. gentlemen in this House may make speeches which will be very pleasing in their tone to their constituents, that is one thing ; if, on the other hand, the motion is a serious one, intended to evoke the deliberate opinion of this House upon the question of developing the Intercolonial railway not only in the province of Nova (Scotia but elsewhere, that is an entirely different question. While we all sympathize most thoroughly with what my hon. friend the Minister of Railways has said, respecting the absence of the Finance Minister, still whether the Minister of Finance returns or not, there are certain considerations which have been advanced, and with a great deal of force, by hon. gentlemen in this House, and which must not be delayed too long. I think it is just as well that we should all recognize that. As I understand, the Minister of Railways and Canals gives us his assurance that this motion will be taken up and disposed of during the present session. I would like to understand that definitely and positively, because the length of my remarks this evening will depend a little upon that.


George Perry Graham: I hope so, because I merely started the remarks I intended to make. After the Finance Minister returns, we hope to be able to introduce something that may possibly obviate the necessity of this motion. If not, I can assure my hon. friend that there will be a full opportunity to discuss it at a future day.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether my hon. friend who has made the motion is content that the debate shall be adjourned with that somewhat vague and indefinite promise, which may mean a great deal or may mean nothing at all.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps there may be a better understanding between my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals and my hon. friend who moved this motion than I supposed in the first instance.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can assure the leader of the opposition that there is no understanding with me by the Minister of Railways or any other minister except the definite understanding that this motion is to be pushed forward to its natural conclusion.


Robert Laird Borden: Is my hon. friend content to have the debate adjourned and no vote taken?	-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am willing to accept the proposition of the Minister of Railways with the full understanding that this is to be taken up again.


Robert Laird Borden: But up to the present we have not a very definite understanding on that point, as far as I can judge from the very guarded language of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, who is always sufficiently skilful to leave an opening by which he can, if necessary, avoid the issue. It, therefore, may be just as well for me to say a word or two now, as I am not sure that I will get another opportunity on this motion, notwithstanding the assurance of the Minister of Railways and the very pleasant and smiling way in which my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has accepted his proposal that this debate be adjourned. In the first place, the hon. minister, following the example of some other hon. gentlemen in this House, debated the question of what he calls government ownership, but what I would prefer to call state ownership, because I would like to remind my hon. friend that it is not the government but the country which owns the Intercolonial railway. And indeed I think he did emphasize that idea in his remarks although he spoke of that line as a government owned railway. Now one of the great difficulties with respect to the Intercolonial railway, which has existed since this government took office, is this, that the government has been in a state of uncertainty and vacillation as to whether or not it would give the Intercolonial railway its proper development. That has been the great difficulty. Why the Tight hon. the Prime Minister has himself on several occasions denounced the idea of this country owning the Intercolonial railway. In Toronto, in 1904, I think it was, speaking of the operation of the Intercolonial railway, he said that all the evil results he then pointed out were due to the system. He did not explain clearly what he meant by the system; but as far as I was able to apprehend his remarks, taken in connection with other speeches made by him here and elsewhere, he thought that the

difficulties which had overtaken the country in connection with the Intercolonial railway were due to the fact that that railway was owned by the state and he despaired of any effective or proper operation so long as it continued to belong to the state. Well, I have never shared that view. The railways in Australia have been pointed to, but we need not go so far as Australia. I can point to the operation of the government railways in the province of Ontario. It may be that the government railways in Ontario have been operated during the past six or eight years under very favourable conditions, but we should also bear in mind that they have given exceedingly favourable results. Taking last year, 1 find that their total operating revenue was $1,361,224.80, that their operating expenses were $794,796.88, and that the net operating revenue was no less than $566,428. And that does not include the ore royalties and other items of that kind which ought not properly to be taken into consideration in comparing these railways -with the Intercolonial railway. So that for the last year for which we have anj return, the Ontario government railways paid into the treasury of Ontario no less than a sum of $550,000 which was added to the consolidated revenue fund of that province. The Ontario government railways were subject to all the disadvantages pointed out by the Minister of Railways. These disadvantages I do not wish to minimize, but I want to tell my hon. friend that the Intercolonial railway runs through a country in the maritime provinces with equally great resources. I have declared often that the little province of Nova Scotia, in proportion to its size, has as splendid natural resources, a great many of which are still undeveloped, as any equal area in the Dominion. There can be no doubt about that. And those resources, as they continue to be developed, will give the Intercolonial railway the opportunity of adding to its revenue from that province, so that I agree entirely in what my hon. friend from Bictou (Mr. Macdonald) said with regard to the operation of the Intercolonial railway iH that province. I believe that were it not for the splendid revenue the Intercolonial railway does draw from Nova Scotia, its showing would be infinitely worse than it has been during the recent or any years. There are great natural resources in that province, some of them developed and some undeveloped; and I understand the motion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton and North Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) was designed-if it had any object at all-to take the Intercolonial railway within the province of Nova Scotia into those parts of that province where natural resources are -waiting to be developed; and the same principle should also apply elsewhere. Something has been said about other counties of Nova Scotia, and I would like to say a word or two on behalf of the county I represent. Until the Halifax and Southwestern railway was built, the county of Halifax-having a coast line of 140 miles and a width of from 25 to 50 miles had not within its limits more than 30 or 40 miles of railway. East of the city of Halifax and within the limits of the county, there are at least 100 miles, stretching to the limits of the county of Guysborough, where there is absolutely no railway accommodation whatever. A part of that district is a splendid agricultural section where the people have to haul their products from 25 to 40 miles to a railway station. There are plenty of timber lands in that section, there is opportunity for great mineral developments, there is great natural wealth; and although, as my colleague from Halifax (Mr. Crosby) has said, a railway from Halifax to Guysborough will not pay in the very first instance, there is reason to believe that it would pay before being in operation many years. I passed along the shore of the county of Halifax to the county of Guysborough last summer. i travelled altogether about 500 miles through districts not served by railways at all, and -Where railway development would mean a great deal to the people and lead to considerable development in that little province.
I can tell -the Minister of Railways a great many things I saw, I could speak of a great many districts where railway facilities might mean a great deal to the people, and might lead to very great progress and advancement in that little province.
I saw, in the county of Guysborough, just across the line from the county of Halifax, one of the most splendid harbours that can toe found anywhere in the world-Country Harbour. This harbour stretches back ten miles from its mouth, with water close up to the shore everywhere from forty-five to sixty feet in depth, landlocked twice, and with a splendid roadstead outside, where, in almost any weather, ships can ride in safety-and have ridden in safety-without going inside. And in what condition did I find the place ? Not more than a dozen families are living around that harbour. There was no railway development, no opportunity for commerce, and the fishermen had gone to the adjoining Isaac's Harbour or Fishermen's Harbour, for the reason that -these smaller harbours would subserve theiT purposes better than this magnificent Country Harbour of which I have spoken. All along that shore are opportunities of development. The people of Halifax county, as well as those of Guysborough county, and those of other coun



ties in the province of Nova Scotia to which allusion has been made, have, it seems to me, fairly good reason to complain that their interests in respect of railway development, have not been properly attended to in the past. And especially is this true of the last fourteen years, when the coffers of this country have been filled to overflowing, according to the boasts of hon. gentlemen on the other side, and when huge projects of development have been undertaken. The Minister of Railways and Canals say that great projects have been undertaken and are being undertaken to-day. In that connection, I have just this "word to say: If the resources and revenues of this country are great enough to build 1,400 miles of railway through a practically uninhabited country between the city of Quebec and the city of Winnipeg, it seems to me, there is good reason for complaint on the part of the people of at least half a dozen counties in the province of Nova Scotia, that the Intercolonial railway has not been developed and carried into these counties. It seems to me that, where these people have been living for a hundred years-as, in many counties of Nova Scotia they have been-without opportunity: for railway communication, we might well have had a little regard for them before we commenced to build 1,400 miles of railway through a country with absolutely no population and of the resources of which we have no adequate knowledge, though, at this moment, the railway is now perhaps, more than half constructed. It comes down simply to this: Does the government of this country propose to maintain the Intercolonial railway of Canada as a state-owned railway, or is it vacillating and hesitating, unable to make up its mind as to whether that road is to be a state-owned railway or is to be handed over to some private corporation for operation? I will assume for the moment that it is the intention of the government, as I believe it is the will of the people of Canada, that ithe Intercolonial shall still continue to be owned by the people of this country. Then, I say, it is the duty of the government, under these conditions, to give to the Intercolonial railway, not only in the province of Nova Scotia, but in every province of Canada, that development and that extension which a private corporation would give to that road, should it pass into the ownership of such a corporation. This is no time for hesitation and vacillation. Make up your mind -and "I hope you have made it up in the direction I have indicated ; then, give to the Intercolonial the branches, feeders, extensions which would be given if it were owned by any of the great railway corporations.
I had intended to devote some attention Mr. BORDEN Halifax).
to certain of the observations made in the course of this debate. But the hour is late, and I have given to the House and to the Minister of Railways the idea that is in my mind as to the proper course of the government in this matter. I trust the debate will not be allowed to come to a conclusion without a full and definite statement from the government, as to its policy on this subject; and I trust that the policy, when announced, will be in the way of extension and development of the people's great railway, which has done so much- whatever may be said against it-to bind together in one united whole, the various provinces of this Dominion of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Paterson, House adjourned at 11.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 13, 1910.